Thanks. But to the NAM provision first. And I can’t remind you because – it’s not major at the moment but we're looking always very closely at the developments in terms of our compensation can and should be calculated. You may be right of the parliamentary debate this week in the Netherlands. At the moment there is very little impact in the results. The biggest impact has been the reduced production.  On impairment policy generally, we basically look at forward cash flows using the midpoint of the 70 through 110 range, so we take long-term 90. We test not only short-term with a lower price as well but from time to time when we did some of this in Q4 with a flatter or lower price at the bottom end of that range. The assets that are closest to impairments – you very kindly say we haven’t taken impairments. I think we have in the past, particularly in shale unconventional, shale unconventional activity in the U.S. both taken impairments but also divested quite significant parts of the portfolio. We have said that there remained a couple of assets there Grand Butch [ph] and Appalachia or the Marcellus that were we to take a different view on gas prices, not oil but gas, we could come with a different outcome there, or if we decided not to proceed with LNG Canada, that’s where the gas from Grand Butch is ultimately targeted. Elsewhere in the portfolio there is not that much that is close to the edge and we’ve had discussions previously about Kashagan and that’s really a question of when does it come up and running, it’s a strong cash generator once it does. Until that point it would be vulnerable to a change I am sure in oil price assumption. But overall the portfolio remains fairly robust against lower oil price expectations. We’ve not run the forward curve out to 2022 basically because that’s not what we perceive the prices should be and nor necessarily that should be the basis for impairment. Hopefully that helps and that’s not a change in policy, that’s basically ongoing policy.