 We have strong established players, new players and I think that gives me more optimism than on the energy front for the time being, but you have asked for the floor and want to comment. I just wanted to comment because we focalize a bit on strategic raw materials for energy transition and so on. And what he said about phosphate is pretty important. It's clear that among all necessary materials for the future of humankind, there is one which can't be substituted. All metals at one point or another, you can substitute one by another. I can substitute a bit cobalt by nickel and so on. Well, some time. If there is one product which you can't substitute, which you need for crops, for the development of crops, it's phosphates. And phosphates, that's very, very important. For the moment, I didn't consider it as such a dangerously strategic material because we have a chance. A good part of phosphate reserves and the first and the biggest producer of phosphate is a fairly friendly country. It's Morocco. So for the moment, we don't have too much problem. But as far as fertilizers are concerned, if I have not a concern with phosphate, I have one with ammonia, so natural gas. And the last one is potash. And our potash in Europe comes from two very nice countries which are Russia and Belarus. So don't forget fertilizers, which is not a high technology industry, but which is just necessary to allow us and to allow 10 billion people to eat by the end of the century. But Philippe, as far as I understood, Ingvill has just mentioned that you have found big deposits, especially of phosphate in Norway. Could you tell us how much is that? And what is very interesting, I think, when could they go online? I mean, when could you go online with a production? You have a timetable from finding to the production. When can the EU and others benefit from what you're doing there? Thank you so much for the question. And that's why we're so happy for the collaboration and the work that Peter and his people is doing because they are pushing not only EU, but also the Norwegian government to have the licenses and the patents and everything to come together to do this. As soon as possible. For our concern, it's only the governmental issues and the authorities that are prolonging the face. But it has to be taken in the steps that's needed to do it in a sustainable way. But when it comes to sustainable issues, because I really support the arguments that we don't want mining industry in Europe. But what's very good in the findings we have, which is approximately 70 billion tons of phosphate in Vanadium, quite huge resources. It's open mind is that we have a highly educated people. It's down south in Norway, so we don't have the same issues. It's also found in a region where the oil and gas industry is highly developed. It's just outside of Stavanger, which is the oil and gas capital, if you can say that in Norway. So the stakeholder engagement and contribution to this, this is very good. We have very good, excellent infrastructure around the findings with the deep sea harbours. Abundancy, as you also know, of renewable energies in Norway. And because of the future decrease, not now, I have to say that. So we don't make another issue of Norway not being a provider of gas to Europe. But we know that the decrease in the oil and gas industry will happen. So the Norwegian politicians from the left to the right is all very supportive to this project, because we need a job creation and we need new industry development. And so the mining industry could be a part of that. So the stakeholder, the politicians, both national and regional are very supportive to this. And that's also thanks to Peter and his people. Thank you. Jonathan, you asked for the floor. May I nevertheless take up that question or that remark from Ingvill? In Norway, obviously there is a consciousness and a willingness of the population that mining in Europe is again necessary. And they support it obviously there and the areas there are not very much populated. How is it in other countries in the world? What do you see when it comes to mining in Europe? Is there a change of attitude or is there still a lot of resistance against new projects? But also your point, please. You have two points, basically. I'm happy to answer with regards to the acceptance of mining as an industry in the developed markets. But I would also like to add a few points with regards to the timing of project development. So with regards of acceptance in the industry and with the people, so the whole concept of ESG is not news to our industry. Mining has been doing what is now subsidized under this term that was developed some five to ten years now in the making. For decades, we had interactions with the host communities forever. We always had an understanding of the responsibility towards the people and the communities and the environment. We called it social license to operate. So the engagement that needs to happen before building a mine is always a core of mining companies itself. And that needs to happen. It's a very actively managed process that needs to be institutionalized with the various companies itself. So the engagement process is something very important. And I personally also may not want to have a mine in the backyard of my house. But I think there's a lot of education that needs to happen. I think the understanding that the transition to the low carbon economy will not happen without mines is something that is not fully understood, in my point of view. So it's educational piece. And then when it comes to building a mine, the discussion with authorities and the licenses and their host countries is important. But it's equally important to interact and start to interact very early on in the process before you set the first drill rig with the communities surrounding. Now coming back a bit to the timing and your question how quickly it will be producing. Depending on the commodity, building a mine takes 10 to 15 years. And that is not all bureaucracy and licensing. It's just a minor piece of it. It's just very diligent work that needs to go into building an economic mine. It's a lot of studies, a lot of work, a lot of people involved in bringing that online. And it's a sometimes billion dollars investments. We're building an iron ore project in Brazil at the moment. This is close to five billion dollars investment. And you're not doing this for producing five years or three years. You're doing this with a horizon of 30 years' life of mine. So if you combine that, when we sit here together today, we need to take an investment decision for the next 50 years. So mine in its core is a very long-term business. And we're very happy to subscribe to any standards at the time of investment decision. But we also urge policymakers to, after that time, not change the rules of the game. Thank you. Yeah, just to complete what you said. The biggest greenfield investment in copper is the mine of Oyutolgoe in Mongolia. I remember it was decided by the end of last century. It took them 15 years to develop the first phase, and the second phase is not yet completed. So it's more or less 25 years later. And the second point I wanted to stress, of course, France is not exactly the center of the world, but there won't be any mining in France. Unfortunately, we had a project, by the way. It's not a strategic metal. It was gold in Guyana. France has a small chunk of Latin America in Guyana. There was a project which was supposed to be a sustainable mine with all the precautions being taken in a country where we have a very tough administration on that. It was the Montaigne d'Or project in Guyana. And unfortunately, it was completely, it couldn't proceed because of the opposition, mainly of green NGOs, especially WWWF, which was shared in France by somebody who is by now the chairman of the Environment Commission at the European Parliament. So that shows that the NIMBY, not in my backyard idea, you have to take it at the size of a country and even on a continent. I'm very, frankly, doubtful about the capacity in Europe to develop a new mining project, and I'm happy to know that no way could be an exception. Well, Peter, we want to give that question to you. Can the EU do something? Will it do something to speed up processes that we don't have to wait 20 years, given the present situation, and can it do something for raising the consciousness that, for instance, for this green deal, we need mining, more mining, also in Europe. Please. Yes, so what we cannot do is speed up the technical side of getting projects up and running, and as the two previous speakers have said, you actually have to work out the process models, you have to work out the geology, and it takes time to build facilities and bring them online. But where we do see huge scope for improvement is speeding up the permitting processes. At the moment, in the European Union, and I think probably also in Norway, these are too slow, too unpredictable, things get stuck, and that's not the way to do it if you've got projects of strategic importance. So we're looking at best practices around the world and also at how we can improve things here, and we're talking very much to our environment colleagues and those responsible for renewable energies, because, I don't know if you've noticed, in the last few weeks, we've proposed an emergency measure to push through the permitting of wind and solar projects because we absolutely need the ramp up of wind and solar in order to achieve our decoupling from Russian fossil fuels faster than originally planned. So we're going to have to look very much at what we can do on speeding up the permitting for mines or extraction sites or new industrial facilities. And it means things like looking at creating a single one-stop approach. It looks at parallel running of different permitting processes, having strategic impact assessment, strategic environmental assessments before you start on the specific projects. It means nominating a coordinator who just makes sure that things don't get stuck and move forward expeditiously. And it also means making sure that you take a good close look at the judicial system so that there are no frivolous appeals which then get stuck in the court system for one, two or three years. There has to be a much more conscious approach to dealing with getting strategic projects delivered without weakening environmental and social performance. Well, we have three minutes left. That gives every one of you 45 seconds. You have Mr. Rawmaterials from the EU here. One message. What would you like to do the EU to support you? What exactly do you need? I start with Ingvelde Politician. 45 seconds. I'm not yet a politician. I stop being that when I'm undermining. I think the main topic here is to coordinate the process to have it much faster done. We have done it identification phase. We're into the selection phase. So what we need is the coordination and of course a united world to be producers and the monitors for sustainable processes in the mining industry. Thank you. Jonathan. We are founding members of an association called the Global Battery Alliance together with the World Economic Forum that is already 130 members from the public and the private space. And we believe that a cooperation between the various entities taking responsibility in our own hands, avoiding building parallel value chains, avoiding resource nationalism, but coming together in a joint effort in such a forum is the dominant strategy and we invite everyone to join our efforts. Thank you. Philipp. Well, let's be positive. What is important is to be sustainable. With today's high prices, we have the means to be sustainable and perhaps to see it because one of the problems I listened to what Peter said, we, more or less, we continue in Europe to export our environmental problems and to see that others will produce and I don't know in what condition it will be in DRC and so on. So with today's prices, we might be able to develop new sustainable mines and I would say perhaps in Europe metallurgy because we focused on mine, we remember that the real gouda d'étanglement we say in French, so my English doesn't come, the real problem is very often on the metallurgical side. We didn't speak of titanium, but the problem is not the minerals, it's the making of titanium sponge, for example. Thank you so much. I think this was a great discussion. Thank you to everyone. I would like to conclude with a quotation of Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill in 1914 when he was the first lord of the British Admiralty said we have to change our whole fleet from coal to oil as we want to compete with the German navy and then the Labour Party in Parliament said well that is insane because then you make yourself dependent on countries like Persia or today Azerbaijan and that we cannot accept and then Churchill went again to the microphone in the houses of Commons and he said well trust me energy security is about diversity, diversity and diversity alone and I think we can exactly say the same thing for critical raw materials. We have to look for diversity and with the help of the EU and Peter we will be able to achieve it hopefully. So thank you very much ladies and gentlemen thank you for your attendance all the best and good luck to you with your projects.