Thank you for that. We're going to have quite a good hour or so on a crucial issue for the region, a crucial issue for Qatar, which floats on an enormous sea of natural gas. I'm not sure what the right metaphor is. Maybe it. But the world's changing. Climate change is in the air. There's political uncertainty in the region. So what we have before us is the question of what impact the regional landscape, the outer landscape, has on the future of hydrocarbons. And to discuss this with us, we're very lucky to have Saad Shalida Al-Khabi, who's president and CEO of Qatar Petroleum, which means he's probably among the most important people in this state. And he's been kind enough to come. And Mr. Patrick Pouyanet, who's head of Total, and Total has had, I think, 80 years of experience in Qatar and is a very important player here. So I'm just going to ask a few questions and we'll make this conversational. Then I hope I will go to the audience for more questions and try to learn something. So the easiest thing, Mr. Al-Khabi, to simply ask you is, is the importance of hydrocarbons for the region still the same with lower prices for oil and hence for gas and beginnings of movement toward different kinds of energy? Is this an opportunity, a crisis, a challenge? What do you think? Good morning, everybody. Very, very big question, I think, that you asked. But obviously, the region has always been a very important region for the production of oil and gas, and it's going to be an important region for a very long time. So I don't think that there is a question about how important the region is for the oil and gas production in the world. Of course, there are challenges that are facing the industry today. But as most of you have seen, I mean, I've been in the industry for 30 years. I joined Qatar Petroleum in 1986 as a student. And since then, I have been through maybe four or maybe five of these downturns. So it's a cyclical market. There are ups and downs. We've just had a period of a very high oil price that is uncharacteristically high for such a long period that people got used to a very high price. And now $50 is seen as a very low price. And it is relatively low. But these cycles are what make the industry really have a rebalance, check themselves, and see where they are as far as cost-wise, and so on. So what I always tell our leadership team and employees is you have to control the controllables. So what we can control is our operating cost, how efficient we are, how safe we are, how reliable we are, as operators and continue doing our job. The market will fix itself with time. As far as the importance of the region, I think it's unquestionably one of the most important regions for oil and gas. There are turbulences around us, whether it's the political unrest in many areas around us in the region, whether it's to the north or to the south of us and what's going on. But you have seen that the oil market and the oil business has been very resilient, although in such crisis in the past it may have been effective differently. So I think we are a very resilient business as a whole. And we understand how to deal with turmoil and areas of unrest very well. And we always hope for these unrest to disappear, but we have to deal with them while they're there. Mr. Pliéne, would you like to respond, basically, to the same question? I think the answer to your question is quite clear. Yes, of course, hydrocarbons are very important in this region. And will remain important for decades, for many reasons. First, because you are 50% of the reserves of oil and gas, which are in this region, which produce only 30% of the world production.  And second, because these are the low-cost reserves, this is a region where producing oil is by far less expensive than in many other regions. So as I said, one day I was interviewed by one of your colleagues together with the CEO of Saudi Ramco, but stranded asset. I answered, you know, Saudi Ramco is facing no stranded asset because it will be the last drop of oil will come from Saudi Arabia because it's less expensive one. So yes, firstly, it's obvious. Second, because obviously the economies of the countries in the region are relying in majority upon oil and gas. Even if, like in Qatar, you had a diversification, and I think 60% of budget states or the news are from oil and gas, but you had diversification. In other countries, it's more important than that. And even if climate change is an issue, and this region is engaging, committing, in this global warming topic by developing over sources of energy, like solar in Abu Dhabi, in Ketosun, or inside the Arabian, we have to face the reality. You know, the world needs energy. The world needs reliable, affordable, and clean energy. And the three words are equally important. Reliable, you want to have lights when you push the button on. You don't want to affordable. It's very important. A liter of oil is less expensive as a liter of water today in the world. And it's because energy is the source of all the socioeconomic development of the world. So we need something affordable, and we should not avoid to go to an expensive energy world. And clean, of course, is a food factor. It's important. But it's not clean above the two other factors. It will be a mistake. Because when you look to the world, you have plenty of emerging countries who need more energy. We may need energy to develop their countries. So we should not forget that. Having said that, of course, and here in Qatar, it's easy to answer, by the way, because you introduced rightly that Qatar is a country of gas. And when you think to the future of energy, there is one hydrocarbon, or one fossil fuel, which is gas, which obviously, as it was said again last week by the International Energy Agency, has a brilliant future. There is a growth for gas. So for gas in for Qatar, in fact, these energy transition is a good news. They will even, Qatar will even be able to sell more gas tomorrow than today, if it's possible. It's certainly easier to be here than in the North Sea, I would think, at this point.  Is that part of rebalancing, or is simply this part of Qatar's global reach? You know, rebalancing, and I don't know if it's rebalancing. You know, we are, Qatar is born in the Middle East in 1924. We have a very long partnership. We celebrated this year, the 80 years of anniversary of Qatar in Qatar, 80 years. And we celebrated as well the fact that after the, the new model which has been put in place by Mr. Sad Al-Khabi on the Al-Shaheen field, we will join QP, and we have been selected to join QP in order to develop together this giant field. So it's a, again, it's back to, when I see the future of energy, and look again to the International Energy Agency, we need hydrocarbons in 25 years, in 2040, in the two-degree scenario, where they just announced again, you have more than 45% of oil and gas. It's not zero. Don't believe to only media, it's not true. You need oil and gas. Maybe you will need less than today, but you need oil and gas. You will need less oil and more gas, in fact. And so, but the oil that oil could face in the 30s or somewhere, a sort of, I would say, stable demand, much less roof and gas. And so what is the conclusion for a company like Qatar? It's that we must focus on oil assets which are cost competitive. And Al-Shayin, which is a technology challenging, but in, I would say, conventional waters in the Gulf, big, huge resources is offering this type of cost competitiveness. So it's an asset on which we want to continue to develop. Like we have done that, we have selected to continue to invest in Abu Dhabi on the Atco Concession, same logic. So that's why I was, we were very proud and happy, but on the 14th of July, 2017, because our Qatar friends are doing that very well. So the transfer will be on the 14th of July, 2017, will become partner of QP on Al-Shayin. And again, we've a new business model, right? So join company. It's not total operator. It's a national, it's a North oil company. It has been selected. North gas, North oil, you know? It's the same area of Qatar, which will be a joint company between QP and Total, bringing all expertise, and we are happy to have been selected to do that. It's always very important to pick your partner as well. Mr. Al-Khavi, if I could ask you. LNG, very important. You've created your own LNG structure here. And of course, it's easier. It takes quite a lot of energy to create LNG, but you have that. But some people wonder with the development of wind and solar and battery technology, though gas is obviously important and it's cleaner. Are you, do you think that perhaps the world may overleap gas a bit, despite its advantages with better nuclear, wind and solar? Is that something that you think about? I think as Patrick mentioned, regarding the growth of fossil fuels and the cleanest fossil fuel is gas, which is really the trademark of Qatar as really our, being the largest LNG producer with 77 million tons per annum of gas, we export gas to the entire world. When you look at the growth that is happening in all fossil fuels, there is a slight growth in oil, but there is a much bigger growth that's expected and it's almost an infinite growth that they see to what they can project at least to 2040 and 50 and what Patrick alluded to is gas is seen as a very high growth area because you have a lot of areas in the world that want clean energy and the cleanest energy you can have is gas. As far as the renewables is concerned, I'm not worried at all about renewables. Renewables is a very important part of the energy mix that we need. Humanity is growing at a very rapid rate and we need all kinds of fuel and we need all kinds of sources and renewable is a very important area. We in Qatar actually, Qatar Petroleum is investing with our power producer in Qatar to establish a company that's called Suraj that's gonna be really building quite substantial solar power in Qatar itself and we're looking at a much longer term to ensure that we have the capability in the solar area for a sustainable future for generations to come. So solar, when the renewables are a very important energy mix. I'll give you an example of how important gas is. I was representing Qatar Petroleum when I was leading all the upstream business before I was the CEO in the EU and we had a group of companies, Shell, Gas Palm, Centrica from the UK, EDF, many European producers and we brought a third party company to study for the EU with the commissioner Ottinger at the time that was heading the energy commission for the EU and with this third party, with his team involved, we proved to them that if EU would like to reach its 2050 target for CO2 emission, it is 500 billion euros cheaper for Europe to do it using gas and that's a substantial number. But what happens later as you see that as soon as the gas prices in the US really collapsed, the biggest burners of coal, which is the most polluting CO2 emission, was Europe. They bought US gas, so US coal to burn power plants in Europe and emit CO2. So economics was the driver, not the political slogans of we want to reduce CO2 in that case. I myself, I must say, was rather amused if one is allowed to be amused that Angela Merkel's energy vendor produced more coal imports into Germany than anything else, just as you said because there needed to be something sustainable that wasn't nuclear, that helped replace wind and solar when the wind wasn't blowing and the sun wasn't shining because in Germany, it doesn't often have much sun. Gas was available. Of course, I have a vested interest in selling gas, so that's, you know, but gas is available and it's a much cleaner fuel than using coal, so I was just making the point that Europe was importing, US was not a signatory to Kyoto and they were really getting their act together but it was a commercial decision. Okay, and then that was exporting coal to... That's right. Patrick. Yeah, but we must, in this evolution of the energy mix, be very clear. You know, the economic players, they select what is the most efficient from a competitive point of view. And it is true that when you look to the... If we want to be on a two-degree road map, it's supposed that the coal share of the energy mix should diminish a lot. It's not obvious at all that it will happen like that. Why? Because you have huge resources of coal in this planet and coal is the cheapest energy source. So if there is no constraint, if there is no carbon pricing, if there is nothing, the countries in particular, the emerging countries will use coal rather than gas. Why gas was less developed? Because gas is more complex to transport, it's more costly to liquefy. Pipe gas, it's a big infrastructure. So historically, if today's production of the world, production of gas is half the one of oil, it's because it's a more costly fossil fuel, than coal and than oil. In the history, mankind have developed source of energy.  We begin to do easy things, environment complex, then more expensive because we want affordable energy. And frankly, there is somewhere, yes, gas should have a brilliant future and we are heavily investing in that, but we need to develop the markets. We need to convince, and it's a little more expensive to use gas in Philippines, in Indonesia, or in China than coal. And when you look to a carbon climate challenge, you have two big countries in China and India. What do they have? They have coal. India has only coal today. And if we do not either transfer some money to them or put some constraints, CO2 pricing is one of the most obvious tool. But it's not the only one obvious tool to try to give a direction to the investors and to compensate the difference of cost between coal and gas. I will tell you, India will develop its economy on coal and the climate change to degree will be just lost somewhere. So this is important to keep that in mind. And by the way, you don't need a huge CO2 pricing. If you want to balance coal and gas in Europe, you need 20 Euro, $20 per ton today. And the UK have done that, by the way. UK is the only country where they have decided two years ago to put a taxation system of 20 pounds or 20 Euro per ton. And it works. All the coal-fired power plants are stopped and they are replaced by gas-fired power plants. So they demonstrated that it's just a little game because the economic players, like companies, are just rational, you know. If there is an incentive, we go for it, if there is an incentive. It's absolutely true. It's not terribly popular in Britain, but I don't think they'll change it because it seems to work for them.  I mean, has the slowdown in China mattered to both of you? I mean, or do you think it's just temporary? Because China obviously is trying to reduce its emissions. So gas is important. The Russians would love to ship more gas to China. I'm not sure how easy that is. With Sakhalin, I think it is. And of course, LNG is expensive. So could you talk a bit about how you see that market, Mr. Al-Qabi? Of course, China and India, due to their population, I mean, number one and number two worldwide population, are very important markets for us. We represent a very good portion of their LNG supply as Qatar. We supply LNG to both China and India. Due to the CO2 constraints and whether the countries themselves want to head in that direction, I think there is a willingness to have cleaner fuels that are running power plants and for their industry. I think there is a drive to do that. Lower oil prices, of course, attracts them more to do more of that and reduces the subsidies that they had to put in place, and especially India and also in China, to that fuel that's coming in. So I think there is definitely a growth opportunity there. We are working hard to supply additional volumes to both countries. But I think these are the biggest growing countries for all kinds of fuels, not only LNG but LPG and other. There's a very big population. If you look at India, for instance, I mean I don't have the exact number, but there is a few tens of millions of people that don't have power. And I remember a number, but I don't want to say it because I'm not sure of it. But it's quite a large number that actually do not have power in regions in India. So with the growing middle class and the growth, the economic growth that's quite healthy in India in comparison to other regions, I think that's going to grow further. So they will need a lot of fuel. But of course, China is very important because if the price went up in the 2000s from 10, $20 to 100, Chinese demand for oil was one of the key driver. And if the price went down again since 2014, it's a matter of supply, but it's also a matter of less demand and a lower demand from China. So being able to appreciate what would be Chinese demand for oil is absolutely crucial for oil markets. And as well for gas, remember that gas consumption, the gas share in the China in China mix is very low. It's a matter today of six, seven percent. So they use very little gas. Why? Because China's energy mix is dominated by coal. But gas so can have only a developing market providing there again that it's competitive compared to coal. It's back to the same question. And making efforts on how can we produce LNG at a lower cost on transportation to have the full chain being more efficient is very important to have access to these markets and to develop these markets. But on the oil, that's clear that you have a change in the way that China growth will go from I would say export to more consumption. So it has an impact, obviously. You can still see in China, big demand for gasoline. Gasoline products this year again, the increase of the Chinese demand is over 10% in this one year. So you have a big amount because people are more and more cars in China. And so gasoline demand is very strong where you see an impact on the lower growth in gas oil on diesel because it's back to manufacturing, it's back to industrial area. So there in this year, we have seen almost no growth, very little growth in China on gas oil and diesel. So it's something that you have to remember that China became the first world oil importer. And they're also import oil by the way to feed their strategic reserve which is a big unknown in the market. You have a big unknown in the old market is what is happening there, exactly. What is the location of Chinese import to consumption and to a strategic petroleum reserves which makes some shadow there. But again, so it's very important. You have also to remember that China has a very aggressive renewable strategy and they are building huge amount of wind and solar capacities. Half of renewable, half of the world renewable capacities are in China today. Half of the world capacities are in China. So it's obviously when you speak about energy understanding the dynamic of the Chinese market and to more of the Indian market is absolutely crucial. And they seem to be pushing a lot on electric cars too which would make great sense for them. I don't know how good they're going to be. Yeah, yeah, they are pushing for electric cars for a simple reason. It's a matter of local pollution. You know, if China, and I'm pretty convinced that when China decided to join the US in the climate change effort, like it has been done end of 2015, in 15, which was a real dynamic by the way of the climate change treaty is this agreement. But in the US and China, we changed the full picture of the climate change negotiation. It's primarily not because of global warming. It's primarily because you are in China because of the industrial development and the coal development, an issue about local pollution, about health. When you go to Chinese towns, you can observe that you have a problem of people breathing and you face what we had 50 years ago or 60 years ago in Europe, difficulties with health of the people. And it's a matter even in China of social unrest. So for me, the real dynamic from the Chinese authorities was, okay, we have developed the country heavily. Now we are facing the consequence of this industrial revolution, which is some pollution, local pollution. We need to find a solution that the source of the local pollution is cool. And it happens, which is fine, but if you are able to solve this source of pollution, cool, and finding an energy transition, you will be directly have an impact of climate change. And so this is where the local dimension of the environment and the global one for China is in fact at the end the same topic of can we transition. And the electric vehicle, like you said, today the car manufacturers in China, the Chinese car manufacturers, are making huge efforts on electric vehicle. I'm very convinced that we will see in five, 10 years many electric vehicles in the big Chinese cities. And by the way, today already, if you want to have a car being registered, if you buy an electric car, you are sure to have a number. If you buy a conventional car, you wait for three years in some towns in China. It's a very big driver. And the very goal is to be able to produce an electric car at $8,000 per vehicle. It will become accessible. And we will face that, that transition. And I'm convinced that electric car revolution will come first from China. And, but they'll still need electricity to power the cars. Ah, it's back to where the power is coming from. Yeah, but again, the local dimension of it, it will come from gas. That's why I'm advocating for all that. It's gas to power. This is, in fact, when you think to the energy transition, because we will need more power in this 21st century. The growth of demand for power will be bigger in the coming years than for primary sources of oil or gas. So it's power which will be given. So we need more power. And where the power will come from, it will come from gas and from renewables. If we want to have a two degree world. One of the things we're all puzzling with is what is in the brain of Donald Trump. He's just been elected president and has ideas about climate change and energy. And one of the hints we got overnight, he gave a sort of YouTube video about some of the things he wants to do in his first hundred days. And one of the things he said was to cancel job killing restrictions on the production of American energy, including shale energy and clean coal, creating millions of high paying jobs. Now does this kind of stance, does that affect the way both of you think about the balance in the future for hydrocarbons in the American role or is this blah blah? I guess I'll go first. I think regarding Trump's comment. I think, I look at it a little bit differently. I'm not a politician. I see a businessman that has been successful, has been through troubles, came back and a very successful businessman. Business people are very good in making deals and understanding the other side to make sure that they can get things done. And they won't be successful if they don't do that. So I see that Trump will be a very good president for the US. I think he's going to be very rational to ensure that business is done. Some of the things he will do may not please some of the businesses, but ultimately he'll do what's best for the US which is his country and what he sees as the best interest of his country as a businessman. And I think that's going to be positive for the US. Ultimately some of the things will not be liked by some of the businesses that are competing or some of the countries and so on, but I think ultimately it will be done all in a positive fashion. I may be an optimist, but that's how I see it. But his comments on the oil and gas industry and liberalization of some of the areas or what he's going to do in it, the most resilient business is the oil and gas business. Whatever we're dealt with, we adapt, we move on and we become better from it and that's historically been proven. So I'm not worried at all. I think if you think of a US energy policy, very again, the driver for the US and Mr. Obama to join the climate change has been the huge gas revolution in the US. Let me be clear, the US just realized that with the US gas share revolution, the gas was just more competitive and cool in the US. And there was a natural roadmap without many, making a lot of policies which was just that this economic dynamic was just that cool gas fire power plant were replacing coal fire power plant. And you do nothing about the economics, even if Mr. Trump wants to reopen coal mines, I can tell you people will not invest in coal mine in the US because the president wants it. They will invest because it's economic or not. And it is not economic today. It's better to invest in gas in the US. And you have huge resource of gas in the US. It's for decades you have there, like in Qatar, there is big competition there. But even there US is larger than Qatar, sorry. It's not a big field, but huge resource of gas in the US. And so whatever he thinks, maybe President Obama decided not to allow any coal mine opening. But even if the administration decided, yes, you can ask, you will see not many people rushing to ask for licenses. So I'm not worried about that part of the game. Because again, there is a, and again, it's not, the US is a, I think it's a free trade market, liberal market and capital. Yes, President Obama will probably cancel some few regulations and the clean power plan is probably dead. But the clean power plan was just a way to maybe try to accelerate a little, but the trend is there. And so I'm, I don't think it will have a lot of influence and the US are not, it's not a government in the US who invests. As far as I know, so I don't know if you want to nationalize the US economy, but I'm not sure. So these are private players, private shareholders who are putting their money and they put their money where it makes sense, you know, not where the government or the president give orders. That's not work like that. So yes, the energy world will have, will have, and again, on Shell Oil and Shell Gas today in the US, you have in fact very little restrictions. The Obama administration was thinking to new regulations that probably Mrs. Clinton would have put in place which could have been an additional burden on the only gas energy industry there. But in fact, today you can develop these resources, honestly, very little restrictions, like we are able to do that for all business. Do you think that there's some speculation, of course everyone loves to speculate about him, but that he might loosen gas emission regulations for cars and trucks? Would that make much difference, do you think? But again, I think there is a dynamic.  They know they are looking for more efficiencies and that this trend, we don't adapt our strategies in our companies because of one person being elected, it's not true. When you are on these markets, you need to have some strategies, some vision, some big trends, and there is clearly a trend for having traditional cars being more efficient. So is it a matter of regulation which can accelerate it? I think what it will be, you have huge potential for more efficiencies on US cars. Of course, regulation can accelerate it, but it will not diminish the effort. The car manufacturers know, but after Mr. Trump, somebody else could ask them something else and they have their own business to develop, then it's a matter of adapting the pace. So the oil companies are bigger than the American president, it's true, or important. I'm curious just to ask you both. I mean, obviously Europe has gas as well, maybe it's harder to get, but the effort for fracking in Europe seems very complicated. Partly I guess because of the way land use is regulated. If I'm not wrong, in America, people own what's under their feet, including mineral rights, so companies can make deals with individuals. But in Europe, mostly that's not true, I think. I mean, what's under the soil is owned by the state. So, I mean, that makes things more complicated. But I mean, do either of you see an eventual future for more fracking in Europe, or does it seem much too complicated? I will ask the European to answer. If Qatar wants to invest in Europe, they are welcome. No, frankly, I think, by the way, let me be clear, Europe is not an exception, the US is an exception. The US is the only country where you own a property, you own everything down to the center of the earth. It's the only country, so it's not the exception. Is it that way? No, the other way. And it's not only the reason why shell gas have been developed. Shell gas factor of success in the US were three or four. First, the geology. We should not forget, it's a matter of exploration and geology. And today, in Europe, it has been disappointing. In Poland, in Denmark, everywhere we drill, we didn't find what was supposed to find. So geology needs exploration. And exploration, I would be the most happiest man in the world if it was 100% of success. But I can tell you, it's not true, only in Qatar when you really do find gas, but nowhere else. So geology was the first factor. Then you have a huge, very dynamic oil and gas service industry in the US. It's a manufacturing business. You have 2,000, 3,000 rigs in the US. In Europe, you have 40, 50 maybe. So not at all the same dynamics in terms of capacity to make this shell industry being a manufacturing efficient, more efficient. So third factor is that we should all remember in the US, you had big networks of gas pipelines, existing ones. So all these shells have been developed as a marginal resource to existing infrastructures. We did not build the big infrastructure. We just connected with small polymer pipelines to the existing planet works. And when we go to some northeast part of the US where there is less infrastructure, it's most costly. So all that does not exist in Europe. So I think there are many drivers, in particular, the main issue on shell, let me be clear, is a choice which can only be done by the way by the states or the population, which is, how do I allocate my space? If you want to develop shell, you occupy a lot of space because you have many, many, many wells. And that's true that you have plenty of empty spaces in Texas or in Oklahoma or in these nice countries. In Europe, we are much more urbanized and we have a choice which is different in the way we allocate the space.  I mean, does it have political impact as well as economic impact, do you think? Definitely, I think the US not needing, you know, fossil fuels and being self-sufficient changes the dynamic of the oil and gas market as far as the importer or the exporters of oil and gas. But there is enough growth worldwide that the volume that they are taking, you know, there's sufficient growth for other countries to really take up that volume. A big part of why you see the oil prices coming down is precisely that, is them being self-sufficient and not needing to import. And them having sort of a natural price cap as soon as the oil price comes to a certain range, you see additional rigs working in the US.  And there is a weekly monitoring of drilling rigs working or employed versus how much come on to drill wells on a weekly basis. And you can see when the oil price ticks up for, you know, a few dollars up, the rigs, you know, immediately go into work and additional wells are drilled. So definitely changes the dynamic, but you know, them being self-sufficient and having growth in that area, it's very unique to the US because of the shale geology, the land, how large it is, you can't do anything or you can't do even 2% of what's being done in the US anywhere in Europe.    It's a very aggressive development. It's unlike what we do here or what's conventional that Total does anywhere in the world where you have few platforms, wells you produce and some infill wells. This is almost a manufacturing plant of additional wells and you keep going, you keep drilling to keep it going. So it's a little bit different. But I don't see a big, of course it's changed the dynamic but the oil is needed for a very long time and there is good growth. Gas is needed for a very long time at a little bit higher rate of growth. So fossil fuels are here to stay but other elements will always change. If I may comment on that, you know, first the US are not so sufficient just to remember the figures of the audience because there is disbelief, it's not true at all in oil. US production is around 11, 11.5 to 12 million barrel of oil per day. US consumption is 18 million of oil per day. So I don't see where it's sufficient. People tell me it's North America but I didn't know that there was a no frontier between Canada and the US. So first point. Second point, we cannot rewrite the story. I think President Obama decided I would need to be less involved in the Middle East right at the beginning of his term not after we discovered shale oil. So we can say it's because of in the shale oil growth that they begin to withdraw. No, it's not true. It was a decision in the policy which was implemented since the beginning and this is probably more important for the region because the region was stabilized during decades because of an involvement in the US. I think one of the key question and that we will all observe because I don't think we have the answer for what was said during the campaign.  It's different. What will be the involvement of the US in the stabilization of this region? And this region clearly is facing a number of challenges. I've never seen so many troubles. You have Iraq, which has never been stabilized. I begin by Iraq because it's a big country with not far. You have Syria, obviously. You have Yemen. You have Libya, which is not far, which is impacting Egypt and the whole region. So this region, Middle East, where we have a lot of oligarchs as well, but is facing many challenges and the level of involvement of the next US administration, I think is very important. And we see Russia, we came in, which came in this region. Mainly, in fact, because Russia does not want to see ISIS-taish to proliferate, I would say, in the southern part of Russia. We have to be clear, but it's something which is important for the full dynamic of the region. This is really crucial and you have Iran next door. In fact, you share a field with Iran. So as they say, it's like Mr. Fion says about Russia. He's a close neighbor, so we have to think about them differently. It's true. Obama's been deeply criticized for the red line in Syria and creating a kind of vacuum. I think it's true. They didn't know how to respond to the so-called Arab Spring. Nobody really did. They weren't prepared for the awakening and they weren't prepared for the counterrevolution either. And I wondered, I mean, without getting, unless you want to get deeper into politics, which you probably don't, but is the feeling among the Gulf Arabs that this is a particularly sensitive time? Would you like more American involvement and stabilization, or do you think actually more American involvement might make matters worse? My father is a politician or he was a politician for a very long time, but I'm definitely not. So I've not got too much into the politics, but I think as a citizen, I think what's happening in the region, obviously what Patrick mentioned, I mean, the unrest in the entire region is worrying to everybody. I don't think you find anybody in this region that's not worried about what's happening around us. Having said that, I think the relationship that we have, specifically your question with the US, I think has been a longstanding relationship. I mean, we have a historic relation where there are presence, there is a military presence here in country, and we've always been trying to build on that relationship. I don't see that the change of a president changes what countries do. We say we're institutions, countries try to always follow a certain policy. Individuals change some of the executive laws or things or modes of action and how they want to treat different elements of a certain subject, but the policies I don't believe would fundamentally shift or change that dramatically this quickly. So I don't see the changes that are happening that would affect what's happening between the relationship. We are from Qatar, I sit on the investment arm of the Southern Fund, I'm also involved, so we have a lot of investments in Europe and the US and so on, and our leadership have always urged us to ensure that we go and invest and have good relations with everybody. So that is how Qatar has really acted and whether it's in the investment side, as Qatar Investment Authority and what we do in the investments, or whether it's in the oil and gas business where we have billions of investments in the US, in Europe and everywhere around the world and we're looking for additional investment or evaluating different investments around the world. So things do change politically, but I think the track is still the same. Patrik, obviously big companies like stability, that's what everybody says. You like stability, I mean it's easier to operate when you don't have to worry about revolution or attacks on installations. Do you think that even this new administration will keep to national interest as it perceives them and be very engaged in trying to keep the region stable or is it really going to keep its hands off, which must be a bit troubling? I don't know, for that fully convinced. Obviously, but you know, when you are running an oil and gas company, you don't decide where oil and gas is on the air, you know. I don't decide that. I would love to have plenty of oil and gas in France, but there is nothing, you know. I have to go where it is. Then it's a matter of management of risk management. It's easier, of course, if we can dream about a peaceful world, but it never existed, you know. I think when the war, the Cold War ended, and when the USSR was transformed, we all dreamed about a new world with a sort of international order, globalization, democracy, and what happened 30 years after is just back to a world of more frontiers, you know. And so, I think that we are facing an era where we'll have more, it would be a new world of powers facing each other. US, Russia, France is one of them, Saudi Arabia, Iran. And we have to face this reality, and we have to integrate by dynamics in the choice of investment we take. But I also believe that if you want to bring more peace in this world, the economic development is very important. And where we can participate being an oil and gas company is continuing to invest to bring more revenues to the various countries in order to help them to stabilize their own situation. This is what we can do, and this is what we do in Russia or in other countries. Do you imagine that the impact on Russia, I mean, obviously it's having a real economic problems with this level, with this price of oil and gas, and Europe is diversifying. Is this important for Europeans? I mean, does it make Russia more aggressive in the markets? Or what do you think? I'm not sure to have captured the question so easily. No, I'm sorry, I'm just saying, given the state of the Russian economy and the price of oil and gas, does it make Russia more vulnerable and perhaps more aggressive in its dealmaking? Does it have an impact on the rest of Europe which seems to be diversifying better for its energy supplies? You know, the relationship between Europe and Russia in the energy field have been historically important. It has always been by Russia, it has always been a reliable producer, by the way, we have to remember that. Obviously, you know, when you speak about security of supply, it's a nice concept. The only way to have a better security of supplies is to enlarge your sources of supply. This is the policy. So the rest is just blah, blah, I would say, you know. So what Europe policy must do is to build more re-gas terminal in order to bring alternative sources as catarys gas to Europe rather than relying only upon Russian gas. So Davis and from that point of view, LNG, which is more flexible than pipe gas, is offering the flexibility. You can build terminal. We have built a number of terminals. So we have this freedom today of access, but again, developing the infrastructure. But I also believe that Russia, Europe is important for Russia. And that gas problem will make all efforts required to keep a 30% market share more or less of the European gas. So it's the relationship in both ways, you know. And that's why it's important to find a way to stabilize this regulation. And maybe Mr. Swamp will help to do that in the coming months. That I appreciate very much.  So I'm afraid we shall have to end it here. But I thank both of you, Mr. Al-Khabi especially, Mr. Poynay, and please thank them. Thank you.