We're really thrilled to be here at Wolfe, but we're also thrilled to have the support of our coverage managements, frankly, which have given us a tremendous opportunity to put together what we think is one of the best schedules in the energy sector, and we're doing it virtually to basically give as many people an opportunity as possible to dial in and listen in to some of the conversations. Now, we are going to take a little bit of advantage of you this morning because, as we hope you will benefit from, we're going to do a little poll before we go to our first speaker, but I would like to say a word of thanks to the Hess team for joining us this morning. John Hess has been a keynote event for my team for quite some number of years, in fact, most of the 20 years that I've been in the United States. He's joined this morning by John Rielly, CFO of the company, and I was joking with John earlier that, you know, maybe we should go back to doing a quarterly earnings call because we all miss the opportunity to hear what's going on and what's been a tremendous operating story, and then, of course, Jay Wilson, who is a facilitator this morning, and we all miss Jay being in regular touch with us. We still speak to him every now and again, but we don't get to hear him on the earnings call anymore. Now, with that, I'm going to put up a couple of poll questions, and then we're going to start our fireside session with John. So we're hoping as many of you will participate as possible because we're really trying to take a pulse of how the market sees the energy sector today. There's obviously a lot of questions that we're going to get into with John here in a second. But the first one is, you know, what is your current sentiment towards the sector? It's quite easy on a scale of 1 to 10. Those of you who have been following our Monday webinars, we're trying to put a trend together just to see where the Street is. So let's go to question number two, please, Trish. We have an OPEC meeting coming up here on December 1st. So our hope is that we're going to get some idea of what you guys are thinking. Now, my guess is that we're going to hear something on the OPEC outcome probably before the event. That's normally how these things go. But there's three questions there. What are your expectations? Another cut, that would probably be the pain trade. Extend the cuts on a month-to-month basis or restart production on schedule. Third question, where do you see the trading range for oil? Now, the reason we say a trading range is because, you know, when the invasion of Ukraine happened a couple of years ago, we hit $127 Brent. So we're really thinking about what does the market think about what should be priced into these stocks on the forward curve. So the trading range is how we frame that. Same question on natural gas. Last time I looked, natural gas has just stuck its head above $3 as we start thinking about weather. But we all know there's a fairly sizable inflection coming next year as it relates to LNG. And then what do we believe is priced into the oils? Our sense is, I mean, I think you all know that we look at things on a discounted cash flow basis. And frankly, we don't believe the sector, you know, you get down to $60 WTI, about 80% of our sector probably is fairly valued to downside risk. So we're keen to know what folks think is priced in currently versus what we think that long-term curve looks like. Same question for gas, different ranges, obviously. What do you think is priced into the gas sector? And then lastly, do you have a preferred subsector? Now, we're including services and midstream here. My colleague, Keith Stanley, is hosting a number of fireside chats with midstream peers over the course of the next couple of days. Or is it just a very stock-specific type of environment, which is how we think about the world? So those are our poll questions. We're getting close to the top of the hour here. So I'm going to welcome again my friends and colleagues and supporters for many, many years, John Hess and his team. John, thank you for doing this. We're incredibly grateful to have the time with you. And I think the way I'd like to structure this session this morning is to try and hit three kind of main areas of discussion. The first one, obviously, is you're in the middle of a pending merger. So we'd love to get your latest thoughts on that. Second, I've always valued, our team has always valued your input on the macro. So I would love to see if you were still looking into the future for Hess, what are the challenges? How do you see the macro setup? There's a number of questions there, and then we are going to take advantage of Mr. Rielly being on the call and get into some of the operations because we haven't really heard beyond the quarterly results. We haven't really heard from you that much, so it'd be great to just, you know, peel the onion back a little bit on how things are going at the company level, so let me kick off. My first question, John, really at a high level is you're obviously awaiting the arbitration decision, and I think we were all a little surprised by the delay into next year. But from what you know today, you've now got FTC approval. What's your latest thinking on timing? Yeah. And again, Doug, congratulations on your position at Wolfe and doing this conference. And we're honored to be participating. So it's good to be back. Look, the outstanding issue for us to complete the merger is the arbitration. As you all know, the issue is the right of first refusal about our position in Guyana. We believe there is no issue. We're preparing for the hearing, which is currently scheduled for the end of May 2025. And we expect a decision within three months thereafter. We believe Exxon and CNOOC positions are without merit. Their claims are without merit. And we remain very, very confident, highly confident that we will prevail in the arbitration. You know, we're all a little bit blind on what is obviously a confidential contract. So to the extent you're able to frame what the issue is, is there a way that you can kind of lay out what's actually in dispute? It's the right of first refusal. I don't want to get ahead of it. It's in arbitration. We'll let the arbitrators handle that. I don't want to get further than that. Okay. Forgive me if I probe just a little bit on this because obviously there's certain things that we're aware of from the standard contract, you know, the AIEN contract, the Association of International Energy Negotiators. That is under English law. Can you offer any insight? Is your contract also under English law? Is that standard? Yes. It's the plain words on paper, and we think our position is very clear. We had English counsel, American counsel look at it. So did Chevron before we announced our merger over a year ago, October 23rd, and we think it's very, very clear that Exxon and CNOOC claims are without merit. Okay. Again, I'm not looking for the confidentiality aspects of the contract, but we are obviously trying to keep this at a relatively high level, but understand what the issues are. So again, a fairly high-level question. Hess is the parent company of Hess Guyana Exploration Limited. Under the way that the deal is structured, does Hess Corporation survive as an entity within Chevron? Again, I don't want to prejudice the arbitrators making that decision, but yes, we think it's very clear. Okay. And then lastly, you know, just on this point, when we had an opportunity to speak to Mike Wirth about this a couple of times, actually, in the last several quarters, it seems that there was a period when you were trying to allay the fears of Exxon, whatever those fears may be. But then my understanding is it might be related to the, you know, supporting the clause of whatever their standard contract is beyond Guyana. But they have said, you know, again, not to get too in the weeds here, but they have said that they have no interest in acquisition or merger with Hess, but yet they're disputing this contract. So is there a compromise that would allay their fears and allow you to go ahead and close? Look, as Mike has talked about it, and I will reiterate it, both of us tried to work with Darren to address Exxon's concerns basically between January and March of this year. And then all of a sudden, Exxon cut off the discussions. So really, you'll have to ask Exxon the question you asked me. Yeah. And as you know, we've done that a number of times. Well, I guess there's a couple of final things I want to hit on this. I guess the first one is that you mentioned the arbitration panel will sit sometime towards the end of May. Exxon has suggested it's probably about a three-month window. You have, I think, in the merger agreement, the deal is due to close, or sorry, you have to make a, there's like a break clause, if you like, in October. What happens if, I'm going to make something up here, that one of the panelists gets COVID and the thing gets delayed till July and you don't get a decision till November? What happens under those circumstances? I think that's highly unlikely. If something asymmetric like that were to happen, we'll address it at the time. We and Chevron are committed as ever about completing our merger and are very confident that we will successfully complete the merger. Okay. And I guess that really gets me to my last topic on this. And then we'll get to what we're really here to talk about, which is the macro and the operations of Hess. But I think, as you, I'm sure, you listen and you've heard what Chevron has said about the process so far. You've got FTC approval, which I guess, you know, was right on the timeline you suggested. You've obviously got the shareholder vote in your favor. Why not go ahead and close the deal if you're so confident in your legal position? You have to ask that to Mike, and I think he's addressed that, number one, but I think the other important thing is integration is well advanced. We just had a webcast town hall with Mark and Eimear of Chevron. They did a great job. You know, I was really honored several months ago. Mike Wirth was talking at a conference [and] said, "Why did you want to merge with Hess?" and the first thing he talked about was our people, and I would have to say the differentiating factor in the oil companies out there, what's really special about Chevron are the people. There's a tremendous cultural fit, performance organization, but where the efforts of people are really valued, and the cultures are very, very aligned, so you know, there are various work streams that continue to move ahead. And we're finding that, you know, the best of both really is going to create a special company that not only has superior cash flow growth, but superior cash returns to shareholders and a diversified portfolio that, you know, is really built through the end of the decade and beyond. So we're very excited about moving forward. We're all full steam ahead in that regard. And integration efforts are well advanced. Well, I guess, you know, to close this part of the discussion out, John. I'm curious about, obviously, you're kind of operating at arm's length. How far can the actual integration go before the deal closes? Is it really more about planning on what happens on day one, or is there something else that is more? It's Day One and it's post-close operating readiness. We're well advanced on that with different teams, whether it's unconventionals, whether it's exploration, whether it's Guyana, whether it's the support functions. People are really working hard together to get ready. So it'll be a seamless transaction, basically. Okay. And I'm sure, I mean, we've seen this actually from some of the other FTC delays on other areas. It's given, you know, a bit more time for management to kind of just state, right, exactly what their day one actions will be and things move a little quicker as a result. Yeah. The value proposition we're creating is going to be superior to anything else in the oil space. Certainly, we concur at least on the Hess side because, as you may know, we had an opportunity to go down to Guyana earlier this year, actually in September. We, you know, we saw a pretty big dislocation in your stock from the underlying fundamentals, never mind, you know, the merger itself. We would obviously be of an outperform rating. I'll just, you know, fly my own kite for a second here. We think the dislocation looks incredibly undervalued, but you are trading at a 12% discount. I'm just curious from your perspective, why do you think that is? I'll let the market and the investors declare they already have. I think it's a function of time. You know, uncertainty and the uncertainty window will close with the passage of time, and also the cash yield difference, the dividend difference, so you know, each month that goes by, we get closer. Hopefully, meetings like this will shine a light on us that we are the only growth company left in the business and we offer unique value, and I think people will start to recognize that as we get closer to the finish line. Well, it's certainly an interesting currency for, you know, should the merger close in terms of that gap. So one last question on this, and then I'll move on to the macro. Obviously, when you and I have talked about this, you've talked about, you know, there's a 99% confidence level that this thing will close. What's the scenario where the arbitration goes against you? What's the 1% scenario? And what does Hess do in that eventuality as a company? Look, we're the only growth company left in the business. The portfolio we have, you know, has been built on the strategy of grow the resource, deliver a low cost of supply, and deliver industry-leading cash flow growth. That's unique value proposition if we're alone. That's a unique value proposition if we're merged. We will continue to operate our company as we have in the past and deliver value both in terms of NAV growth and also accelerating cash return. So, you know, we were pretty clear on that. Chevron was the one company out there that strengthened our hand, and that's why we're doing the merger. In the highly unlikely situation that the merger doesn't go through, we have the best hand in the business. We have the highest reinvestment rate because we have the best portfolio of capital projects. That portfolio will be there if, in the unlikelihood that the merger doesn't close, we'll just continue to execute on that. It's going to be a very desirable stock either way. I think it's a great time for those investors that are out there to, you know, take a new look and realize that this is the best investment in the business in buying our company. Yeah. We're going to get into the operations here in a minute. John, on a personal level, obviously, you've been very involved with the Guyana government. You're going to continue that on an advisory role. But the FTC saw fit to, you know, to basically approve the merger on certain conditions. Of course, you don't get to sit on the board. Is there any? We just had a change of administration in the U.S. Why wouldn't you appeal that? Right now, we're moving forward with focusing on getting ready for the integration and putting the companies together to merge. We're also working on the arbitration. So that's where our focus is. You know, the FTC situation was, you know, we wanted to facilitate getting the FTC approval. We thought it was good to get that taken care of. So, you know, at the end of the day, I and Chevron agreed. We agreed that we would not have me go forward as a director, that basically I would be an advisor to facilitate the merger being approved with the new administration in there. If that situation should change, obviously that's something we'll consider. But right now, we're just focused on the arbitration and the FTC is behind us. We'll watch with interest, and I would urge everybody, if you haven't already done so, there's a terrific video on the Hess website with President Ali talking about some of the initiatives that are going on in Guyana currently, and I'd urge everybody to take a look at that. It's very enlightening. John, I'd like to turn to the macro. Thank you for indulging us on that. Happy to do it. You've probably addressed most of the issues. By the way, just for everybody listening, there is a Q&A option on the bottom of the portal. If you have any questions, please feel free to type those in there and we'll take a look at them and ask accordingly. John, let's talk about the macro. Obviously, you know, we titled our reinstatement of coverage report back in July that value is at the pleasure of OPEC. There's obviously a lot of scenarios going on in terms of the oil price right now, but the biggest one being there is almost six million barrels a day of spare capacity and a huge overhang on the oil price as a consequence in a fairly sloppy market. What's your perspective on the commodity outlook today? Yeah, look, I think the fundamentals over the last year of the oil market have been roughly balanced. You know, this year, there is no inventory build. In fact, if you look at global stocks, just OECD, I think there's still 100 million barrels lower than pre-COVID. But obviously, in the second half of the year, things did start to soften. If you look at demand, China growth that really underpinned oil demand growth on an annual basis started to slow. In fact, I saw some reports, whether it's August, September, that China demand for oil year versus year in the month was actually negative, where I think at the beginning of the year, people were hoping for 3-500,000 barrels a day growth for the full year. So you're seeing cracks in China demand. Also, you know, in September, when prices, you know, I think got to their lowest point in the year, the U.S. had issues, you know, economic slowdown, where would the economy go? I think when you look at the demand picture now, I think the negative sentiment attached to it is probably a bit overdone. China, I think, is going to continue to step on the accelerator to revive their economy. And as their economy gets stronger, so will their oil demand. So I think, you know, they're not going to have another year next year in China that they had last year. I think a lot of that's behind us. And I think there's actually upside to oil demand as China gets its feedback on the ground with their economy. The U.S., with Trump being the president, I think demand for GDP, you know, 2.5% maybe is going to be higher. I think that'll translate to oil demand as well, so you know, there will be more inflation. The tariffs that he talks about probably dings the developing economies, basically China, but it probably helps the U.S. The strong dollar, you know, I think is a headwind in some ways for the oil price, and I think that's probably one of the air pockets that's out there as well, but at the end of the day, you know, we don't talk much about geopolitics. Will there be sanctions on Iran? Will there be sanctions on Venezuela as there were in the first Trump administration, and I think the answer is probably yes, but that's up to the president-elect to decide. You know, at the end of the day, you know, you will have increases in supply. Shale has slowed its growth rate because it's a mature business. It's 20 years old, you know, let's say 300,000 barrels a day going into next year, just like this past year. I don't see many changes there. Obviously, between the U.S., among the U.S., Brazil, Canada, and Guyana, you know, you have somewhere between 1 million and 1.5 million barrels a day. If demand next year is 1 million, you know, people are worried about the market being oversupplied. So therefore, OPEC will be the balancer in there. You know, I don't know how to call that. They will make their decision. The rumor is that they're going to push it out to make a decision on adding the 2.2 million barrels a day over a year. They'll move that out to April 2025, but that's for them to decide. I think they've been very responsible. They've always been about stability, bringing oil on the market when the market's undersupplied and being very cautious when the market's oversupplied, but, you know, this isn't a one-year issue. It's a multi-year issue. Oil demand is probably going to grow a million barrels a day each year out to 2030, and if you look at it that way, I think the market, as we get through 2025, is going to be very constructive and more investment and more oil is going to be needed, so, you know, we're going through, I think, a shorter-term pullback with negative sentiment, but at the end of the day, I think the picture for next year, you know, I think we're at the low end of what the range would be. I think the range for Brent is going to be between $70 and $80. It'll take a while to start moving it up, and obviously, the geopolitical side is asymmetric that would pull it up even more. You know, it's interesting. We're going to, I will be sure and circulate our poll questions later when we get the answer from those listening into the call. But, you know, you and I have been doing this a long time, John, you longer than me slightly, but 30 years of watching this, you learn that Saudi's patience runs out every now and again. And I'm curious about your commentary about they've been very responsible, but they're also at the point now where it seems partly as a consequence of Guyana, obviously Brazil, longer cycle stuff that isn't going to stop anytime soon. They're giving up market share to defend this price. Doesn't sound like it's a sustainable situation. So absent a demand recovery, are you concerned that, as we saw in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago, the risk that Saudi takes this oil price lower to slow down things again? Look, they are very long-term thinkers. I think they're very responsible thinkers. So I think they'll make the right decision for oil price stability. And, you know, they have very ambitious plans to grow their economy, diversify their economy that requires a higher price. So I'll let them speak about their oil policy. But at the end of the day, I think they will be responsible in how they administer it. Let me ask you the question differently. Again, I know you've got more insight to this, perhaps, and most people listening into the space, myself included. Something changed last year, it seemed at least to us, when Saudi described the Declaration of Cooperation as a regulator. I'd never heard that before, that we will regulate the oil market in order to provide visibility and stability for non-OPEC investment. And after 30 years of listening to them, to hear them describe themselves that way, it's almost like market share is a secondary consideration. I'm just curious, did you have a perspective on, do you see the same change in behavior that we are seeing, or do you have a different view? I think this goes back a while, Doug. You know, in 2014, they obviously took the gloves off and let the market rebalance in part, you know, because of shale's meteoric growth. That was then. This is now. Demand has continued to grow since then, so it can accommodate more barrels. But basically, if you look at 2015, probably for about a good seven years, and I realize COVID's at the tail end of that, you had underinvestment in the business. And that tightened the fundamentals of supply and demand in the market. That's where we are today. The last three years, you know, I've always been consistent at your conferences to say the world needs to invest $500 billion plus a year to grow supply to keep up with demand. I stick to that. The last three years, we've had that. I think the fundamentals of oil and gas is that, you know, on the oil side, the market is balanced. We're going through a soft patch here because of demand's growth slowing, tempering. I think that's a short-term thing. Between Trump and China, I think demand actually will be stronger next year than people are anticipating. I think a lot of that negative sentiment's already in the market. I think the supply that we're talking about from non-OPEC will be needed. Then as you look out in future years, that growth won't be as strong. Demand will be stronger. OPEC will balance the market accordingly. I've always said, and this goes back many years, that, you know, Saudi Arabia and OPEC have been the Federal Reserve of oil prices. I think they take that responsibility very seriously and they're very responsible about it. I think there's two. You bring up a couple of things which I think are really pretty key to this whole discussion, and again, it's this idea that for a number of years, certainly, I guess 2016, I would say ESG sentiment kind of peaked. Obviously, spending collapsed as a consequence. That seems the pendulum appears to have swung back, you know, maybe to a more balanced view. But so just to be clear, do you think the industry is underinvesting today? I mean, given the scale of non-OPEC growth, is the industry still underinvesting? No, I think at $500 billion a year, the industry's investing the right amount. But it took us seven years of underinvestment to have that light go on. Obviously, you needed, and that was, you know, interrupted, understandably so, with the pandemic. But now that things, the world economy's recovered, I think the market's in rough balance, balance supply-demand, and also balance in terms of the investment rate. But you got to remember we're a depleting resource. The overall oil production, let's say demand being 103 million barrels a day in 2024, 104 million barrels a day in 2025, that supply to meet that has a decline rate of about 5% a year. So you need to invest enough to offset that depletion. And then you need to add to it to deal with demand growth in the world. For seven years, we didn't do that. The last three years we have, but we have to do it for the next five years as well. So that's why I sort of have a longer-term view as a CEO of Global Oil Company. But also, I think investors need to look at it that way. ESG is important. You know, when you talk about energy policy, it's a balance among energy security, energy affordability, and energy transition. But you need to invest enough in oil to make sure we have an affordable transition. And I think it's important for people to realize that oil will be needed for decades. And, you know, the Net Zero Scenario is, you know, an idealistic dream. But I think we need to be more pragmatic the role that oil's going to play in the economic growth of the world. You know, it's interesting you make that comment about, you know, a more pragmatic view of demand. The OPEC, I think, has said often, you know, Fatih has a, I know he's a good friend of yours, but the IEA has been sometimes accused of advocating for an outcome versus forecasting what's required. I'm curious, peak oil demand this decade, what's the John Hess view? Let me put it this way. It's going to grow through 2030, and let's see where we are at that time. I think, you know, Fatih, I have a lot of time for the IEA. He has three scenarios. The Current Policy Scenario is the path that we're on. I think what's important is that, you know, we've made a lot of progress in the energy transition since the Paris Accord 10 years ago, where I think we were on a path to 3.5 degrees Celsius. Right now, we're on a path to 2.4 degrees Celsius, but not on a path to 1.5 degrees Celsius. You know, emissions continue to grow about 1% a year, where the U.S. is actually down 1% a year, Europe's down 1% a year, but the rest of the world, places like China and India that have 60% coal in their power mix, emissions continue to grow. So, you know, people need to be realistic about that. It's not about being a climate denier. It's just being a realist about the climate and realist about the need for oil and gas. The carbon budget the world needs to meet the 1.5 degrees is going to be used up by 2030. And by the way, Fatih Birol knows this better than anybody. And you have to read between the lines when he speaks because you're right. There is pressure on him to advocate for the Net Zero Scenario, the 1.5 degrees. But we're not even close to that path. I think leaders in the world and our own country need to have a very realistic view about energy policy. Again, it's what I just talked about, energy security, energy affordability, and energy transition. You know, the first reality is oil and gas are needed for decades. It's a strategic industry for the country. We need to keep investing in it to provide the national security that we need, the energy affordability that we need. That's both for oil and gas. If there's sort of three things that I would recommend this new administration consider, first, it has to do with power generation and AI. Probably 50% of the demand for AI is going to be in our country. That's going to make the electricity growth instead of each year growing 0.5% a year, probably 3% or more each year. While a number of the mega techs have talked about nuclear because they want clean energy being the supply source for the electricity, that's a pipe dream again, the same way it is in the energy transition. The fuel of choice there is natural gas, whether it's natural gas as a baseload or natural gas as the swing and resilient fuel to back up renewables. I think our country needs to have, you know, sort of a Manhattan Project on natural gas to be the supply source for power growth, electricity demand growth that we see in AI. I think that's point number one that we should have as part of our energy policy for the future as a country. Number two, on transportation, I think the different types of propulsion, whether it's internal combustion engine, hybrid engine, or electric engine, are put on the same level playing field. And I see that Trump's going to be taking most likely the EV supports away. Elon Musk talks about, you know, we can compete on our own. And certainly, he's the best position for that. But at the end of the day, you know, we have a strong hole card in our economic prosperity with oil. And I think, you know, let the market determine what is best. People don't realize that, you know, two things about electric vehicles that are issues in terms of our energy policy. Who controls battery manufacturer, critical materials manufacturer for both the access to and refining of the critical materials for battery? It's China. China is probably building enough capacity to meet half the capacity of the world's vehicle sales. They are going to dominate and already are, you know, going around the world. I would almost say undercutting because China as a state is supporting EVs being discounted. You know, we're just putting our hands in the hands of China in terms of our national security if we just go hell bent that every car in the United States has to be an EV. Let the customer decide, first of all. You know, you raise a great point, John, because I did want to ask you about this. You know, there's a couple of things you've opined on there regarding the administration. But you're right. We've got a, excuse me, I apologize. We've got a new president coming in in January. There's broader implications on the macro beyond just EVs and transportation. There's SPR. There's Iranian policy. There's the hope for peace in Ukraine. I just saw a headline this morning that after the events of yesterday, Putin apparently is ready to have a ceasefire talk with President Trump. Interesting, I think. I'm just curious, when you think about the macro outlook for oil, SPR, Iranian sanctions, maximum pressure, what does the Trump administration mean for the oil price? Yeah, well, you know, at the end of the day, you know, first, you got to do the natural gas for AI and electric. Two, you know, I think hybrids will play to our strength that, you know, we'll use 30% less fuel. You know, President Trump calls oil liquid gold. We'll make the liquid gold last longer. There's big consumer demand for hybrids, much more than for EVs. Let the market play out in terms of that, in terms of our current policy. And I think, you know, both hybrids and more use of oil in our transportation system is going to meet some of those requirements that I talked about in an energy policy, which is energy affordability, energy security. And if you go the hybrid, you even hit the trifecta with energy transition. Now, the third point that I would talk about is the point you talked about, which is, you know, the SPR. You know, I certainly was one of the leading oil executives that advocated using the SPR to basically stop the market going vertical when Russia invaded Ukraine. That was then. That was several years ago. And we drew the SPR down from 600 million barrels to 350 million barrels. I think it's very irresponsible. And I've talked to people in the Biden administration that the last two years, they have not been refilling the SPR at a rate that they should have been. You know, 3 million barrels a month, I think it would take five years to get back to 600 million barrels. So I think it's irresponsible. They say, oh, you know, we need to do work on the salt caverns. You know, we can only pump back in at about 150,000 barrels a day instead of a million barrels a day withdrawal. I think that's irresponsible. I think someone should shine the light on the Biden administration's irresponsible behavior in terms of, you know, our national security, so you know, one of the things I would recommend to the Trump administration is, you know, let's get at it. Let's refill the SPR at a rate of 500,000 barrels a day. You know, it'll probably take a year and a half to get to the number we need to. And I think we owe it to the world, you know, even though there's surplus capacity in OPEC and whether it's three million barrels a day or five or six, the fact of the matter is the geopolitical risk of some of those oil-producing countries is such that we're being irresponsible, not having the SPR there. The SPR was formed by Henry Kissinger back in 1974 to deal with oil supply disruptions. We need to remember that and honor that. So, you know, the IEA, I've talked to Fatih Birol about this, but the U.S. needs to lead in this. And we've been negligent. So we should refill the SPR. You talk about the other policy points in geopolitics, which is, you know, sanctions on Iran and on Venezuela. Thank God Saudi and some of OPEC has the spare capacity because it may be needed to keep the market balanced. But at the end of the day, our real security blanket is the SPR. And we should start refilling it at a much more accelerated rate to make sure that the world has the energy security it needs to have stable prices for a long time in the future. Just a housekeeping point for everybody listening in. So we allowed an hour and 15 minutes for this session. So we've got about 45 minutes left. And we've got, we want to get to the Hess questions here in a minute. But I want to, I want to just stay on this macro view just for a little bit, John, if I may, because you just raised a couple of points that I want to clarify. Can the SPR be refilled at 500,000 barrels a day? What's the current? Right now, my understanding is no. I think that's unconscionable that the leadership of our country has let that happen. But at the end of the day, I think those are things that can be corrected if the right leadership and investments are made. What do you think of this scenario? So maximum pressure on Iran, obviously, who knows how this plays out. But the sanctions, as we understand it, were never actually lifted. They just weren't enforced by the Biden administration. Let's assume they were. Does that give cover? That may be with an SPR fill. Does that give cover then for Saudi to bring back oil without necessarily hurting price? Yes. That's a compromise. You know, assuming those steps are taken in terms of our foreign policy, yes. Right. Okay. So if you had to kind of roll all this together, it sounds like you're very much of the view that this so-called Federal Reserve of oil continues this policy of intervention. Is that your base case? Yeah, that they are responsible and that with the passage of time, oil from all sources is going to be needed, and it's just a question of being patient, maybe a little bit longer than they anticipated. Okay. Do you think, I mean, you're obviously a senior member of the API. Do you think your view is shared by your peers? You'll have to ask them. Okay. Well, let me ask you another question then, because a lot of those peers are obviously U.S. shale players. And for a while, there was a period of unnecessary growth, as you know, the industry behavior got a little skewed in the wrong direction. You've described U.S. shale as mature. Can you just elaborate as to what you mean by that in terms of the capacity for continued U.S. production growth? You know, shale started 20 years ago. And obviously, at the beginning of, you know, 2010, let's say going out to 2014, shale was growing at very high rates. They looked at a lot of investors as a growth industry, you know, where it was growing over a million barrels a day each year. You know, at the time, there was overinvestment in it, chasing growth. You know, I blame investors. I blame oil companies, you know, the shiny new toy on the block. But at the end of the day, as prices came down, the market rebalanced. And investors spoke that, you know, you can invest in the business, but also we need cash returns to discipline the oil companies. I think sort of a new compact was made between investors and oil companies that we still have today. But where are we today? You know, you cover all the companies. I read the research on all the companies. I know the CEOs running those companies. You know, the oil longevity, let's say, of drilling locations is 8-10 years, depending upon the company. And while the mergers have allowed certain companies to, I don't know, are we still there? Yes, sir. We can still hear you. Okay. Something just popped on my screen. So no worries. I have you back and framed. So at the end of the day, you know, the inventory life of shale companies, eight-10 years. So, you know, and I think it's reflected in the multiples. I think CEOs are very responsible about bringing the best prospects first. I think the industry has done an outstanding job of American ingenuity to, you know, have more productivity, more efficiency, use less rigs, multi-fracs, et cetera, et cetera. So I think it's an annuity business now that provides very, very low growth. So you can grow the business by reinvesting in it, but also return capital to shareholders. But one of the reasons we didn't go all shale was we saw, as we looked forward, we love our position in the Bakken and we love shale as part of our portfolio, but we wanted to be part of our portfolio. It's short cycle. And now it's mature. And remember, I said our strategy was to grow the resource, have a low cost of supply, and deliver industry-leading cash flow growth. You only can do that to have a balanced portfolio where you have offshore long cycle to go with the short cycle. We're very fortunate, obviously, to have our position in the Gulf that's starting to grow again. Our Gulf of Mexico production on an equivalent basis instead of a year ago was 30,000 barrels a day. Now it's 40. We see that growth trajectory continuing both with hub class locations, but also tiebacks, infrastructure-led exploration. But the real jewel in the crown is obviously Guyana. We have three ships on producing gross 660,000 barrels a day. We have the line of sight and sanctioned FPSOs going for another three that'll take our gross production to 1.3 million barrels a day in 2027. And oil is going to be needed because of depletion and also demand growth in the world. And there'll still be room for OPEC as well. So you have to have a longer-term view on how you look at it. And the reason we built our portfolio the way we did was, you know, we wanted to make it sustainable, not just for a few years, but for decades. And we're going to get into that here in a minute. So let me close out this macro section just with a couple of final, you know, perspectives more than anything else. So I want to throw a couple of scenarios at you. First of all, what is your perspective of where, you know, we've got a Trump administration, we've got Chris Wright, I believe, assuming he's confirmed as Energy Secretary, there's probably no more advocate of this industry, perhaps than yourself, than Chris Wright. What can a Trump administration do to U.S. growth, I guess, is the first question. And then secondly, let's take the subjectivity out of it for a minute. Let's pretend that Saudi doesn't support price, like you say, as they did in 2015. Where is the incremental cost of supply in your mind for this industry? Where does the oil price need to be? Because to your point, Guyana has got a sub $35 break even, in some cases sub $30 break even. So where can U.S. oil growth go? Where do you think the standalone unsupported oil price would be if Saudi wasn't intervening? And then we'll get to Hess. Yeah. Well, as always, you have a number of questions and one question, but I'll do my best. Look, I think the person that's really going to be key along with Secretary Wright is Doug Burgum. He's really going to be the energy czar for Trump. He's going to be the; he's been nominated to be the Secretary of the Interior. I know him very well because he's been governor of North Dakota. You know, when he first took over, he was very clear: let's innovate, not regulate. So I think that's, you know, a sign of what the Trump administration is doing. I think he's a very wise choice to, you know, really oversee energy policy, a wise one that, you know, opens access to federal lands responsibly, and he's been very responsible in North Dakota with the regulations, you know, to make sure we protect the environment. But at the same time, you know, we get rid of the red tape that stands in the way sometimes unnecessarily of making investments to grow oil production. At the end of the day, I also think, you know, regulations for permits, regulations and permitting policies will be more balanced where the Biden administration did about everything they could to put roadblocks about making wise investments in pipelines or drilling permits. So I think that will improve too. So at the end of the day, you know, you will have federal lands playing a role in increased supply that's going to be needed, but also more enlightened policies on regulations and permitting. And those are obviously part of the five-point plan that the API has. I'm Chair of the API now. Mike Sommers is doing an outstanding job as President and CEO of the API. So I think we're going to have a more supportive policy from the Trump administration to, you know, basically lean into oil and gas, which is a national strategic industry. We employ more people than the automotive industry. We employ direct and indirect about 12 million people. So I think, you know, basically we will encourage oil development instead of discourage it. And I think that's going to be good for our economy and good for our industry. But do you have a view on the standalone clearing price ex OPEC support? Look, I think we visited that movie before, Doug, in 2014. I think, you know, it's very easy to. We don't want to go there again. Yeah. You know, it took three years for the industry to recover from that market share war, and the Saudis are smart. They have long memories. I think they're going to be responsible in how they keep the market stable as well as OPEC. Great stuff. Okay. So we've got about half an hour left. We've had a couple of questions come in, John. I'm going to leave those for the end because they go back to our earlier topic. And I'd like to basically get into some of the operational issues, if that's okay? Of course. For the last section. So just at a high level, I'm real curious to understand how your last four quarters since the deal was announced, on my coverage of you of over 20 years, have been some of the best quarters that you've delivered in quite a long time. And you're doing this with the uncertainty of a merger. How do you manage a company with the uncertainty to that level of operational performance? Well, look, thank you for recognizing that, you know, our operating performance, safety, and employee engagement and retention have all remained very strong. We have a great team and group of people who are very committed to our company. Our turnover continues to be very low. I think the value proposition we offer employees as, you know, a very agile, values-led independent, you know, has made them want to stay at Hess. It's a unique value proposition for every employee, including myself. So we're very proud of our legacy and very excited about our future. So, you know, we're going to keep running the company the way we have in the past. So it's a function of the portfolio that we have that allows us the opportunity to have that performance. But most of all, it's the people and the focus that they have. And, you know, I'm very proud that they, you know, have continued to deliver strong operating performance, strong safety, and, you know, the employee engagement is strong as ever. We recently had a town hall in Houston, and our people are committed as ever, hearts and minds still focused on, you know, building, you know, what we hope to be the most valuable energy investment in the business, but also one that's true to our mission to be the most trusted energy partner in the world. And it's not just about what we do in oil, but it's the communities that we invest in, starting with Guyana. So, you know, the value proposition we have both for investors and employees is as strong as ever. And that's what we're focused on executing. How's your retention rate been, John? Our turnover is some of the lowest in the industry. Okay. Low single digits. Let me leave it at that. Okay. And I guess, are there any restrictions? I'll give you an example. You raised the dividend, but I think you had to get agreement from Chevron to do that. Are there any restrictions on how you run the company right now? Capital allocation, discretionary decisions, things of that nature? Yeah, John, you want to elaborate on that? I think it'd be good for John to address that. Sure. It's normal, you know, operating conditions that we have, Doug. So everything that, you know, we've typically done, there's no restrictions on that. So as you normally see in mergers, the conditions that come about are, you know, big purchases, big capital, you know, changes, things of that nature, you know, anything that kind of shifts what we were doing in the past. So we don't have any of that, you know, all that plans. Yes, the dividends was one, and we had a good discussion with Chevron about that. But everything just getting our day-to-day business done, there's no real operating, you know, changes to that. Okay. You would normally, if you were a standalone company or if you were continuing as a standalone company, my guess is you'd be implementing some kind of hedging. Am I right in thinking you cannot hedge currently? Given that you've got a year potentially to wait, why wouldn't you look for an opportunity to protect some of your. Yeah, that's just part of the agreement with Chevron. Yeah. So could you? They don't want us to hedge, and we're not hedging, you know, because they got a pretty strong balance sheet. Having said that, if Hess were alone, it's definitely something that we would give strong consideration to as we have in the past. Not to hedge it outright, but to use put policy. Right. I don't want to labor this, John, but you have got potentially a year to wait in a fairly uncertain oil price environment. So you wouldn't want to revisit that? Again, our merger agreement doesn't allow us to do it. So it's academic. All right, well, I guess it's a bit of an unfair question, but another aspect of the post-merger Hess or the post-pre-merger Hess, I guess I would say, is that you're not doing that earnings call. And I think I speak for the community to say, we'd love for you to do an earnings call. Maybe you could ask them to reconsider that as well. But that's me being a little selfish, I apologize. Okay, well, at least we're doing this investor conference, so get the questions that you would do on an earnings call. Absolutely. You're right. So maybe we're benefiting from that for sure. Okay. So let's talk a little bit about the capital program. So you raised, you are giving a, those of you who maybe haven't looked at the earnings releases, you have given some guidance. And this year you took your capital up because you're acquiring not just one, but two FPSOs as I understand it. Can you give any insight as to what happens to capital in 2025? Yeah, John, go ahead. You might explain both the purchases this year, but you know how economically it works as well, but also, you know, what you can in terms of conceptualization for next year. Sure. So starting with the FPSOs, we had already purchased the Liza Phase 2, the Liza Unity FPSO. So in the fourth quarter, we are purchasing Prosperity that's on Payara, and we are purchasing Destiny that's on what we call Liza Phase 1. It's approximately, as we put in the release, $635 million of capital. So that would get all those three FPSOs that are producing. Now the purchases are behind us. They're on the balance sheet. And then what happens, so our operating costs, as you had mentioned before, Guyana's operating costs are already very low, but that will reduce it further because we won't have the lease operating costs coming in. We'll increase DD&A. But yeah, we get that behind us, and those go into the cost bank like everything else. And so then, from a capital standpoint, as we're looking into 2025, if I exclude FPSOs, and if you don't mind, if I can just say excluding capitalized interest, because that will go up just as part of the, you know, the sanctions that we have and the work going on, I'd say then your, I would say your capital is going to be relatively flat is what I would say. You know, Bakken should, you know, we're going to be sticking right now with the four rigs. You know, let's just stay with where oil prices are in this range. You know, you'll have four rigs going in the Bakken. We have a rig working in the Gulf of Mexico. We're going to continue that. So we're excited about that and the exploration that we're doing in the Gulf of Mexico. So that will continue. Guyana, you know, steady as you go, you know, with Whiptail being sanctioned, so we're working on Whiptail. We'll be working on Uaru, and then obviously kind of the exciting thing for 2025 is Yellowtail. You've probably seen some news coming out that, you know, Yellowtail should be leaving the yard and sailing to Guyana in the first quarter, so that should be out. Let's just call it mid-year-ish into Guyana with the startup then later in the year, so that will be nice just getting the next boat on, and, you know, then with installed capacity when Yellowtail comes on, as John had, you know, mentioned before there, we're at 660 right now, and, you know, Yellowtail is going to be a 250 boat, so we've got a nice jump up there with installed production capacity when Yellowtail comes on. Obviously, there'll be a ramp until it gets full production going in 2026. So I would say looking at it, nothing is complete yet with it. But, you know, ignore the FPSO purchases and capitalized interest, should be flattish compared to this year. That would be about four two then? Correct. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Thank you, John. So maybe we'll just jump to Guyana because obviously it's the dominant part of your story has been for a long time. It's been extraordinary. You mentioned Yellowtail. We met with SBM recently down in Guyana, and they were telling us that they're contractually obligated for first oil by July of 2025. Would that fit with your timing? I think the way to answer that is we're going to stick to the joint ventures communication, which is, you know, towards the end of 2025. But if you look at, you know, ExxonMobil's track record and on this, you know, in project management, I think they've been outstanding. Chevron, I don't think they've been so outstanding, but certainly on project management, they have had a track record of coming in ahead of schedule and under budget. And I would side with that type of view in terms of when the ship starts up. But I don't want to tempt fate on that one. Okay. That was an SBM view. You're right, Exxon sticks with second half, but we'll see what they say in December at their Upstream Spotlight. I guess my related comment is about the production plateau. What we learned in Guyana, actually from Noble Corp, was that not all the development wells on Liza One have been drilled. Yet you're at 660,000 barrels a day. I believe there's another de-bottlenecking that Alistair Routledge just announced in the press for another 15 up on Payara. We're going to be at 675 pretty much. If you haven't drilled all the development wells, these things are still producing on primary pressure. What does this say about the production plateaus, John? I think they go out higher for longer. The joint ventures drilled, Doug, over 75 exploration appraisal wells, already 100 development wells. A lot of these development wells, when we put the pilot holes in, we find out, you know, we actually have more strata of oil prolific sands out there. You know, it's the old story about big oil fields just get bigger. And Guyana is probably the best in the industry that way. So, you know, the longevity of the oil resource and oil production, you know, versus when we started producing in 2015, the picture has only gotten stronger. Yeah, 2019, right? I think the first discovery was. 2015, I was starting with the first exploration. Yes, I remember it well. I can hardly. But you're right. 2019 is when we had first production. Almost 10 years ago. So I guess you had always talked about one FPSO per year. And so we've talked about Yellowtail. Let's assume it is sometime in the middle of next year. So how do you see Uaru, Whiptail beyond that timing? Yeah, John, you want to give some timing on those two and maybe even talk about Hammerhead too? Sure. So, you know, Uaru, I mean, what we're seeing right now, as you said, the one a year of Uaru would be in 2026. First oil would be in 2026 and Whiptail first oil would be in 2027. Because that's as John mentioned then in 2027 from an installed capacity, you know, point, we'll over 1.3 million barrels a day by the end of 2027. Hammerhead, we're working. You've seen the environmental permit. We are working on getting that, you know, to the sanction phase. The permit itself basically said Hammerhead was going to be between 120 and 180, you know, but type of FPSO. And right now the co-venturers are saying that that will be done in 2029 first oil. Now we'll still be working on that for when we get the final sanction case on it. But that's moving ahead. Look, I should say we're also working on the next one right after Hammerhead too. So there are plans to keep this going and get, you know, as many FPSOs out there. As you know, we've always talked about 10 FPSOs and, look, there's a lot of gas out there too as well that's being worked on as well. So a gas solution is in the works. Doug, you know, when we talked, we always said we had the potential for 10 FPSOs. I think we feel much more confident about. But, you know, right now we're working on, you know, what will the eighth ship be? Line of sight, maybe some of the more inboard oil accumulation. It might be some of the new exploration we're doing. That would be the ninth ship. And then the natural gas opportunity. We're doing a lot of appraisal work now in the southeastern part of the block to really get a better understanding of the quality and quantity of the resource there. So, you know, I'm pretty confident that we're, you know, we had the potential for 10 ships. I think that's highly likely now. Now, just to be clear, I wanted to, I mean, you've covered a lot of ground there, believe it or not, in your brief remarks because we've talked about the longer plateaus, but we've also talked about the cadence of, you know, the newer ships coming on. Now, Exxon has always talked about production capacity, but not necessarily production. It sounds like what you guys are saying is that the two are, at least for a period of time, the two are one and the same. Correct. Okay. So, extended plateaus, Hammerhead 2029, John Rielly. I believe this boat is a converted FPSO. Correct. So why would it take so long? Okay. I mean, we haven't gotten to the sanction case yet and worked with the government on that. So, you know, you saw we're talking about what's in the environmental permit. That's what we're talking about right now. And as John said, you know, from an operation development standpoint, Exxon has been terrific. So is there potential to beat it quicker? We'll see when we get to the final sanction. Yeah. I seem to remember Liza One was also a converted FPSO, a little smaller, obviously. I forget the actual timing, but it wasn't five years. It was probably 60% of that. Okay. We'll take the under on the 2029. So as I look out on the resource update, the 25th discovery, which I believe was eight discoveries ago, and I'm excluding Redtail, which we'll talk about in a minute, it was 11 billion barrels. That hasn't been updated in eight discoveries, which is about a quarter of your, you know, activity level. What do you think the resource looks like today? Look, it's over 11 billion barrels of oil equivalent. The operator feels very strongly that that's where we need to keep the number for now. We may have a different view that we express as a partner, but right now it's over 11 billion barrels of oil equivalent. One of the reasons we're doing all this appraisal is to fine-tune that. And that's why I say, well, let's not get caught up on that number. Let's get caught up on the fact that, you know, there's a much stronger line of sight to at least having 10 FPSOs producing. So you raise another great point. There's a subtle difference between exploration and appraisal. So when you give a resource update, is that post-appraisal typically? It's baked in there. It's baked in there, yes. So if you hadn't appraised, let's say the last eight discoveries, that would explain why. You know, when I talked about these pilot holes, when we're doing, let's say, Yellowtail, and we do a pilot hole for one of the development wells, and I always say, oh my God, you know, either the strata is thicker or there's new strata that you want to add to the resource base, you know, these fields continue to get bigger, which means their production capacity, you know, ability to sustain it gets stronger. And we're seeing that in every one of these fields. The last confirmed discovery, as I understand, it was Bluefin in the first quarter of this year. Since then, you've had a lot of appraisal drilling. What's the split right now between exploration and appraisal, would you say? More appraisal than exploration. Okay, and that would explain your. Yeah. And part of it, Doug, is also getting our hands around the quality and size of the resource space on the natural gas. Yeah. And I was going to say Hammerhead is getting a lot of appraisal right now. So is there. You wouldn't be appraising it unless it was prospective. Right. But one assumes that gas is not particularly economic on a standalone basis. Are these, I mean, can you sort of characterize the nature of Hammerhead? It's going to be a big resource, and we think there's a strong case for it to be developed. So significant liquids production alongside it. I'm sorry? Would there be significant liquids production alongside it? Yeah. Not so much in Hammerhead, but, you know, Longtail is one that would be more gas liquids development where Hammerhead and some of the stuff more to the southeast would be more gas driven. Now, Exxon is. There'll be liquids. There'll be liquids there. Exxon has suggested there could even be a platform-based LNG solution on the shelf. Would you offer any characterization? No, I'll let the operator continue their evaluation work. And, you know, our technical teams are shoulder to shoulder with Exxon. And the working relationship with Exxon at the technical level is still very strong. I was going to say this, the situation at the high level hasn't impacted operations at the high level. It hasn't. Great stuff. Okay. Can we talk about Redtail? So Trumpetfish was written off, I believe, Jay, confirm me if I'm wrong, in the second quarter. But you have this other sizable step out into the northern part of the block called Redtail under appraisal, as I understand it. How would you characterize that? Yeah. Drilling and evaluation at Redtail continues. And when we're ready to say something, we will. Okay. And one of your other partners, CNOOC, has been a little bit more vocal, I think, about some of the standalone discoveries. I think they talked about, I need to check the name of the well here in a minute, but they talked about a standalone single discovery of 750 million barrels. I don't know if that was sanctioned by ExxonMobil or if you would concur with that, but that would. Let CNOOC speak for themselves. All I will say is that Redtail, the drilling and evaluation operations are still underway. Okay. I appreciate the color. Okay. We've talked about plateaus. We've talked about the relationship. I guess the last comment I wanted to put in here is we have an election in Guyana next year. Is there any concern over the fiscal terms? This is a well-trodden path at this point, but the commentary we had from the finance minister when I met with them a month ago was under this government, there would be no fiscal risk. But that, you know, I think they won by 5,000 votes. What's your sense on the other side? Look, the government's been very clear that, you know, they will honor the contract. They will honor the fiscal terms. They will hold us accountable to that. And their biggest encouragement is, you know, let's develop these oil resources and gas ultimately as safely, quickly, and economically as we can. And Exxon as operator and we as a joint venture are continuing to do that. So I think there's a very strong relationship between our company and the government and our joint venture and the government. And it's a relationship that we are grateful for. And, you know, I think President Ali is doing an outstanding job leading his country, building a policy for shared prosperity for every Guyanese citizen. Obviously, you know that we're helping support a major healthcare modernization initiative with Mount Sinai Hospital in New York leading it. It's a partnership among the government, Mount Sinai, and Hess. We're in the third year of that program, and we're currently working with the government to come up with a new five-year program that will accelerate the modernization of healthcare there, addressing primary care for children, primary care for adults, also diabetes, cancer care, and really putting a system in place that brings modern healthcare to the country of Guyana. We're very proud about that, but that's because of the enlightened leadership of President Ali and his support of this initiative, and he's got other initiatives like that so that I think Guyana in the next five years will start to have even more recognition as an enlightened country who has been very responsible in the development and monetization of the oil resource to develop economic prosperity for generations to come. Yeah. I think, again, I would urge everybody to take a look at that video on the Hess website. If you get a chance, it's really fascinating. But, John, just to be clear, did you guys participate in the last lease round? In the last lease round? No. I mean, are you talking the first lease round or the second one? The second, the one that just happened. No. No. Okay, so do you happen to know how the terms differed? I think they're public, so I wouldn't want to front-run it. I think they're, you know, I'm not going to comment on it. Yeah. It's a higher royalty and. Yeah, of course. There's an income tax, obviously, but. Yes. Yes. But again, ever since you doubled the royalty back in 2016, there's been no change to yours. No. And the government, you know, has assured us that they will not change the terms. They want us to develop the oil. And this is low-cost oil. And the sooner we get our money back, the sooner the government starts to, you know, get their share. Remember, it's over 52% of the revenues or cash flow go to the government. And that has already started to happen on the first couple of ships. I'm aware that, you know, the inflection is coming here pretty soon. So just to be clear, are you? The IMF, I know, has opined on this by saying, don't touch anything, but in the, you know, unless I don't want to say unlikely, but in the improbable scenario where there is a change of government, do you see any fiscal risk? No. No. Okay. Because you're obviously in dialogue with both sides on a fairly regular basis, I'm guessing. Okay. John Rielly, is Guyana self-funding today? Yes, Guyana is self-funding. And look, it was self-funding now. And then obviously when the Yellowtail's coming on, you get the, you know, the whole big jump. And we really do get a big step-changing cash flow every time one of these FPSOs come on. So yes, it's self-funding and it's growing free cash flow. Okay. And so if I think you used to talk about $60 oil with Payara, 60 Brent, where it was kind of self-funding. So is it fair to say that Yellowtail is the big inflection, the first big inflection in free cash flow? Yeah. I mean, again, now you're bringing a 250 boat on, you know, these other ones obviously have been kind of optimized up to 250, but you're bringing a bigger boat on. You've got the three boats already paid for, you know, behind you on that. So yes, Yellowtail gives a nice, really nice big inflection to our free cash flow. In the event that you're obviously, let's assume you're still a standalone company when Yellowtail comes online, and, you know, we'll play with the timing, I guess, what do you do with the cash flow? Let's just go back, John, or you can. I can say it. I mean, we'll go back. We had our, you know, capital return program now. So let's just say if we were staying independent, we'd go back to that where we were, you know. We would grow the dividend. That would be the first thing that we're going to do. First, we'd make sure we're funding our good return projects. We'd grow the dividend just as we had been doing and now just recently did. Then we would take up to 75% of that cash flow and we would return it to shareholders. Now, as part of the merger and the operating conditions, that will not be happening. We would just be building the cash during this, you know, time. So, but yeah, if we were going independent, we'd go right back to our capital return program. Okay. Thank you. Guys, we've only got a few minutes left. So I want to jump to the rest of the portfolio just for a second. And specifically, John, you mentioned the Gulf of Mexico. You've just done the new Tubular Bells tieback, as I understand it. Is it fair to say that the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. generally is cash tax zero? Yes. So what is the NOL? What's the scale of the NOL? In other words, how long do you stay cash tax zero? You know, it is, let's just say, out past this, the five-year horizon for sure. It is an extensive NOL, which is why we want to invest in the U.S. So why we're putting capital in here to generate income and obviously, you know, help businesses and things like that in the U.S. So we are looking to invest in the U.S. because, one, it's just good returns anyway for us. And we've got good people doing this in the Gulf of Mexico, and we can explore and develop and do all the drilling that needs to be done. And yes, because of our fiscal situation with the tax NOL, it's beneficial for us to make that investment. So it competes very well in the portfolio to make those investments in the U.S. I know it's a tangential question, but presumably the scale of Chevron, that NOL is very valuable. Can you offer any insight as to how quickly that NOL would be consumed under the merger versus on a standalone Hess? There are specifics, which I will not bore everybody on, but details on how NOLs can be used after a post-merger. It gets into fair value times, you know, a rate that the government sets. There are annual limits that limit the amount that can be used, but it will be available to Chevron. As part of the synergies that they had talked about, that was considered in there. Okay. Good stuff. Lastly, I'd like to just touch on, I think, you know, Bakken has taken care of itself. It's been a tremendous story for you guys. Malaysia, there's been some question marks over the PSC. What's going on there? I think you wrote it off because one of them is not going to be extended. What about the second one? For me, John? Yeah. So the JDA, that PSC goes to 2029. And yes, there was the determination made by the regulators there that they were not going to extend that beyond 2029. So what we did is you said there was a write-off. There were certain wells that we were having were going to be part of a development post-2029. So yes, we wrote those wells off. So what we're really doing now is just, you know, being as efficient as possible and, you know, producing that at as low as, using a low-cost operation there and producing out through the end of 2029. Yeah. Running for cash returns, basically. Right. North Malay Basin, that PSC goes to 2033. There's been no discussion about that or whether that's, you know, we're not actually at the point really of having extension conversations on North Malay Basin. So that, I would say, is operating as normal. Great stuff. Well, I think the fact that the operations have been as strong as they've been. There really hasn't been any, you know, in the quarter, you know. It's been a very, very impressive run. There are no questions on the operations. There is one question on the merger, and that's where I'll finish off. Is this coming externally? And actually goes back to this issue about a potential compromise with Exxon. And I guess it's a technical question. You've got a year to wait. Can either side nominate an opportunity to re-engage, or is the discussion just off the table right now? Yeah. No, it's a fair question. And, you know, I think the point here is Mike Wirth and I tried to work with Darren to do that between January and March. So we actually tried to do that and address any and all concerns that Exxon had, and then they cut off communications. So the ball's really in Exxon's court. At the end of the day, we tried. So our side, for our shareholders, we tried, but basically Exxon cut those conversations off. I think it's important to know that. John, a question from me as a follow-up to that, and this will be my last question. Is valuation part of the arbitration or not? I will leave that in the hands of the arbitrators. We do not believe it is part of it. It's just about the ROFR. Gentlemen, I can tell you it's a bit nostalgic for me to have you all back on doing something like this. It's been, I guess it's been about a year since we had a proper conversation. So I'm grateful to all of you, Jay, for setting this up, and John, and John, for making the time. Please extend our regards to Greg and the rest of the team. And I'm very, very grateful for you all being here. And we'll follow up, obviously, in the next couple of hours. But thank you so much. Okay. We're grateful for the opportunity and we're glad we're back on the playing field with you. Thanks for giving us the opportunity to communicate to the investment community. Great to see you back in the circuit, guys. Thanks so much. We'll wind up soon. Thanks, everyone. Take care.