 We have another five minutes and I'd like to open to the audience for Q&A's, we have here a very diverse panel. We have one question here, maybe we can get a mic to the lady. Thank you for your very exciting panel. My name is Marie Rojibiloa and I have a question, especially for Professor Lang, but any of you can answer. You mentioned the multipolar world and as we know the BRICS had their geopolitical moments a few weeks ago. They account for what we hear, 40% of the world GDP. So do you consider the BRICS and the new doors they have been opening like a common currency in the new world financial architecture? Do you consider that a threat or this is a very positive development for trade? And the second question is what could become a danger coming from the BRICS? So, yeah, I'll take another two questions and then we'll try to answer. There's a second question here, third one here and then we'll try to answer. There's a question to the Magic Director of Total. How do you anticipate the decline of oil consumption because of electric engines and because of a green economy? And how will it affect the oil prices? Okay, thank you. That's the second question. There was a third question and then we'll start answering, just trying to manage time. Can we have the mic in the middle for the gentleman? Thank you very much for this exciting panel. I'm speaking from the viewpoint of former current member of several boards of large international companies. I wanted to ask you whether you shared this observation that I'm going to make and react on it. Probably one of the most striking things when it comes to strategic risks in the very past years has been the realization by very large multinational companies that they were not global companies opening, working globally and freely, but they were belonging to a nationality. They, all Western companies suddenly had to give up their activities in Russia, for instance, and they realized that they have to abide to a certain camp. Of course, they are making the same assessment with China and other areas of threat and they are taking consequences out of the situation in reshaping supply chains and the way they work and making themselves more immune to those political risks, as you have advised. Now, are they not by doing that sort of creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy and paving the way for possible increase of the likelihood of conflicts by reducing, in the very concrete way, through the way they operate, increasing the possibilities of conflict? Okay, thank you very much. So we'll try to answer every question in one minute to keep time. So Nicolas, do you want to take the question on energy transition and oil production? Yes, the decline in oil consumption, we don't have a crystal ball, a total energy, but we expect you know the oil demand to reach its peak during this current decade. And then to decline to a level you know, to be net zero by 2050, the oil demand you know could be let's say 20-25% of what it is today. There will still be an oil demand because you know there are some products that you cannot substitute actually, particularly for petrochemicals, and hence you know the need for compensation of this residual demand. The big uncertainty is on the pace of the decline, on how fast it's going to be. And regarding the question on oil price impact of all this, what's important to have in mind is that an oil field is not producing flat over time. So there is a natural decline of the production which is 4-5% per year. So it means that if you stop investing in oil projects in 10 years from now, the production will have decreased by 40%. So basically the price, the oil price, in order to keep it under control or at an acceptable level and it's a question of affordability of energy, companies need to continue investing in new development to offset the decline, or at least to offset the decline partly you know, when the demand is decreasing. Well I hope it drives the question. Very good, thank you. There was a question about by reshaping supply chains, by segregating supply chains, are we increasing the risk of conflict? Any 30 seconds, 30 seconds, what do you view? So I think the question was also about nationalism and US companies reacting, you know, quickly on the Russia situation by pulling out. I think in short I would say yes. When I read Jake Sullivan's Foreign Affairs piece, there's things in there, they don't mention the word trade, but there's other things in there that to me look like companies are becoming part of the industrial national security strategy of the United States in a way that I think limits freedoms in some ways. And I do think it's something companies need to look at very, very carefully. Thank you. The companies are very quick in responding to this kind of restrictions and many Korean companies are investing to have a stable supply chain into resource rich countries like Canada, Australia. There are lots of investments being made by Korean companies to establish a stable supply chain of critical minerals or raw materials. And diversifying. Jay, before Anton breaks, what do you view? I would just say there are a couple of additional factors to watch out for. One is the incredible upwelling of interest among stakeholders that were very vocal in the case of the Russia pullout, putting a lot of pressure on boards, a lot of pressure on executive teams through various means, direct engagement, social media, and through politicians. And this was facilitated in part by active tracking by many organizations that were looking at how compliant individual companies were with the spirit of the need to move out of Russia. And in the case of China, one can easily imagine something similar happening depending on what the scenarios that we're talking about. The other piece is the sanctions regime that was put in place, not just by the United States, but also by the European Union, by the United Kingdom, and others, was sufficiently broadly defined so as to encourage a conservative approach on the part of individual companies so that they could ensure they didn't run afoul of sanctions compliance. And we can see that although that makes it much more difficult to control if you're the sanctioning government, from a company perspective, it makes you want to listen to your lawyers who are telling you don't incur any risk when it comes to sanctions. Do the thing that's easiest, and in many cases, it was just to leave the market. Obviously, in the case of China, it will be a much more difficult conversation given how embedded supply chains are, market considerations are, but it's definitely on the minds of corporate leaders. Good, thank you very much. And I think on BRICS, our view is that there is very positive potential in bringing that together. I think if you look both from a trade perspective, from a financial perspective, from an energy perspective, I think BRICS has hugely kind of almost doubled its energy base by the expansion that was decided this year. And so from our perspective, I think it has much more to win than to be, in any case, a danger. So yeah, we had had a fast-paced discussion here on global trade. Penny, you said it's forceful good. I think we still believe in that. I would like to thank my panelists for this very broad perspective. For you, for your engagement. And I look further to very interesting discussions over the next few days. Thank you. Thank you.