 Maybe we have a couple of questions, a couple of minutes for questions if there are in the rooms before we break for lunch. Is there a microphone? Well, Friedberg Flüger from Berlin. I just want to say this was a fascinating debate. I learned a lot and my question is to Mariam. We have the COP in front of us before us. So aren't these topics important enough to be placed in the very height of the COP agenda? I mean, we heard yesterday Mr Fabius talking all the time about renewables, which of course we all know is very important. But the potential of getting CO2 out of the atmosphere or store it underground is so tremendous that we perhaps should put a stronger emphasis on CCS and carbon capture use in the COP process. And that would be fantastic if your country could pave the way for that. Of course, thank you so much and as per what I'm aware of within the COP 2018, I do know that carbon is a very prominent topic. I think it's going to have the major focus of the conversations which would be driven. Given also the space of business that I'm in, I'm aware that a lot of carbon capture technologies, trades of carbon credits and exchanges are going to be coming soon. So I commend the COP 2018 ahead of time, but I'm sure we'll all be happy and satisfied with the results once COP is over in Dubai. So inshallah, more positive news soon. Sorry, additional question. Matt made this suggestion of financing start-ups in the direct air capture field, for instance. Isn't that also something where you should engage? We heard Mrs Al-Mahiri yesterday saying that you want to put an emphasis on financing tools. So I think this is a wonderful idea of Matt and if that could be part of the agenda of COP, it would be a tremendous success. Thank you. Yeah, so those are all very exciting solutions. The question is how do you scale them and what percentage of the overall problem do you think you could solve? Each of you in your different areas, of course. I can start. So from a complex point of view, we are commercial, so we are operating two projects in Iceland. The third one is about to start next year. The matter for the technology, we are replicating exactly how we're doing things. So it's a matter of injection wells. So it's a matter of finding the right subsurface, the right geology. The cost for us is already there, the cost benefit. It's about policy. It's about regulations in each country, in each state. They are different. I mentioned before, I cannot emphasise timing is something we don't have, we don't have time. So coming here and educating people about the possibilities, that's the most important. But policy is the biggest obstacle, absolutely. Matt, on your view? I would second that notion, but I would also add that really I think project finance is at the core of the scalability issue. It provides two functions. First is the project development itself. So figuring out how we can make these projects bankable and scalable, independent of the costs of the removal is, or the product is at this point in time, is on the critical path. Because as we scale the technology, even in the earliest stages and highest cost, highest risk of the technology, we are still able to beat the incumbent industrial gas or fuel companies on price parity by pulling CO2 out of the air and making the exact same product. That's without counting carbon credits and things like this. So if we can start banking these projects and scaling it, that will then enable us to start scaling the manufacturability of the facilities and getting manufacturing up is what we're focusing on right now. So our vision is that these machines should be built like cars are built today. And how do we get from here to there? Once we achieve the automobile scale of manufacturing, our analysis is you ask a question about what size of the problem could itself. If we made enough direct air capture machines that are roughly equivalent to the total number of automobiles manufactured per year today, that would solve 100% of the problem. Now of course direct air capture is not going to be 100% of the problem, and there's a question of the solution. And there's a question of energy cost and capital cost and all these things. But if we look at it as an infrastructural investment, we have to keep in mind that these negative carbon technologies are additive over the lifetime of the project. It's very different than renewables where you build a winter solar plant and it doesn't produce carbon. Every year over the 20, 30 year lifetime of these assets, these are removing carbon dioxide. And so I think we have to take a different approach and a different policy approach to thinking about how we can backstop these financings, how we can provide technology performance guarantees, and how we can provide credit worthy offtake agreements that are bankable. Wonderful. Any other questions? Thank you very much. I'm Randy Cotty. I'm the head of the regional economic service in the south of France. So I'm also going to advertise for my country. We're investing a lot in carbon capturing, so reach out if you want to invest in France. My question is, Christian, you mentioned $25 per ton. Matru, you mentioned something like $500, $600. Can you give us a ballpark estimate of where the industry is right now in terms of cost per ton captured and how far down the line can we go on that cost optimization that you mentioned as well? Thank you very much. I will start from. So we're looking at, I mean, we support one another. So Mat is starting by catching, I'm taking and then getting rid of it. So together we jointly do this. So from the storage part, this is a public paper we have published. So there's no secrets there. And transparency is of course very important here. So we do have our proprietary capturing technology to capture using water scrubber. That cost is approximately $20 per ton, but that's using type taking directly from geothermal steam. We transport it and then we inject it into the ground. So the rest of the cost is less than $5. But this is a scenario in Iceland. So we are working on this large project we call the codeterminal, which is three million tons will be mineralized every year. Transported from mainland Europe to Iceland in a liquid form. The cost there will probably be, I would say around minimum 25 euros per ton. That is just for the storage part. But this is a first of a kind. So by scaling up and by, you know, having it closer to the source, the cost will be lower. Just like it is in Iceland. The costs associated with director capture, kind of where we can get to. We're well on the target of getting below $100 a ton of CO2 capture from the air. But pulling CO2 out of the air, it's like, pardon my part of the way I'm speaking, but so at who cares. That's not useful. The CO2 has to be a liquid or a high grade liquid or a supercritical fluid. So we have to integrate systems in order to get the CO2 to a saleable form or to an injectable form. And that requires putting more systems together and that requires additional energy costs and additional capital costs. So when you break down what the overall costs of atmospheric CO2 removal via direct air capture is, today there are some companies that have published results of where there are at. And it typically ranges in the $600 to $800 per ton range. But this cost is heavily dependent upon the cost of energy. So as we scale up manufacturing and cost down the technology, we see no way what a capital cost contribution of the technology over a 10 or 20 year amortized project life cycle can't be in the $20 to $30 to $40 per ton range. And then if you take the energy cost associated with moving, we have to move 3,000 tons of air for every one ton of CO2 that can recapture. So if you take the energy cost required to do that and to convert the CO2 into a saleable product, we can estimate that that's about 1,000 kilowatts per ton of CO2. So at 10 cents a kilowatt hour, that's $100. So we are well within the range, even at market priced power, that's retail priced power, to be in the $100 a ton range over time. But that assumes that we take good progression along the learning curve. So the question becomes, how do we iterate on that as rapidly as possible? But I see no technological reason why we can't achieve $100 a ton direct air capture within the next 5 or 10 years. We take that as a promise and I believe with this, yes Matt, it's on stage. So I think we'll close the panel because it's time for lunch. We thank you for your attention and I thank all the panelists and Sam, thank you for having made the time very early, London time to be with us in Visio. And thanks again and have a nice lunch.