 Thank you very much for allowing me to be here today. Pleasure to be amongst such a distinguished audience. My name's Alistair Bishop and I'm an energy portfolio manager at BlackRock. I really want to spend the next ten minutes discussing how BlackRock thinks about investing in energy from the perspective of being a fiduciary to our clients and how my team think about energy investing against the backdrop of the energy transition. But before I start, just a sobering point. We've heard a lot about the last two days about how little time we have to combat the worst effects of climate change and how central a role energy will have in allowing that to happen. To do that, though, will require substantial increase in the amount of investment in the space. The reality, though, is the amount of capital going into the energy space is declining rather than increasing as a result of poor investment returns over recent years. That's a huge problem. The energy sector has underperformed broader equity markets by over 90 percentage points since the start of the decade. So since 2010, energy's share of global equity markets has more than halved. And that reflects, in my view, a combination of poor capital allocation decisions and a focus on near-term growth over long-term value generation. I think the specter of peak oil demand has undoubtedly also played a role. The good news is we are seeing signs of change. We're seeing greater capital discipline being shown by the industry. We're seeing management incentive structures being reworked to better align with long-dated shareholder goals. The question, though, is whether this is enough to change the fortunes of the sector when faced with the energy transition. Now, the short termism that we've seen impacting the energy space is something that is a trend we've seen across equity markets. And it's one in which our CEO, Larry Fink, has publicly advocated against. Our active managers have the ability to sell the shares of companies in which they don't believe in the long-term strategic direction. But our passive funds that track an index have no such choice unless the company is removed from the underlying index. And therefore, we see our responsibility to engage and vote as more important than ever. And we're adding substantial resource to our investment stewardship team to help foster deeper and more conversations with the companies in which we invest. As a fiduciary, our role is to try and help those companies deliver the sustainable long-term growth that our clients need to meet their goals. Now, a key priority for our engagement efforts and one that's clearly very topical and relevant for the energy industry is climate change. Now, we're not making social choices with our clients' money. We see these as business issues. But regardless of your views on climate change and the climate science and being a European that doesn't seem like too much of a debate, but I know that's not always the case, we think that understanding those risks is important because climate policy, climate risk, is likely to have a material impact on the value of companies over the long term. Therefore, we think it's incredibly important that we understand how boards, how management teams are thinking and addressing the impacts from climate change and the business risks around that transition to a low-carbon economy. For those industries such as energy that are most directly impacted by climate change, we expect that the boards should have clear oversight of management making sure they understand the steps that management are taking to manage and mitigate that risk. Now, our process of engagement really does focus on engagement before voting. So, the companies in which we invest should not be surprised by how we vote. That said, while we try and have patience with our companies when it comes to engaging on topics such as climate change, that patience isn't infinite. And we have voted in favour of shareholder proposals and against management where we felt that insufficient progress was being made. For those interested in learning more about our engagement policies, our voting guidelines and rationale, more information is available on our website. Now, I want to turn a little bit to what my day-to-day job is, which is energy investing. And clearly understanding the trends around the energy transition are important for companies, but they're absolutely critical for an active investor in the energy space such as myself. The BlackRock Natural Resources team, of which I'm part, invests across the breadth of the energy complex. So, as well as traditional oil and gas companies, we invest in companies that stand to benefit from the transition to a lower-carbon economy in areas such as renewable energy, energy efficiency and clean transportation. I believe that this allows us to be able to consider and think about the energy transition holistically without the risk of inherent biases. Now, if traditional forecasters to be believed, it's very much business as usual with the energy transition seen as an evolution rather than a revolution. And you can see this on the left-hand side here. This is BP's forecasts. BP predicts that the demand for fossil fuels will continue to grow over their forecast period, which extends to 2040, relatively limited loss of share to renewable energy. Likewise, on the right-hand chart for the transportation sector, no oil demand cliff is foreseen. With electric vehicles seen remaining a relatively niche technology and the number of internal combustion engine vehicles globally continuing to rise again over the forecast period. Now, we on the natural resources team myself can strongly disagree with this view. We believe that the traditional forecasters are underestimating the pace of the energy transition. And frankly, they've been doing so for many years. If you went back a decade, the International Energy Agency forecasted it would take until 2030 for the world to install 200 gigawatts of solar. And in reality, we surpassed that milestone in 2015. Now, you could say solar was a nascent technology back then. A lot's changed, and that's true. But one thing that hasn't is we continue to see the pace of the energy transition underestimated. Make sure I get all those lines. There we are. So on the right-hand side, we show OPEX forecasts for electric vehicle adoption and very similar to BP, they predict relatively modest, straight-line adoption curve. And again, like BP, we think they're underestimating the pace of that transition. Now, OPEX recently upgraded their forecast, which you can see there. We think that won't be the last time. The lesson from history, as you sort of see on the other charts, is that disruption does not happen in such a linear fashion. Once a technological or an economic tipping point is reached, adoption curves tend to be exponential, at least until high levels of penetration are achieved. Take the smartphone as an example. It wasn't that Arun bought a smartphone from Apple in 2007, and then a year later Sally bought one, and then a year after that, the next person, and so on and so forth. What actually happened is that we all very quickly realised that that was a superior technology, and within five years, half of us owned a smartphone. Now, I appreciate that buying a phone is not quite the same as purchasing a new car or certainly investing in a new power generation facility, but I do believe that the principle is the same. If a technology is superior or more cost-efficient than the incumbent solution, why wouldn't you see a more rapid pace of transition? Now, that's certainly what's been happening in the power generation sector over recent years, where you've seen a significant decline in renewable energy costs, and that's notably accelerated the pace of adoption. As we show on the left-hand side here, the cost of a wind turbine has fallen by around a third since the start of this decade. In the bottom left, or sorry, the top left, the price of a solar panel is down by over 80% this decade, and as those technologies have become more competitive, so the economics have improved, so their market share has risen. In fact, wind and solar now represent over half of all the power generation capacity being added globally every single year, and as their costs continue to fall, so that market share is likely to rise further. Now, electric vehicles, as we show on the right-hand side, are not yet at such a tipping point, so the powertrain of an electric vehicle, effectively the engine of an electric vehicle, is around twice the cost of an internal combustion engine, but here, too, costs are falling rapidly, and the cost of a battery, as we show, has declined by around 80% since the start of the decade. So, at that trajectory, electric vehicles will be broadly cost-competitive with an internal combustion engine by the middle of next decade, and at that point, consumers will have an economic alternative to a gasoline vehicle that has zero emissions at the point of use, lower running costs, and improved performance, and that, to me, doesn't sound like a niche technology. Now, not all disruptors will ultimately win. Frankly, some disruptors will end up themselves being disrupted, but that disconnect between how traditional forecasters perceive the energy transition and how we believe it will take shape is an attractive backdrop for those of us investing in the potential beneficiaries of the energy transition. But where does that leave the traditional oil and gas industry? Well, while we're clearly more bullish than many about the pace of the energy transition, that doesn't make us negative on oil and gas investing, though it is fair to say it makes us more selective. We believe that natural gas has a meaningful role to play as a transition fuel, and while we expect electric vehicles to continue to upside surprise, it will still take time for the EV to penetrate the global car fleet. As shown on the left-hand chart, it should also be remembered that only about 20% of oil demand comes from cars, and that's really what we're talking about in terms of near-term electrification. Now, those other forms of demand may ultimately face disruption, but the technology barriers there are higher, and therefore it will likely take longer for that demand to start to be impaired. Ultimately, we believe that oil demand is likely to peak in the early 2030s, so well ahead of many traditional forecasts. It needs to be remembered, though, that oil is a declining asset, a depleting asset, so without investment in new capacity, existing production will decline, and this is what's shown on the right-hand side, the blue and the orange together. Therefore, even if you look at, there's a two-degree scenario there, so aligned with the goals to try and limit climate change to two degrees, there's still clearly a substantial gap, so you'll still need to see substantial investment in new oil capacity over the coming years to balance the market. Now, that doesn't mean that all oil in the ground will be required, nor that every oil and gas company will prosper, but for those at the low end of the cost curve, with strategies that are aligned with value creation, we see significant opportunities to invest. For the overall oil and gas industry, the next five years actually has the potential to be better than the prior five, and frankly, I hope so, because it's been a fairly dismal five years for the sector. And if companies continue to pivot towards strategies that are better aligned with long-term shareholder goals, then we could be on the start of a multi-year period of above-cost of capital returns. And the slightly strange thing is that the chance of that scenario happening is gone up because of the energy transition. We are seeing the threat of demand destruction impact long-dated oil investment decisions. And as a result, perversely, electric vehicles or the threat of electric vehicles actually has the potential to destroy supply quicker than it destroys demand, at least for a period of time. The bottom line is that we expect the energy transition to be more rapid than many appreciate, but that it's far from game over for the traditional oil and gas industry. We expect winners and losers from amongst both the incumbents and the new entrants, and those companies that have a clear strategy aligned with sustainable long-term investment goals are more likely to be amongst the winners. Now disruption creates challenges, but it also creates substantial opportunities, and we're therefore optimistic that the outlook for all energy investing is positive. Frankly, it needs to be to attract the capital back into the space that's going to be required to drive the energy transition. So as the SEC says, past performance is not indicative of future returns. Thank you.