 And, well, Song Nim and I, we composed this panel very carefully. So we had the academic view, the government view, the business view. And now we have the finance view with Nicolas Piaot and also the energy and climate view. Because Nicolas has been a long time working for ANGIE in France. Huge energy company, so he is an energy man basically. But then he started to set up his own company that is Tilt Capital. And Tilt Capital is an asset management group which supports start-ups, well start-ups in different phases concerning the energy transition. And, well, that is an extremely important and interesting endeavor. And Nicolas, we are happy to have you here and the floor is yours. Thanks a lot, Friebert, and very happy to be there. It's really an honor. And it's also quite intimidating because, frankly, after Philippe, Jonathan and Christophe, as you were saying, I'm not at all an expert of this field. I'm more on the receiving side of all of what you've described as an energy guy. And actually I'm going to try to bring on board what I've just heard during the panel. I think for us what it means when you look at it from the energy perspective, and that's maybe the first message, is I would strongly oppose any views that say that with the energy transition, the energy tri-lama is dead. You may have heard this, you may have heard that, you know, energy tri-lama is basically you need to choose between, you need to compose between three pillars, affordability, sustainability, and security of supply. And I think what 2023 has brought is actually that security of supply has become the main focus of that energy tri-lama. I think it bears two challenges. The first one is we should not forget about the other two, affordability and sustainability, and we'll come back to that. I think the second implication is that it brings back energy in the field of geopolitics and industry. Think of the course of the last decade. Energy has been too much seen as a financial opportunity for a very simple reason. It was the early stages of renewable development. It was about securing contracts, EPCs, financing, etc. And there were no questions asked also because it was very limited in scope compared to other forms of energy. I think today this is changing radically and we need to acknowledge that. So I think that would be the first message is what we are seeing as energy investors is that for all the messages that have been passed by the panel is security of supply is coming back as a major topic in any energy investment. And what it means for us, for example, is today we may be embarking and you open, Friedberg saying, you know, Russian gas may have been a problem here or there, but eventually that's not the real issue. The real issue is much more the dependency on China on a number of topics and in general with those key materials. Today when you look at companies in which we invest, this is not a topic. This is not a topic because it is not seen today. If you want to obtain any, if you want to obtain an inverter, if you want to obtain nitrogen gallium based chip or silicon carbide based chip, you have no issues. The question is how long will that be? And so, of course, all what you've mentioned around, you know, enhancing the extraction, enhancing the recycling, etc., so having additional resources is something that as energy investors we welcome, but I think we should be much more vocal about the need for that. I absolutely agree there will be no energy transition without additional mining, without additional extraction. But then it also bears the question, of course, of sustainability. And here, let me maybe come back to one element coming from that world. The thing that I would have one message on this is let's try to not make the same mistakes as we have done over the last decades on oil and gas. We cannot afford to have another Ogoni disaster or Makondo disaster with the mining industry for those critical raw materials. I think if we have that, and Jonathan, you said it very clearly, there is probably some image issue too. But beyond the image, I think there is the fact that if we have something of the magnitude of what happened in Nigeria with the Ogoni community or with Makondo with BP, I think it will cast a very strong shadow on the reality of the sustainability of that energy transition. And for this, and please bear with me, I'm not at all an expert on that, I do think we need to engage into more cooperation on this front. Actually, I even think that this whole critical material issue could be a way to foster a greater cooperation between consuming countries and producing countries or extracting countries. Because let's be clear also, today when we are saying we need to mine more, we need to refine more, who are the distant theories of those materials? It's rather the developed and rich, I would say even rich population of the more developed countries. How does that affect locally the people who are on the land where you have this extraction and this processing? And I think here we need to engage into more cooperation. I think it should translate into profit sharing. I think we should maybe learn some lessons from some oil countries that have been fairly good at this. I always used to say to people, why don't we drill for oil and gas in Switzerland where there are no taxes, virtually no taxes? And why do we drill in Norway where there are 78% taxes? Well, because there's oil and gas in Norway. And I don't think the Norwegian government or the Norwegian people would tell you that it has affected us in a bad way that there was 78% taxes on each barrel that was taken out of the ground. I think we should have that same kind of reflection on the critical raw material. We need to use that to transfer scales, money, maybe try to create value chains locally so that we actually build not only some resilience, of course we need to do it in Europe, but we also need to build those trusted value chains on the critical raw materials outside of Europe or India or wherever so that we can multiply those trusted value chains. And I remember last year Caldo Malmubarak said that the UAE were focusing on those trusted value chain. I think this is one example, one area where we should be targeting this type of cooperation. And of course there's a lot of, we can say a lot about ESG etc. but I absolutely believe that if we were not sensitive to environmental and social issues in mining, we will have a backlash on the energy transition because people will say it is actually not a clean transition, an adjust transition. I think this is critical. And finally the last one I would like to make is more as an energy guy and I'll be more raising questions actually than providing answers. There was a very interesting report from the IEA following the increase in commodity prices in 21-22 and the freight prices. Actually when you look at this trend, commodity prices plus freight prices led to a 25% increase in capex for renewable energy, offshore wind, onshore wind, even solar power etc. One reason for that, we talked about electric vehicles. If you take an offshore wind turbine, you have 15 ton per megawatt of critical materials in offshore wind turbine. You have one ton per megawatt for a gas turbine. If you consider that a typical offshore wind turbine today is 15 megawatt, that's 225 tons of critical material. That is actually 40% of that is copper. If you have a doubling of the price of copper for an offshore wind turbine, it's just one million, one million more costs for each offshore wind turbine. So I think one thing we need to be aware of is that we have traded a short-term, variable cost-based energy economy, basically electricity prices and energy prices were determined by the marginal cost of gas or what have you called to a certain extent, to an economy that's going to be increasingly linked to fixed cost price. And that has dramatic changes to the energy market, not saying it is bad or good. I'm just saying it will have implications. If you invest in a time where the cycle is very high on commodity, we will be looking for 25 or 30 years higher cost, and hence we will have impact on competitiveness. And so I'm aware that I'm not bringing any solutions there. I'm just saying that we need to be very cautious of all those implications. And I think one thing it means is, as an investor, I would say we need to find ways to soften the boom and bust cycles that will have repercussions on the capex. I think innovation is critical, and Cobalt is a good example. We first had NMC batteries, which were 532, so 50% nickel, 30% manganese, and 20% cobalt. Now we're running rather on 900, so it's actually 90 nickel, 0.5 manganese, 0.5 cobalt. So indeed, innovation will help us build some resilience at the same times if we innovate and we deprive some of the countries that see that as a way to create sustainable wealth for them. This will also cause a problem. So that means that again this calls for heightened cooperation to avoid that some countries that may want to today invest massively in some of those minerals. If there is a massive innovation in 10 years, don't find themselves with stranded assets and a link to unjust transition. Well, thank you.