 Thanks for being here. There's lots of action in New York. You can stand this moment. It's about from the United Nations, this big tour room that Michael Boogman used to take and Plaza, and in fact, I was coming from there. And I've just heard a lot of people talk about what we're addressing here. So it looks like a lot of important people are converging on this low-efficient solutions or their need to have a low-efficient society which is encouraging and aligning there at least more. Now, first of all, thanks for all the thanks for coming and again, thank you, Jeffrey, for being here with us. Let me address a few issues that are important, I think, for the purpose of this conference and in general for what happens in energy. We have, as we all know, a big transitioning energy industry that is very important to us, perhaps in many other issues. And there are big drivers of this change. One of them is the cohesive transformation that the digital world is bringing upon the sector. Not only directly because our customers are digitized and therefore their needs and the way they interact with us changes, but also directly because the industry, the technology and the performance of machines we use change a lot because of the sensors and the data that we are able to extract out of it, things we have, the plants we use. And then we have a second large force driving this change, which is the incredible promises that material science is bringing about. We experiment that in our daily life constantly. Things we own get better and better and better. Our glasses are thinner. The textiles which we wear are better, they perform better, they last longer, they are thinner, lighter, cheaper. There's a long improvement in all kinds of things. And this turns also in improvement in the performance of plants, of components more efficient, cheaper, better, longer lasting, that requires less maintenance, lesser parts, that's happening. And these two forces are really shaping a change that is today happening in our industry. Why are technologies like renewables now convenient and increasingly convenient because of these two drivers? And because this is happening, we in our opinion continue to happen in the next decade at least. Then we have this huge transformation of all the means of generating a visit that we have used so far. This is happening, if we continue to accelerate throughout this decade. And that's good news because it means that we can generate electricity cheaper. We connect these days with India with no emissions, and that's fantastic. But also in a more distributed and pervasive manner. So, less big things, many more small things. There is a second aspect that this change brings about also a relatively reduced profile of risk from an investor standpoint. The typical investment cycle is reduced. It's a three years maximum. That means you're not out with your investment for decades, or five years, or six years, or 70 years, before you start generating and making your money come back to you. Which beats the world much better. So, we have this in the power industry. Good news. But then we have also, because of these two forces that I described before, a second big change happening that electricity becomes more and more useful for different applications where so far electricity has not been considered useful. You will remember that when you are taught when you are a kid, it's not even that you have to heat with electricity. It's bad because I want to show you that it's a mix at the end. Two, if you use fuels to generate electricity. Not two, if you don't, if you use something else. And therefore, now, just for that reason, and also because there are ways of heating that are much more efficient than we have when we were studying how to boil water to make tea. So there's a lot more things that happen now on technology that enable to use less electricity which generated with zero-mage cost forces like cream and soda. So, again, electricity is making ways in our society which we are not capable of. I'm not going to talk about electric cars. I'm not going to talk about these things because it will take a long time. But if you all know that this is coming, it's happening, and we all understand that the economy is going to bring electricity in different sectors more and more specifically. So that's good too because if we have a way to reduce emissions and eliminate them going forward using electricity, then we also eliminate additional emissions that today are not associated with electricity but are associated with transport, heating, and other parts of our economic activity. So all these things bring about a fantastic opportunity to reduce and eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. And I am very careful not to use the word decarbonise because I think semantics are important. Decarbonise is a limiting word because it only fixes our mind to that carbon thing. But there is a lot more than carbon in greenhouse gas emissions. And by the way, CO2 is a unit of measure and the others are limiters. So we're talking about methane like big times and other stuff. So why do we use the word decarbonise? Just because it's a simple way of pulling this, but be mindful, it is a limiting concept. We should use greenhouse gas in elimination not decarbonisation. That's it. I think we have because of the dynamics I have just explained this huge opportunity. But then we have also a second observation that we have started to understand during the past crisis. What has surfaced is a progressive but unstoppable deletion between GDP rules and energy consumption is mostly always in the area. This was it has been for ever since the beginning of times and historically when you have GDP growth you have energy consumption increase. To the point that energy consumption increase was used as a precursor for GDP signaling GDP future growth. That was as strong as it was as this link was. In most of the using countries happening in the last five years. And these have been somehow puzzling at the beginning. They are now being rationalised as some things finally we get it and it has to do with the pervasive presence of more efficient ways of doing the same things. Our refrigerators cool the same way, but more efficient and so forth and so forth. That is one escalation and part of the escalation. The other one is that the structural change in our economies in the OECD world has happened and we have less energy intensive activity whether we like or not. Now is this going to happen everywhere? If you look at emerging economies the signal is not that strong. So we still see GDP growth associated with energy in emerging economies. And we see a transition point in those economies that cross the $10,000 per capita GDP point. So as soon as a country crosses that line it goes into the capital moment. And if it goes to the capital, it is still growing energy demand as in the big world. We think this threshold will progressively move to the left. There is no reason that emerging economies should be by some kind of strange motive or explanation inherently efficient. They will be efficient as our economies sooner or later. And by the last period of the energy transition after 2017 which I encourage you to read the project at the capital of the world from this GDP energy that means that because of technology we will use less energy and fewer people's energy less. So this is something that will happen according to their study across the GDP from 30 to 30. So it's not that far away. Why am I saying this? It's because so the college can this thing happen earlier or later or even not happen it depends on the policies and the regulatory frameworks that we will impose on our societies. If we assume that for some strange reason we will start or continue in some places to subsidize or seduce which is a practice that is very very widespread. There is a lot of that if we assume that this will continue for even the first then this trend will slow. It will slow down and we will look at more emissions even if there will be economically not rational that subsidies sometimes are like this, not rational. So if you do that I think you will look at this horizon coming from far out and therefore more emissions being less in the environment for longer. If we don't play with that if we stop interfering with this information and possibly we just let the toxins of the market work then we will look at a threshold of crossing this long entity very quickly. And then if we do the other way around if we push for regulatory frameworks that these incentives will cause this would probably accelerate. That's the only thing we can do at this moment provided that I personally believe we cannot and no one can really think that we can influence the evolution of technology. I think that this is beyond our control already it is a force that keeps evolving itself in an organic manner and there is little we can go by. Okay? Think of this going in the right direction in this theme and other themes perhaps not if you look at genetics you start to worry whether the world is going to be a world or something else in the next decades but if you look at our sector, the energy sector and the electricity it's great to start with. We are in a fantastic moment. We can normally slow down this evolution if we are really stupid or we can try to accelerate and that's in our hands and that's why I think we should stop using the small world the urbanization which is getting in between our gases all together and then just look at time that's really an important between both of ourselves. I think I've finished this in minutes right now and I'm happy to see Professor Sax with us. So thank you very much for your attention and hope you have an interesting day going forward.