 Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Daniel. Thank you and Professor Jason Bordoff, Ms. Damilolo Okumbi, and all our friends and colleagues participating in this seminar. Thank you for the opportunity to join in this very important conversation about global perspectives on the energy transition. The term energy transition itself is a curious one. It has multiple aspects and depending on the context, we sometimes tend to focus on one element of the transition. But in fact, the transition itself is multidimensional. It includes energy consumption and access, energy fuels and sources, energy infrastructure, energy financing, as well as energy applications. And of course, the social and economic elements that are linked with energy. And we'll one way or the other touch on these elements as I hopefully bring to the fore the perspective from a growing economy, the Nigerian economy, that is still energy poor from an electrification and clean energy perspective, but energy rich in fuels and natural resources, as well as in innovating to deliver affordable and reliable energy for its very huge populace. But let me begin if I may with my conclusion and it is that the global energy transition must be inclusive. It must be equitable and it must be just taking into account the different realities of various economies and accommodating various pathways to net zero by 2050. Now, this point is important for two reasons. The first is that a just energy transition for developing economies is central to the right to sustainable development and poverty eradication. And this is enshrined in relevant global treaties, including the Paris agreements. Second is that globally, we are seeing wealthier nations and development finance institutions banning all public investments in fossil fuels, including natural gas. Examples include the European Union, the United Kingdom and Denmark, the name of few, as well as specific institutions, such as the sweet fund from Sweden, CDC from the UK, the European Investment Bank and the Investment Fund for developing countries from Denmark. Other institutions recognize the importance of breaking fossil fuels down into the different fuels and assessing the role of each within the context of a just transition. But they're also facing increasing pressures from others to completely end all fossil investments, including investments in natural gas. One example is the African Development Bank, which has been which has which has an inclusive energy sector policy aiming to support the optimal use of oil and gas resources to secure equitable benefits and increase energy security, but is increasingly unable to close any large natural gas deals in the face of external pressures. My view is that this approach does not appear to sufficiently take into account the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and leaving no one behind that are enshrined into the global treaties around sustainable development and climate action. So I think the questions and I'll pose three questions. The first is what would equity look like in the transition? Or what is the case for equity? And in answer to this question, I've drawn from some of the excellent work of the energy for growth hub on transition in Africa. And, you know, I and I will, you know, use quite a few of their statistics here. Excluding South Africa, the remaining one billion people in Sub-Saharan Africa are serviced by a power generating capacity of just 81 gigawatts. And they've contributed less than one percent of cumulative CO2 emissions. Most countries on the African continent are low emission energy poor countries with per capita emissions of between 0.8 to one ton of CO2. And that's for Sub-Saharan Africa and an average of under two tons per capita if South Africa and Northern African countries are included. So even tripling electricity consumption in these countries, barring South Africa solely through natural gas would add just 0.6 percent to global emissions. By comparison, the United States emissions stands at 15.5 tons per capita while on average Europe has per capita emissions of 6.5 tons. It's also, I think, worth while to remember that countries including the US, China, Japan and other large parts of Asia and the EU include gas as major pillars of their multi-decade decolonization strategies, including actively developing African gas in countries like Mozambique, Ghana, Senegal and Nigeria for export to Asia and Europe while limiting financing for gas projects for domestic use in those same countries. So I think limiting the development of gas projects poses dire challenges for African nations while making an insignificant dent in global emissions. So the second question is what is the case for justice and fairness? I think that what is often not sufficiently considered in thinking through transition to net zero emissions is a critical role that energy, in our case gas, plays in catalyzing economic development and supporting people's health and livelihoods, especially in poorer countries. Natural gas is currently used, you know, aside from power generation for industry, fertilizer, manufacturing and cooking, which are more difficult to transition than power generation. And also the role of transition fuels in delivering domestic value and in accelerating the pace of adoption of cleaner fuels. In Nigeria, for instance, there is a transition underway to shift from petroleum motor, motor spirit or petrol to natural gas, which we believe is the economically sensible transition pathway and the bridge to utility skill, renewable energy. Similarly, liquefied gas, LPG, is already replacing the huge amounts of hazardous charcoal and kerosene cookstones that are most widely used for cooking while saving millions of lives lost to indoor air pollution annually. Even the midst of this transition, the financing of gas projects, including the use of LPG and CNG for cooking and transport, is constrained. Then it will certainly set back the progress planned and may lock our financially constrained nations into higher carbon infrastructure. For most sub-Saharan countries, the conversion from gas to renewable energy for electricity generation is often hampered by weak or limited grid systems. This means considerable difficulties in integrating intermittent energy sources, solar wind above 15% of generation, but even enabled by a similar share of natural gas. Intermittent renewables increase to over 30% of generation. So this reflects a roughly 2 to 1 ratio of dispatchable gas enabling intermittent renewable energy sources. Also in making energy choices to comply with net zero by 2050, I think it might be useful to note that the average expected operating life for a combined cycle gas plant is between 25 to 30 years, meaning that a new plant that is built today will likely operate until 2046, which still enables a transition away from more polluting fuels and the integration of more renewables. So what will inclusivity and support mean in the transition? I think the principle of leaving no one behind must translate into action by mobilizing international, public and private capital that flows into countries that need it most. Our efforts aimed at delivering climate action while leaving no one behind must facilitate the flow of capital for renewables rather than limiting capital flows to gas projects. So there's currently a dramatic mismatch in my view in energy investments. So while representing just 15% of the world's population, high income countries received 40% of global energy investments, at least in 2018. Conversely, developing countries with 40% of the world's population received just 15% of global energy investments. So energy consumption in developing countries has doubled in the last 15 years. And it's expected to grow another 30% in the next 15 years. Making capital available to fulfill the growing energy demand in these regions of the world is central to reaching the goals of the price agreement. So I think that LPG-based policies and programs are critical to realizing universal access to clean cooking solutions by 2030. And this will give 2.8 billion access to clean cooking solutions for the first time and will need global investments of about 4.4 billion US dollars annually to 2030. Nigerian countries across Africa are committed, as I think is obvious, to a net zero future, especially given their vulnerability to the adverse effects of climate change. And all have expressed commitment to their national development contributions under the price agreements. However, I think much greater support in developing and implementing robust energy transition plans is needed. Clearly, the continent will require an unprecedented scale of investments. An energy mix that is compatible with the 1.5 as a degree centigrade pathway would require something in the order of about 40 billion US dollars to flow into South Saran Africa annually. A fourfold increase compared to the 10 billion US dollars invested in 2018. Further, the energy access element of the energy transition must be linked with the emission reduction aspect. I think for too long, we've considered these to be parallel tracks. However, pathways to reaching net zero by 2050 have to include first ending energy poverty by 2030. If energy access issues are left unaddressed, we'll continue to see growing energy demand being addressed with high polluting and deforesting fuels, such as diesel, kerosene and fire. And as a result, efforts aimed to advance climate goals must first and foremost create carbon space for growing economies that have historically made negligible contributions to global emissions and have an obligation to their people to provide access to energy for electricity, for cooking and productive uses. I think I'll stop here because I'm sure I'm already at about 10 minutes and hopefully I'll be able to add a few more things during the question.