Then clearly, across the whole universe of electrification and cables going into renewable and offshore wind, but also the electrification projects we have on the Norwegian continental shelf, we see tightness and limitations. So, I mean, it is, all of this is pointing to a rather tight situation across the supplier base, and we see that sort of filtering into inflation in sort of the numbers that we are looking at. But as a big company as we are and a big procurer, we have priority, and we will be able to get access to what we will need. So, thanks, Andre.
Bard Glad Pedersen: Thank you. We are fast approaching the hour, but let’s try to cover one or two more. Chris Kuplent, Bank of America, you are next.
Christopher Kuplent: Yes. Thank you very much. I hope you can hear me okay? I’ll try and keep it brief with only one talk, Raymond. I know it’s an unfair question, and I look forward to February already. But I wanted to just see whether you would like to comment on the fact that you seem to be the only American in Europe when it comes to how you define shareholder distributions, i.e., in $1 billion rather than in a payout ratio. Do you feel, consciously aware of that, in the way you are thinking around how you’re going to update us in February? And I’m not asking for a number or anything, just about the principle of guiding for future shareholder distributions through the cycle. Thank you.
Torgrim Reitan: Thanks, Chris. I think it would be wrong for me to be specific here at all, but I can give you maybe one thing to reflect upon, and that is in our cash flow, we typically have so many specialties related to Norwegian tax. We delayed payments and all of that. So that is sort of always a disturbing factor if you’re going to think about as such. But we have what we have currently, and the $17 billion this year. And we will come back to this on Capital Markets Day in February.
Bard Glad Pedersen: Then we’ll do the final question, and that will be you, Paul Redman from BNP Paribas. Paul, please go ahead.
Paul Redman : Last but least, I hope everyone just one quick one. If the agreements with the New York government do not go in a positive direction? And Equinor did step away from the offshore wind portfolio. What could we expect to see at that point? Would we expect to see challenge on the longer-term gigawatt targets? Would CapEx come down? Or when you look at the renewable portfolio, do you have other assets with a high return that could potentially fill the slot that the wind portfolio essentially cannot meet?
Torgrim Reitan: Okay. Thanks, Paul. So, over the last few years, we haven’t won new leases, as such. I mean, we have used opportunity to actually divest out of assets and capitalize on significant prices. And instead of sort of fighting for in these lease rounds, we have actually built and onshore portfolio through acquisition of various platforms, both in Denmark, Brazil, and Poland as such, with quite a good pipeline of opportunities. So, our target for 2030 remains firm, but what you might expect is that there will be maybe a little bit shift of content between offshore and onshore in the delivery of that. When it comes to sort of the U.S. project as such? I mean, they are part of our planning, and we are working closely with the New York state on the ongoing process as such.
So, I mean, we will come back to this later on when we know more about the process, we have not concluded yet. And again, and that will probably be my final word, any investments into U.S. wind will have to be profitable.
Bard Glad Pedersen: Thank you, Torgrim, and, let me remind you all that we are, of course, always available in the investor relations team. So, if there is any follow-up after this call or any additional question, please give us a call, and we will do our best. Then finally, thank you, all of you for calling in and for your questions during this hour. So, thank you, and goodbye.
Operator: This concludes today’s conference call. Enjoy the rest of your day. You may now disconnect.
