林德集團 (LIN) 2021 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Second Quarter 2021 Linde Earnings Call. (Operator Instructions) Please be advised that today's conference may be recorded. (Operator Instructions)

各位好，感謝您稍候。歡迎參加林德（Linde）2021 年第二季財報電話會議。（接線員指示）請注意，今天的會議可能會被錄音。（接線員指示）

I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Mr. Juan Pelaez, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

現在我想把會議交給今天的講者——投資人關係主管 Juan Pelaez 先生。請開始。

Crystal, thank you. Good morning, everyone, and thanks for attending our 2021 second quarter earnings call and webcast. I am Juan Pelaez, Head of Investor Relations, and I'm joined this morning by Matt White, Chief Financial Officer; and Sanjiv Lamba, Chief Operating Officer.

Crystal，謝謝。各位早安，感謝大家參加我們 2021 年第二季財報電話會議與網路直播。我是投資人關係主管 Juan Pelaez，今天早上與我一同出席的還有財務長 Matt White，以及營運長 Sanjiv Lamba。

Today's presentation materials are available on our website at linde.com in the Investors section. Please read the forward-looking statement disclosure on Page 2 of the slides and note that it applies to all statements made during this teleconference. The reconciliations of the adjusted numbers are in the appendix of this presentation. Sanjiv and Matt will now give an update on Linde's business outlook and second quarter performance, and then we'll be available to answer questions. Let me turn the call over to Sanjiv.

今天的簡報資料可在我們網站 linde.com 的「投資人」專區取得。請閱讀投影片第 2 頁的前瞻性陳述揭露，並注意其適用於本次電話會議期間所作的所有陳述。調整後數字的調節表列於本簡報的附錄中。接下來 Sanjiv 與 Matt 將更新林德的業務展望與第二季表現，之後我們將回答問題。現在把電話交給 Sanjiv。

Thanks, Juan, and good morning, everyone. Linde employees once again produced stellar results in the second quarter, achieving multiple new records, including a 24.2% operating margin, a $2.7 earnings per share and 15.7% return on capital. Volumes grew 15%, pricing increased 3%, along with global weighted inflation, and we continue to optimize the business through many productivity initiatives. I'm really proud of how the Linde team delivered industry-leading performance despite the many challenges we constantly face, and I expect to continue this performance for many years to come.

謝謝你，Juan，各位早安。林德員工在第二季再次交出亮眼成果，創下多項新紀錄，包括 24.2% 的營業利益率、每股盈餘 2.7 美元，以及 15.7% 的資本報酬率。銷量成長 15%，價格上漲 3%，並反映全球加權通膨；同時我們持續透過多項生產力計畫來優化業務。我為林德團隊在我們持續面對的諸多挑戰下仍能交出業界領先的表現感到非常自豪，我也預期未來多年將延續這樣的表現。

Last quarter, I presented to you the Linde strategy, which outlines the levers that we use to grow EPS, more than 10% per year. Given the results so far, I think it's safe to say we are well on our track. That said, I believe it's also important to have a clear path to future revenue expansion, which I'd like to discuss on the next slide.

上季我向各位介紹了林德策略，說明我們用來推動每股盈餘（EPS）每年成長超過 10% 的槓桿。就目前的成果來看，我認為可以很有把握地說，我們正走在正確的軌道上。話雖如此，我也認為清楚的未來營收擴張路徑同樣重要，我想在下一張投影片中討論。

So on Slide 3, you'll see that when previously I had highlighted to you that Linde has a unique advantage of being able to offer its customers a sale of gas or a sale of plant option. Our engineering capabilities are a clear competitive advantage, allowing us to participate in almost every type of growth opportunity while maintaining our investment criteria. Going forward, we are therefore going to present the sale of gas and sale of plant backlog combined. This quarter, our total project backlog stands at approximately $7.5 billion, representing contractual growth with high-quality customers and secured cash flows.

在第 3 張投影片中，您會看到我先前曾強調，林德具備獨特優勢，能為客戶提供「售氣」或「售廠」兩種選項。我們的工程能力是明確的競爭優勢，使我們能在維持投資標準的同時，參與幾乎所有類型的成長機會。因此，未來我們將把售氣與售廠的在手訂單（backlog）合併呈現。本季我們的總專案在手訂單約為 75 億美元，代表與高品質客戶簽訂合約的成長，以及已鎖定的現金流。

Now in addition to this project backlog, in parallel, we also invest around $1 billion per year on base business growth opportunities. These are great opportunities to deliver high-quality, long-term growth, but they are either under $5 million in spend or don't contain contractual fixed fee elements for secured incremental growth. Base growth projects typically also have shorter execution times, are margin accretive and support our network density strategy. Some examples include the clean energy projects we announced earlier this year, the hydrogen liquefier in the U.S. Gulf Coast that we recently started up, and of course, more than 25 small on-site projects that we have already won this year. We serve glass, bulking paper, mining and other growing end markets with these small on sites.

除了這些專案在手訂單之外，我們也同步每年投入約 10 億美元於基礎業務成長機會。這些是能帶來高品質、長期成長的絕佳機會，但其資本支出低於 500 萬美元，或不包含具合約固定費用要素、以確保增量成長的條款。基礎成長專案通常執行期較短、可提升利潤率，並支持我們的網路密度策略。例子包括我們今年稍早宣布的潔淨能源專案、我們近期在美國墨西哥灣沿岸啟用的氫液化裝置，當然也包括今年我們已贏得的 25 個以上小型現場供氣（on-site）專案。透過這些小型現場供氣專案，我們服務玻璃、紙漿造紙、採礦及其他成長中的終端市場。

In addition, the business continues to leverage our dense network with winning new merchant and packaged accounts, which further enhances the quality of our business. As stated, we currently have approximately $7.5 billion of contractually secured growth projects, which we'll execute over the next 3 to 4 years, plus $1 billion per year of incremental base growth CapEx. The revenue expansion from these investments exclude organic growth already being captured from our existing dense supply network across a diverse spectrum of end markets. Of course, we've well demonstrated how we leverage this through the current economic recovery that you're seeing. As I sit here today, we are currently reviewing a pipeline of hundreds of prospective projects, not included in this backlog, which easily represent more than $10 billion of potential investment opportunities, including a significant number of electronics and clean energy projects, and of course, sale of plant projects. Both sale of gas and sale of plants are great ways for us to grow while maintaining our investment discipline.

此外，我們也持續運用高密度供應網路，贏得新的散裝（merchant）與瓶裝（packaged）客戶，進一步提升業務品質。如前所述，我們目前約有 75 億美元的合約保障成長專案，將在未來 3 到 4 年執行，另加上每年 10 億美元的增量基礎成長資本支出（CapEx）。這些投資帶來的營收擴張，不包含我們既有高密度供應網路在多元終端市場中已捕捉到的有機成長。當然，您也已在目前所見的經濟復甦中清楚看到我們如何運用這一點。以我今天的觀察，我們正在審視數百個潛在專案的管線，未納入此在手訂單，合計輕易代表超過 100 億美元的潛在投資機會，其中包含大量電子與潔淨能源專案，當然也包括售廠專案。售氣與售廠都是我們在維持投資紀律下實現成長的絕佳方式。

Given our strong execution capability, I remain bullish on Linde's outlook and growth prospects. Regardless of what happens with inflation or macroeconomic trends or the pace of secular growth drivers, we have a proven business model that can generate compound value growth for our shareholders today and decades into the future. Now before I hand over to Matt, I want to make a comment on our ESG goals. I mentioned to you in last quarter's call that we are developing new ambitious ESG goals, which we expected to share in the near future. We've been diligently working with our business leaders around the world, to determine these targets and more importantly to incorporate them in our operating rhythm. Based on that progress, I expect to disclose these new ESG goals before the end of the year.

憑藉我們強大的執行能力，我對林德的展望與成長前景仍然樂觀。無論通膨、總體經濟趨勢或長期結構性成長動能的步伐如何變化，我們都有經驗證的商業模式，能在今天以及未來數十年為股東創造複利式價值成長。在交棒給 Matt 之前，我想就我們的 ESG 目標做個說明。我在上季電話會議中提到，我們正在制定新的、更具企圖心的 ESG 目標，並預期在不久的將來分享。我們一直與全球各地的業務領導團隊密切合作，以確定這些目標，更重要的是把它們納入我們的營運節奏。基於目前的進展，我預期在年底前揭露這些新的 ESG 目標。

I'll hand over now to Matt, who will take you through the financial results and guidance. Matt?

接下來我把時間交給 Matt，他將帶各位回顧財務結果與財測指引。Matt？

Thanks, Sanjiv. Please turn to Slide 4 for an overview of the second quarter results. Sales of $7.6 billion are up 19% from 2020 and 5% sequentially. Versus prior year, volumes increased 15% across all supply modes and end markets. Manufacturing, chemicals and metals drove this increase, since Q2 2020 was the low point for cyclical markets. Sequentially, volumes increased 4%, which marks the fourth consecutive quarter of volume expansion, demonstrating our leverage to the economic recovery. Price increased 3% versus prior year and 1% sequentially and as all geographic segments continue to manage inflation. This is also evident in the 2% energy cost pass-through related to on-site contracts.

謝謝，Sanjiv。請翻到第 4 張投影片，查看第二季業績概覽。銷售額 76 億美元，較 2020 年成長 19%，較前一季成長 5%。與去年同期相比，所有供應模式與終端市場的銷量均成長 15%。由於 2020 年第二季是循環性市場的低點，製造業、化工與金屬產業帶動了這一增長。就季比而言，銷量成長 4%，這是連續第四季銷量擴張，顯示我們對經濟復甦的槓桿效應。價格較去年同期上漲 3%，較前一季上漲 1%，各地理區隔持續管理通膨壓力。這也反映在與現場供氣合約相關的 2% 能源成本轉嫁（pass-through）上。

Operating profit of $1.8 billion increased 39% over prior year and 9% sequentially. Operating margin of 24.2% was 350 basis points over last year despite a 50 basis point headwind from cost pass-through. This represents the eighth quarter in a row, we have increased operating margin more than 200 basis points from a combination of volume expansion, pricing actions and productivity measures. EPS of $2.70 increased 42% from 2020 and 8% from the first quarter. We've also provided the Q2 2019 growth rate of 48%.

營業利益 18 億美元，較去年同期增加 39%，較前一季增加 9%。營業利益率 24.2%，較去年提高 350 個基點，儘管成本轉嫁帶來 50 個基點的不利影響。這是我們連續第八季透過銷量擴張、定價行動與生產力措施的組合，使營業利益率提升超過 200 個基點。每股盈餘（EPS）2.70 美元，較 2020 年增加 42%，較第一季增加 8%。我們也提供了相較 2019 年第二季的成長率為 48%。

As mentioned last quarter, I believe it's important to distinguish true growth which this clearly demonstrates from mere recovery. ROC, which is one of the most important metrics in this industry, rose to a record 15.7%. It has increased every quarter since 2018 from steady profit growth over a prudently managed capital base. In fact, Linde has consistently proven the ability to deliver industry-leading, high-quality growth by following a disciplined capital allocation model.

如同上季所提，我認為有必要區分真正的成長——而這裡清楚展現了——與單純的復甦。資本報酬率（ROC）是本產業最重要的指標之一，本季升至創紀錄的 15.7%。自 2018 年以來，ROC 每一季都在上升，來自於在審慎管理的資本基礎上，利潤穩健成長。事實上，林德一貫證明，透過遵循嚴謹的資本配置模型，能交付業界領先的高品質成長。

Slide 5 provides more color on that capital allocation model, including overall cash management. You can see the progression of operating cash flow on the table to the left, with the first half up 27% over last year. Note that we had $300 million of higher cash taxes this quarter when compared to Q2 last year. Since this is only timing related, I expect operating cash flow to improve year-over-year and sequentially in the third quarter. To the right, you can see how we allocated capital for the first half of this year. Stated simply, we want to grow the business, invest back into the business and reward our shareholders with increasing dividends and share repurchases. I think the pie chart below confirms this approach.

第 5 張投影片提供更多關於該資本配置模型的細節，包括整體現金管理。您可以在左側表格看到營運現金流的走勢，上半年較去年增加 27%。請注意，本季現金稅款較去年第二季多出 3 億美元。由於這僅與時間點相關，我預期第三季營運現金流將在年比與季比上皆有所改善。右側則顯示我們在今年上半年如何配置資本。簡而言之，我們希望擴大業務、再投資於業務，並以提高股利與股票回購來回饋股東。我認為下方的圓餅圖印證了這一做法。

We invested $1.5 billion into the business and returned $3.2 billion back to shareholders. I'll wrap up with guidance, which you can find on Slide 6. This slide is similar to last quarter, including how we set the guidance ranges. Third quarter guidance is $2.60 to $2.70. This represents 21% to 26% growth over prior year and 34% to 39% growth over 2019. Compared to Q2, this assumes no sequential improvement in the underlying economy and a 1% foreign currency headwind. For full year 2021, we are raising prior guidance by $0.50 to a new range of $10.10 to $10.30. This $0.50 increase is from the Q2 outperformance and the higher Q3 guidance range. In other words, and consistent with last quarter, we have not updated the fourth quarter at this time. Rest assured, next call, we'll provide an updated and more meaningful fourth quarter guidance. And if volume trends are stable or improve, we'll be at the upper end or above this range. Until that time, we remain highly confident in our ability to grow 2021 EPS, at least, 23% from last year and 38% from 2019, while positioning Linde for industry-leading, long-term value creation.

我們向該業務投資了15億美元，並向股東返還了32億美元。我將以財測指引作結，您可以在第6頁投影片中找到。本頁與上季類似，包括我們如何設定指引區間。第三季指引為2.60至2.70美元。這代表較去年同期成長21%至26%，較2019年成長34%至39%。相較於第二季，這假設基礎經濟沒有季比改善，且有1%的外匯不利因素。就2021全年而言，我們將先前指引上調0.50美元至新的區間10.10至10.30美元。這0.50美元的上調來自第二季優於預期的表現以及更高的第三季指引區間。換言之，且與上季一致，我們目前尚未更新第四季指引。請放心，下次電話會議我們將提供更新且更具意義的第四季指引。若量的趨勢維持穩定或改善，我們將位於該區間上緣或高於該區間。在此之前，我們對於在2021年提升每股盈餘（EPS）的能力仍高度有信心：至少較去年成長23%、較2019年成長38%，同時讓Linde具備產業領先的長期價值創造定位。

I'd now like to hand the call over to Q&A.

接下來我想把電話會議交給問答環節。

(Operator Instructions) And our first question comes from David Begleiter from Deutsche Bank.

（接線員指示）我們的第一個問題來自德意志銀行（Deutsche Bank）的David Begleiter。

Sanjiv and Matt, the 15% volume growth in the quarter, what do you think that was versus the industry? Did you gain share, do you think, this quarter versus competitors?

Sanjiv和Matt，本季15%的量成長，你們認為相較於產業表現如何？你們覺得本季相較競爭對手有取得市占嗎？

David, thanks for that question. So as you saw solid growth, and we mentioned across all end markets as well. The reality is, we saw that economic recovery come through. We've said as part of our strategy. We leverage that economic recovery. That's what we're seeing happen around. I would say that in some markets, we have seen some share gain, but that's kind of an ongoing business transaction element that we see all along.

David，謝謝你的問題。如你所見，我們有穩健成長，我們也提到各終端市場皆有成長。實際上，我們看到經濟復甦的動能反映出來。我們也說過這是我們策略的一部分：我們會利用經濟復甦。這正是我們目前所看到的。我會說在某些市場我們確實看到一些市占提升，但那比較像是我們一直以來都會看到的、持續性的業務交易面向。

Very good. And Matt, thinking about share buybacks, how should we think about buybacks in the back half of the year?

很好。那Matt，談到庫藏股回購，我們應該如何看待下半年回購的節奏？

Yes. So David, as you know, from our capital allocation policy, we'll continue to sweep excess cash towards buybacks. So year-to-date, we've been over $2 billion. We're on a good pace. And as I mentioned, I expect Q3 cash to be higher. So I see no reason why we need to deviate from kind of our current pattern. But obviously, our priority continues to be to invest in growth, which we're going to do. And as Sanjiv mentioned, we have a lot of opportunities there, but we'll also be -- we're purchasing shares pretty much every day in the market.

好的。David，如你所知，依照我們的資本配置政策，我們會持續把多餘現金用於回購。年初至今我們已超過20億美元，進度良好。正如我提到的，我預期第三季現金會更高。因此我看不出有任何理由需要偏離我們目前的既有模式。但顯然，我們的優先事項仍是投資成長，我們會這麼做。正如Sanjiv提到的，我們在那方面有很多機會；同時我們也會——我們幾乎每天都在市場上買回股票。

Our next question comes from Tony Jones from Redburn.

下一個問題來自Redburn的Tony Jones。

Thanks for letting me ask questions. I've got 2 actually. One was on volumes. So if I look at, say, Q2 2019 and then sort of adjust for the price and cost pass-through this quarter as just reported that sort of implies volumes are up about 3%, 4% versus that Q2 in 2019, but slightly down in Asia. Firstly, I guess, is that right? Does it maybe imply some further optionality in Asia Pacific? And can we use that sort of underlying 3% to 4% volume growth versus 2019 for the next couple of quarters?

謝謝讓我提問。我其實有兩個問題。第一個是關於量。如果我看例如2019年第二季，然後把本季剛公布的價格與成本轉嫁因素做調整，似乎意味著相較2019年第二季，量約成長3%到4%，但亞洲略為下滑。首先，我猜這樣理解對嗎？這是否意味著亞太地區可能還有一些額外的選擇權／彈性？另外，我們是否可以在接下來幾季使用這種相較2019年約3%到4%的基礎量成長作為參考？

And then a second question, sorry, if I'm asking quite a few things here. CapEx in the cash flow and also as a percentage of sales looks like it's been trending down for a while, but the project backlog looks really solid. How should we think about that? Or is it just the post-pandemic timing effect of investments?

第二個問題，不好意思我問得有點多。現金流中的資本支出（CapEx），以及占銷售額的比例，看起來已經下滑一段時間，但專案在手訂單看起來非常強勁。我們應該如何看待這點？還是這只是疫情後投資時點的影響？

Tony, thanks. Why don't I jump into the CapEx piece, and then I'll ask Matt to just talk through the volumes and reconcile them. Just on CapEx, I think one of the reasons for providing that pipeline view today was to give you a sense of how we see that opportunity. I've said in the past, I've seen some improvement in proposal activity across both sale of gas and sale of plants. And on the sale of gas side, that proposal activity, particularly coming from electronics as an example, and, of course, a suite of clean energy projects and the more traditional markets as well, including chemicals and others. So I do expect to see that CapEx reflecting the pipeline opportunity that we just defined. So I don't see -- I mean, the changes are marginal anyway, but notwithstanding that. I see absolutely no concerns around how I expect that pipeline to flow into backlog.

Tony，謝謝。資本支出這部分我先回答，然後我請Matt再把量的部分說明並做對帳。就資本支出而言，我認為我們今天提供管線（pipeline）視角的原因之一，是讓你了解我們如何看待這些機會。我過去提過，我看到無論是售氣（sale of gas）或售廠（sale of plants），提案活動都有所改善。在售氣方面，提案活動特別來自例如電子產業，當然也包括一系列潔淨能源專案，以及更傳統的市場，包括化工等。因此我確實預期資本支出會反映我們剛剛界定的管線機會。所以我不認為——我的意思是，變動本來也只是些微——即便如此，我完全不擔心我所預期的管線如何轉化為在手訂單（backlog）。

And Tony, yes, just to answer the volume question. Your calculation is close, but it's about 5% globally is what we would have seen Q2 volumes versus 2019 from this quarter. And Asia Pac actually is leading, it's more around 8%. So I'm not sure if maybe on the deconsolidation or how you calculated that. But the volumes in APAC were about 8% above 2021 versus Q2 '19. And we're pretty much up mid-single digits across the board for all the regions. So I would say, we're seeing the right patterns and the right traction, and obviously, price 3% to 4% as well when you look at that metric versus 2019.

Tony，關於量的問題，我來回答。你的計算接近，但我們看到的是全球約5%，也就是本季的第二季量相較2019年。亞太其實是領先的，大約在8%左右。我不確定是否是去合併（deconsolidation）或你的計算方式造成差異。但亞太地區的量在2021年相較2019年第二季約高出8%。而且各區域基本上都是中個位數成長。因此我會說，我們看到正確的型態與正確的動能；而且當你用該指標與2019年相比時，價格也約在3%到4%。

Our next question comes from Bob Koort from Goldman Sachs.

下一個問題來自高盛（Goldman Sachs）的Bob Koort。

Guys, I wanted to ask about the Jurong Island project that was going to start up in '23. How is that progressing? I think it's your biggest-ever investment? And what have you learned if anything about building those gasifiers?

各位，我想問一下原本預計在2023年投產的裕廊島（Jurong Island）專案。進展如何？我記得那是你們史上最大的一筆投資？另外，關於建造那些氣化爐（gasifiers），你們有學到什麼嗎？

Thanks, Bob. So one of the larger investments as you rightly point out, that's progressing well. Obviously, there has been some COVID impact on our schedule as well as of our customer. That's still on track to getting largely mechanically complete by the date that we'd originally set out, plus or minus a few weeks. And to be honest, Bob, we've been running gasifiers at that Singapore site for decades. So really, none of this is new for us. From an engineering point of view, we've been building gasifiers for decades as well. So there's a lot of that organizational learning that we've been able to put into that project. So it's coming along quite nicely.

謝謝，Bob。正如你所說，這是較大型的投資之一，目前進展良好。當然，COVID也對我們以及客戶的時程造成一些影響。整體仍按計畫推進，預計在我們原先設定的日期前後幾週內，達到大致的機械完工（mechanically complete）。坦白說，Bob，我們在新加坡那個基地運轉氣化爐已經有數十年了，所以對我們而言並沒有什麼新鮮事。從工程角度來看，我們也已經建造氣化爐數十年。因此我們能把大量的組織學習運用到該專案上，所以進展相當順利。

And as a follow-up, if I might, you guys have an interesting seat in the whole gas hydrogen economy that's developing. I wonder if you can give us your latest thoughts on which way that's going? Is it going to be globally distributed hydrogen from single complexes in the best electricity areas? Is it going to be locally produced hydrogen? Is it going to be ammonia? Any updated thoughts on how you see that ecosystem evolving?

如果可以追問一下，你們在正在發展的氣體氫能經濟中處於很有意思的位置。我想請你們分享一下最新看法：未來會走向在電力條件最佳的地區由單一大型園區集中生產並全球配送氫氣？還是會走向在地生產氫氣？會是氨（ammonia）嗎？對於這個生態系如何演進，有沒有更新的想法？

Sure, sure. Happy to provide that, Bob, and that's a great question. So it is, as you rightly point out, a very fast-developing dynamic space, and we start to talk more and more about clean energy more broadly. But just talking about the specifics of what you've asked. So our view is when we think about our strategy, we believe local execution and locally driven strategies are where we see the most value creation in terms of our business model and in terms of how we kind of attempt to take that strategy to execution. We are demonstrating that with South Korea in a local market where we are putting a liquefier and building a whole ecosystem around liquid fueling for heavy -- heavy-duty vehicles. So that's kind of broadly our strategy.

當然，當然。很樂意說明，Bob，這是個很好的問題。正如你所指出，這是一個發展非常快速、變動很大的領域，而我們也越來越多地談到更廣義的潔淨能源。不過就你問的具體問題而言，我們的看法是：在思考我們的策略時，我們相信在地執行與由在地驅動的策略，最能在我們的商業模式中創造價值，也最符合我們將策略落地執行的方式。我們在南韓就正在示範這點：在當地市場建置液化設備（liquefier），並圍繞重型——重型車輛的液態燃料補給建立完整生態系。這大致就是我們的策略。

Now I must add to that, that with all of that, obviously, we also recognize as a portfolio approach that we would be taking to this, and we do expect to see that there will be some larger installations that would feed markets, which may not be entirely local, which might have some export content to it, but we do see the distributed model as being certainly both more effective and creating greater value but supplemented in cases by some larger production facilities where you have some obvious competitive advantages. I mean we've talked previously about how you could get in Northern Africa, as an example, very low-cost electricity that allows you to put a large complex green hydrogen production facility. And the best way to get that hydrogen to market, as an example, would be to then take it from that large complex and pipe it across to Europe, if you could. And again, you'd have to repurpose some of the existing pipelines and make sure that cost effectively gets to Europe for it to have some traction there.

現在我必須補充的是，除了上述所有內容之外，很明顯地，我們也認知到，作為一種投資組合式的方法，我們將以此來推進，而且我們確實預期會看到一些較大型的裝置來供應市場，而這些市場可能不完全是本地市場，可能也會包含一定的出口成分；但我們確實認為分散式模式無疑更有效、也能創造更大的價值，只是在某些情況下，會由一些較大型的生產設施作為補充，因為在那裡你會有一些明顯的競爭優勢。我的意思是，我們先前談過，例如在北非，你可以取得非常低成本的電力，讓你能建置一個大型、複合式的綠氫生產設施。以此為例，把氫氣送到市場的最佳方式，就是從那個大型複合設施把氫氣輸送出去，若可行的話，透過管線把它跨境輸送到歐洲。同樣地，你必須改造部分既有管線，並確保能以具成本效益的方式送達歐洲，才能在那裡真正形成推動力。

So that's one example where we think you would see changes like that happened. Chile, with the desert, has a similar advantage of very high-quality solar ability to take that, put into renewable power, generate green hydrogen and then move it to markets close to it. Does that give the color you were looking for, Bob?

所以這是一個例子，我們認為你會看到類似的變化發生。智利有沙漠，也有類似的優勢：高品質的太陽能資源，可以把它轉換成再生電力、產生綠氫，然後把它運往鄰近的市場。Bob，這是否提供了你想要的脈絡？

Yes, perfect.

是的，完全符合。

Our next question comes from Nicola Tang from Exane BNP Paribas.

我們的下一個問題來自 Exane BNP Paribas 的 Nicola Tang。

Thanks very much for the interesting color around the project backlog. I wanted to ask a little bit around that. Whilst the backlog itself is pretty solid at the $7.5 billion, the size of the backlog itself hasn't really been growing. If anything, I think it was more like $9 billion or $10 billion a couple of years ago. You talked about those hundreds of projects worth potentially $10 billion. Can you talk about the potential timing of adding those into the backlog? As existing projects come online and then therefore, drop out of the backlog, do you expect to see growth in the backlog? Or actually, it will be more stable at current levels on a sort of net-net basis?

非常感謝你對專案積壓訂單（backlog）提供的有趣補充說明。我想就此再問深入一點。雖然積壓訂單本身在 75 億美元的水準相當穩健，但積壓訂單的規模其實並沒有真正成長；如果有的話，我記得幾年前更像是 90 億或 100 億美元。你提到有數百個專案，潛在價值可能達 100 億美元。你能談談把這些專案納入積壓訂單的可能時點嗎？當既有專案陸續上線、因此從積壓訂單中移除時，你是否預期積壓訂單會成長？或者其實在淨額（net-net）的基礎上，會更偏向維持在目前水準、相對穩定？

And then the second question, similarly around the backlog, I was curious, Sanjiv, you mentioned that you're seeing project activity or potential project activity in traditional sort of industrial areas. I was curious to understand what areas and what you're seeing that pickup in activity? Yes -- and then I've got a next to it, but I'll pause there.

第二個問題同樣是關於積壓訂單。我也很好奇，Sanjiv，你提到你看到傳統工業領域出現專案活動或潛在專案活動。我想了解是哪些領域、以及你看到哪些活動正在回升？是的——我旁邊還有下一個問題，但我先停在這裡。

Thanks, Nicola. So let me start with the backlog, and then we come back to the project activity pickup that I referenced. So as you said, the backlog is $7.5 billion. It gets impacted by startups that we have. So we are going to have some startups later this year. And we'll see that impact flow through. You've actually got some press releases that we had recently around some of those as well. Now in terms of timing of the projects coming into the backlog. As you know, we don't possibly control that timing. More often than not Juan controls the timing because he kind of doesn't let us announce many of these wins. But notwithstanding that, you will see in the second half, an improvement in that backlog come through because we are very close on a couple of projects, which we think will be formally closed out, which is contracts signed before we can bring them on.

謝謝你，Nicola。那我先從積壓訂單談起，之後再回到我剛才提到的專案活動回升。正如你所說，積壓訂單是 75 億美元。它會受到我們啟動（startup）的專案影響。因此我們今年稍晚會有一些啟動案，然後你會看到這個影響反映出來。其實我們最近也針對其中一些發布了新聞稿。至於專案納入積壓訂單的時點，如你所知，我們未必能控制那個時點。很多時候是 Juan 在控制時點，因為他某種程度上不太讓我們宣布很多這些得標。不過即便如此，你會在下半年看到積壓訂單有所改善，因為我們在幾個專案上已非常接近完成，我們認為它們會正式結案——也就是在我們能把它們納入之前，必須先完成簽約。

Again, Nicola, you know this, but I'll just recap it. Our conditions of putting something in the backlog are very stringent. They have to be secured by a contract, it must be more than $5 million, obviously, for the larger projects that doesn't matter, and it needs to have a guaranteed cash flow profile, which ensures that, that backlog then has incremental -- guarantee an incremental growth. So those conditions have to be met, and we see a number of projects that will flow into the backlog later this year and then some obviously in the early part of next year as well. So I feel reasonably confident on the developments that you're going to see in that backlog, both on the sale of gas and the sale of plant side.

再重申一次，Nicola，你也知道，但我簡單回顧一下。我們把項目納入積壓訂單的條件非常嚴格：必須有合約保障；金額必須超過 500 萬美元——當然對於大型專案這點通常不是問題；而且需要有保證的現金流輪廓，確保該積壓訂單能帶來增量——也就是保證增量成長。因此必須符合這些條件。我們看到有不少專案會在今年稍晚流入積壓訂單，另外也有一些會在明年初進來。所以我對你將在積壓訂單上看到的進展相當有信心，無論是在售氣端或是售廠（plant）端。

Now I'll move on to the proposal activity. So I'm going to talk about one area in particular where you see a significant amount of activity, and you've heard me reference this before, Nicola, so it won't come as a surprise, which is electronics. And really, you've been hearing in the press, obviously, a lot about chip shortages. But the reality is that, that industry has been looking at ramping up its production capabilities for about 12 months now, and there are a host of projects that are all in various stages of development by TSMC, by Samsung, by Intel, by GLOBALFOUNDRIES, there's a long list of people who are going to be investing in that space. And therefore, a large part of our time at the moment in that proposal activity is being spent around the electronics area, in particular, Nicola.

接著我談提案（proposal）活動。我會特別談一個你會看到大量活動的領域，而且你以前也聽我提過，Nicola，所以不會意外——那就是電子產業。你在媒體上也一直聽到晶片短缺。但現實是，這個產業大約 12 個月前就開始著手提升產能，並且有一系列專案正由台積電、三星、英特爾、GLOBALFOUNDRIES 等在不同開發階段推進，還有很長一串名單都將在這個領域投資。因此，我們目前在提案活動上投入的大量時間，正是集中在電子領域，特別是這一塊，Nicola。

Now in addition to that, we're also seeing some chemicals projects. We're also seeing even -- and it might surprise some, but even in the steel area, we're seeing some projects. The one other area, Nicola, which kind of is really linked to clean energy, but where we are seeing refining, chemical, even steel companies engage actively with us is around reduction in their emissions, or in the case of refining, what can we do around carbon capture and making, reducing their emissions, how can we help them create technical solutions. I've said this before in the last call that we have a full suite of technologies around this. We have the ability working with partners to provide a holistic solution to many of our customers in that space. And again, we're seeing a lot of activity pick up on that and move forward.

此外，我們也看到一些化工專案。我們甚至也——可能會讓一些人驚訝——在鋼鐵領域也看到一些專案。另一個領域，Nicola，某種程度上與潔淨能源密切相關，而我們看到煉油、化工、甚至鋼鐵公司都在積極與我們互動的，是關於降低排放；或以煉油為例，我們能在碳捕捉方面做什麼、以及如何降低他們的排放，我們能如何協助他們提出技術解決方案。我在上一次電話會議也說過，我們在這方面擁有完整的技術組合；我們也能與合作夥伴一起，為該領域的許多客戶提供整體性的解決方案。而且我們再次看到這方面的活動明顯升溫並持續推進。

That links kind of likely to my last question on sort of the decarbonization point. I was wondering if you had any initial thoughts on the EU's Fit for 55 Proposal and potentially what it means for Linde or the wider gases industry, I suppose? And whether there's any sort of progress on the CO2 framework on the U.S. side and similarly what could that mean for you?

這可能連結到我最後一個關於去碳化（decarbonization）的問題。我想請教你對歐盟的「Fit for 55」提案是否有任何初步看法，以及它可能對 Linde 或更廣泛的工業氣體產業意味著什麼？另外，美國那邊在 CO2 架構上是否也有任何進展？同樣地，這可能對你們意味著什麼？

So Nicola, you've heard me say this before that for decarbonization, more broadly, and the hydrogen economy, particularly to pick up, we need a couple, 3 things to happen. Obviously, regulation with TEEP. We've seen that happen very much in Europe. I think your point is absolutely valid that we see Europe provide the kind of penalties and incentives, the guidance sticks which are allowing momentum to build in that space quite actively and aggressively. So that's good to see. We are participating in that. Whether it's IPCEI funding, whether it's other incentives, whether it's the broader coalition that is looking at contract for differences to make sure that we are leveraging facilities elsewhere to support European economies.

所以 Nicola，你以前也聽我說過：要讓更廣泛的去碳化、以及氫能經濟（特別是氫能經濟）真正起飛，我們需要幾件事發生，可能是兩三件。很明顯地，需要有監管與 TEEP。我們已經看到這在歐洲非常明顯地發生。我認為你的觀點完全正確：我們看到歐洲提供了各種罰則與誘因、指引與約束（sticks），使得這個領域的動能能夠相當積極且強勢地建立起來。這是好事，我們也正在參與其中。不論是 IPCEI 的資金支持、不論是其他誘因，或是不論是更廣泛的聯盟正在研究以「差價合約」（contract for differences）的方式，確保我們能運用其他地區的設施來支持歐洲經濟。

I've also said -- and of course, just to make the point, in the U.S., we are encouraged to see progress happen in that area as well. Now you know that the U.S. currently offers a 45Q. Our view is that, that is inadequate for any substantial momentum to build up in this space, but I'm encouraged by conversations going on in the house and hopefully in the senate that, that will move some of the incentives and proposals forward in that space. So I'm looking forward to seeing developments there quite closely. So I guess the other couple of things that need to happen, which I think create the momentum that we need, and I am at the risk of repeating myself from the last call, we do need to see that the technology road maps ensure that the technology for either green and blue, which is currently available and scalable creates the cost curve that is necessary for large-scale adoption to happen.

我也說過——當然，補充一點，在美國，我們也很受鼓舞地看到這方面正在取得進展。你知道美國目前提供 45Q。我們的看法是，這不足以讓這個領域建立任何實質性的動能，但我對眾議院正在進行的討論感到鼓舞，也希望參議院方面能推動，讓這個領域的一些誘因與提案能往前走。因此我也非常期待密切關注那裡的發展。我想另外還有幾件需要發生的事，我認為它們能創造我們所需要的動能；我也冒著重複上次電話會議內容的風險再說一次：我們確實需要看到技術路線圖能確保綠氫與藍氫的技術——目前已可取得且可擴大規模——能形成大規模採用所必需的成本曲線。

That remains -- I won't say that's a challenge that has actively been worked on -- but there is a timing challenge to that, and it will take years before we get to your point where green, in particular, has the ability to have a cost-effective solution available at scale, good solutions that are available today. We provide many of those ourselves, but I recognize that there is still a scale up that is currently lacking in the green hydrogen space.

這仍然——我不會說這是一項已被積極推動解決的挑戰——但在時點上確實存在挑戰；而且在我們達到你所說的那個階段之前，尤其是綠色（氫能）要能在規模化下提供具成本效益的解決方案，還需要多年時間。今天其實已經有一些不錯的解決方案可用，我們自己也提供其中許多，但我也承認，在綠氫領域目前仍缺乏足夠的規模化擴張。

And finally, I think we need to be working very closely with making sure that the endpoint consumption, so in this case, if we are talking about heavy-duty vehicles, buses or trucks or indeed trains and ferries that technology development in that space is happening actively. Hence, the number of partnerships that we do to make sure that we're right in the middle of those developments, and we are encouraging and promoting them as much as possible. So I know I've provided a both broader answer than you were looking for, but I think this was worth recapping because these are the things that are ensuring that the momentum that we see today sustains and you actually see investment and development in that space.

最後，我認為我們需要非常緊密地合作，確保終端需求端的消費——在這個案例中，如果我們談的是重型車輛、公車或卡車，甚至是火車與渡輪——該領域的技術開發正在積極進行。因此，我們進行了許多合作夥伴關係，以確保我們正處於這些發展的核心，同時盡可能地鼓勵並推動它們。所以我知道我給的回答比你想要的更廣一些，但我認為值得回顧，因為正是這些因素確保了我們今天看到的動能能夠延續，並且你確實會看到該領域的投資與開發。

Our next question comes from Jeff Zekauskas from JPMorgan.

下一個問題來自摩根大通（JPMorgan）的 Jeff Zekauskas。

Your returns on capital have moved up, which is natural given your cost reduction programs and the growing economy, have your returns on capital, though, in your on-site projects really changed over the past couple of years? That is, are the returns on capital in on-site going up or staying the same?

你們的資本報酬率已經上升，考量到你們的成本削減計畫以及經濟成長，這很自然。不過，在你們的現場（on-site）專案上，過去幾年資本報酬率真的有改變嗎？也就是說，現場業務的資本報酬率是在上升，還是維持不變？

Jeff, this is Matt. So our investment criteria is the same. So we've maintained that throughout. And therefore, how we look at the projects and the expectations we have remain the same. But to your exact point, given the density model that we have, we're getting significant growth on this business on a noncapital-intensive basis, and then we continue to deliver on our projects, start up our projects and execute those projects, which deliver on the expected returns that we entered into them on. And the combination of the 2 is giving us a significant acceleration in return on capital. And at this point, we continue to see this happen, and as long as these trends continue, it should bode well for that metric going forward.

Jeff，我是 Matt。我們的投資標準是一樣的，並且一直維持不變。因此，我們看待專案的方式以及對專案的預期也都保持一致。但正如你所指出的，基於我們的密度模型（density model），我們在這項業務上以非資本密集的方式取得了顯著成長；同時我們也持續交付專案、啟動專案並執行專案，而這些專案都能實現我們當初進入時所預期的報酬。兩者結合，使我們的資本報酬率顯著加速提升。目前我們仍持續看到這種情況發生，只要這些趨勢延續，未來這項指標應該會有不錯的表現。

Okay. And in your -- in the hydrogen area, when you contemplate various projects, are any of the projects that you contemplate involved with ammonia being made in some jurisdiction, whether it's on Mid East or Australia or somewhere else? That is, are you working with any possible builders of those projects? Or you're not doing that?

好的。那在氫能領域，當你們評估各種專案時，你們考慮的專案中是否有任何涉及在某些司法管轄區製造氨（ammonia），不論是在中東、澳洲或其他地方？也就是說，你們是否正在與任何可能建造這些專案的業者合作？還是你們沒有在做這件事？

Right, Jeff. So I'll headline that by saying yes, we are. And I want to kind of give you a slightly broader picture as well. Just to give you a sense of where we stand on the hydrogen piece. So as you know, I mentioned this before on a previous call that we run our Linde Hydrogen Council. We meet every month. We review all the projects. The last review we had a couple of weeks ago was -- saw 240 projects across that whole range of opportunities in that space, adding up to what we call probability-weighted CapEx or value of about $4.1 billion. So again, these are -- some of these are larger projects. Obviously, we see a large number of mobility projects, which tend to be somewhat smaller.

是的，Jeff。我先用一句話回答：有，我們正在做。同時我也想給你一個稍微更宏觀的圖像，讓你了解我們在氫能這一塊的現況。如你所知，我在之前的電話會議也提過，我們運作自己的 Linde Hydrogen Council（林德氫能委員會）。我們每個月開會，檢視所有專案。幾週前的上一次檢視中，我們在整個機會範圍內看到了 240 個專案，合計約 41 億美元、我們稱之為「機率加權資本支出（probability-weighted CapEx）或價值」。再次強調，這些專案中有些是大型專案；當然，我們也看到大量的移動端（mobility）專案，這些通常規模較小。

But to your point, one of the areas where we're seeing both the increase in the number of projects as well as large size projects is the space of carbon capture. And beyond that, we then look at hydrogen and ammonia as being 2 elements, which kind of get added on downstream to that. So the answer is, yes, we're working in a number of different customers and players who are looking at the ammonia loop. Jeff, you may also be aware that Linde has its own ammonia loop technology out of Linde Engineering. So we've done a number of these ammonia loops elsewhere including in the Middle East, in Eastern Europe and in the U.S. So we have that unique advantage of being able to tie both or all of those technologies in and provide those solutions, which makes it very attractive to many of our customers.

但回到你的問題，我們看到專案數量增加、且同時出現大型專案的一個領域，是碳捕捉（carbon capture）。在此之外，我們再把氫與氨視為兩個要素，作為下游加掛的環節。因此答案是：是的，我們正與多家不同的客戶與參與者合作，他們都在評估氨迴路（ammonia loop）。Jeff，你可能也知道，林德工程（Linde Engineering）本身就擁有自家的氨迴路技術。我們在其他地區也做過多個氨迴路專案，包括中東、東歐以及美國。因此，我們具備能把這些技術（兩項或全部）整合並提供解決方案的獨特優勢，這也使其對許多客戶非常有吸引力。

Our next question comes from P.J. Juvekar from Citi.

下一個問題來自花旗（Citi）的 P.J. Juvekar。

Sanjiv, does your deal with ITM give you any advantage in winning green hydrogen projects since you have the PEM technology through the joint venture? And can you sort of give examples of that?

Sanjiv，你們與 ITM 的交易是否讓你們在贏得綠氫專案方面更有優勢，因為透過合資公司你們擁有 PEM 技術？你能否舉一些例子？

Yes. P.J., so yes, of course. So the deal with ITM is unique in many ways, P.J. The first that we are an equity investor in ITM that means we are skin in the game with them. But more importantly, we have a joint venture with ITM. There is a Linde Engineering ITM joint venture called ILE, which is where all the scale-up on larger projects above a particular size happens. And that is what gives us the unique competitive advantage of having access to great PEM technology, and being able to support ITM in scaling that up for large projects that we're looking at and pursuing. And again, we are seeing good developments in that space, a lot of proposal activity, P.J., as I referenced earlier on. We are very close in a number of cases in those discussions with some select customers. So really pleased to see that ITM linkage and find ourselves leveraging that quite actively as we develop these projects.

是的，P.J.，當然是。與 ITM 的交易在很多方面都很獨特。第一，我們是 ITM 的股權投資人，這代表我們與他們利害與共。但更重要的是，我們與 ITM 有一家合資公司。有一家名為 ILE 的 Linde Engineering 與 ITM 的合資企業，所有超過特定規模的大型專案之擴產（scale-up）都在那裡進行。這讓我們具備獨特的競爭優勢：能取得優秀的 PEM 技術，並能支持 ITM 將其擴大到我們正在評估與推進的大型專案。同樣地，正如我先前提到的，我們在這個領域看到良好的進展，以及大量的提案活動（proposal activity）。在若干案例中，我們與一些精選客戶的討論已非常接近。因此，很高興看到與 ITM 的連結，並且我們在開發這些專案時也相當積極地加以運用。

Great. Great. And sticking to green hydrogen. You also had a deal with Plug Power to use their fuel cells to convert some of your Class 6 and Class 8 trucks over to hydrogen. Can you give us an update on that?

很好，很好。繼續談綠氫。你們也與 Plug Power 達成協議，使用他們的燃料電池把你們部分 Class 6 與 Class 8 卡車轉為氫能。你能給我們一個最新進度嗎？

So P.J., we are working with Plug Power, and we worked with Plug Power in many different ways. We supply most of the hydrogen requirements today as an example. While they don't have their own facilities up, we are also looking at a collaborative development in a number of other spaces, which hasn't been announced yet. But we are kind of progressing on different fronts over there. One of the things that we have agreed with Plug Power, and I must admit here with a few other players as well, is that we will be trialing on our trucks fuel cells, and then we'll be moving our trucks to hydrogen. So we already have a plan in place for the U.S., for Europe and South Korea to be progressing with those trials and seeing how they move forward. So again, a lot of activity happening in that space. We are really waiting with bated breath, P.J., to get these trucks on the road.

P.J.，我們正與 Plug Power 合作，而且我們與 Plug Power 在許多不同面向都有合作。舉例來說，在他們自有設施尚未建成之前，我們目前供應了他們大部分的氫氣需求。我們也在其他一些尚未對外宣布的領域，評估共同開發的合作；我們正在多個面向推進。其中一件我們與 Plug Power（我也必須承認，還有其他幾家業者）已達成的共識是：我們將在自家卡車上試行燃料電池，接著把卡車轉為使用氫能。我們已經針對美國、歐洲與南韓制定了計畫，推進這些試驗並觀察其後續進展。因此，這個領域有很多活動正在發生。我們也非常期待，P.J.，能讓這些卡車真正上路。

Our next question comes from Peter Clark from SocGen.

下一個問題來自法國興業銀行（SocGen）的 Peter Clark。

Yes. The first question is around -- it's actually following on from the first question you had about the market share. Particularly looking at the U.S. packaged gas business because I know there's differences in mix, I know the biggest competitor out there has a lot of hardgoods, a lot of construction. But you've been seeing double-digit growth now in that business in the first quarter, you probably accelerated on what you saw in the first quarter, in the second quarter? And they're still actually down, particularly dragged back by the hardgoods. So I'm just wondering, are you taking some share, or is it all about mix maybe regional.

是的。第一個問題是——其實是延續你們先前關於市占率的第一個問題。特別是看美國的瓶裝氣體（packaged gas）業務，因為我知道產品組合有所不同，也知道最大的競爭對手那邊有很多硬體商品（hardgoods）、很多建築相關。但你們在第一季該業務已經看到雙位數成長；你們在第二季是否在第一季的基礎上進一步加速？而他們其實仍在下滑，特別是被硬體商品拖累。所以我想問的是，你們是否正在取得一些市占？還是這可能完全是組合差異、或區域因素？

And then the second question is around the investments. Obviously, you're very excited with all the organic investment you have and the potential for that. I'm just wondering on the potential acquisition line. Are you just not seeing many potential targets that fit the criteria on return given what you can do internally with your money?

第二個問題是關於投資。顯然你們對所有的有機投資以及其潛力感到非常興奮。我想問的是，在潛在併購方面，你們是否只是沒有看到很多符合報酬標準的標的，因為相較之下你們把資金投入內部能做得更好？

Thanks, Peter. Great question. So I have to admit, Peter, I am thrilled with the U.S. packaged gas business in the way that, that team is really moving forward at the moment. With that we see double-digit growth, both on gas and hardgoods. We see strong sequential growth on both of those elements as well. So I know I've read some of our competitors talking about that space. But the reality is, we are certainly growing very strongly in that space, and I see us kind of moving forward. Anecdotally, obviously, people will tell you that we're taking share, but I don't particularly want to comment on that. That is anecdotal, but you can look at the numbers, and I think the comparison will kind of tell its own -- get you to the right conclusion. So again, very, very strong performance over there on both hardgoods and gases.

謝謝你，Peter。這是個很好的問題。我必須承認，Peter，我對美國瓶裝氣體業務以及那個團隊目前推進的方式感到非常振奮。我們看到雙位數成長，氣體與硬體商品兩者皆然；在這兩個要素上，我們也看到強勁的連續季成長（sequential growth）。所以我知道我也讀到一些競爭對手談到那個領域。但現實是，我們在那個領域確實成長非常強勁，而且我看到我們正持續向前推進。就傳聞而言，當然有人會告訴你我們正在拿到市占，但我不特別想評論。那是傳聞，不過你可以看數字，我認為比較之下會自己說明——讓你得到正確的結論。因此，再次強調，無論是硬體商品或氣體，我們在那邊的表現都非常、非常強勁。

If I move on to investments and talk a little bit about the acquisition piece. So one of the challenges, Peter, as you'll appreciate, given where we stand in our size and having come -- lived through 3 years of regulatory approvals on the merger, we are very sensitized to how large acquisitions can happen. So we are left with a much smaller pool of opportunities there. We will do tuck-in acquisitions in most of our markets any day, a good high-quality tuck-in acquisition, we will go after, and we will do that as soon as we find them. And of course, they have to live up to our investment criteria requirements as you know well. The larger ones become a little more challenging, particularly as we've got to kind of understand the requirements from local regulatory environments or antitrust, et cetera. And that's where typically something larger trips up.

如果我接著談投資，並稍微談一下併購這一塊。Peter，如你所知，鑑於我們目前的規模定位，而且又經歷了合併案長達 3 年的監管核准流程，我們對大型併購如何發生非常敏感。因此，我們在那方面可選的機會池就小得多。我們在大多數市場隨時都會做補強型併購（tuck-in acquisitions）；只要是優質、高品質的補強型併購，我們就會去爭取，而且一旦找到就會立刻著手。當然，它們必須符合我們的投資標準要求，這點你很清楚。規模較大的案子就會更具挑戰，特別是我們必須理解各地監管環境或反壟斷等方面的要求。而通常就是在這裡，較大的案子會卡關。

So do I expect to see us doing acquisitions moving forward? Yes. Will you see a large number of tuck-ins happen? Most likely where we find those opportunities come through, we will certainly pursue them all day long if we could.

所以我是否預期我們未來會做併購？會。你是否會看到大量補強型併購發生？很可能，只要我們看到那些機會出現，如果可以的話，我們當然會全天候地去追逐並推進。

Our next question comes from Geoff Haire from UBS.

下一個問題來自 UBS 的 Geoff Haire。

Just have 2 very quick questions. First of all, in the margin improvement that you report, can I just check, does that include any benefit from rising energy costs? And if it does, could you possibly break that out? And then just looking at the operating cash flow, which is obviously flat in Q2 year-on-year and down sequentially. You've mentioned higher cash taxes. Are there any other movements within the cash flow in the quarter that are -- and have a negative impact?

我有兩個很快的問題。第一，關於你們所報告的利潤率改善，我想確認一下：其中是否包含能源成本上升帶來的任何好處？如果有的話，能否把那部分拆分出來？第二，看看營運現金流，顯然第二季同比持平、環比下降。你們提到較高的現金稅。那麼本季現金流裡是否還有其他變動項目也造成負面影響？

Okay. Jeff, it's Matt. I can answer that. So I think your first question, just to make sure I got it right, you're asking about margin related to energy. Can you repeat that one again? I kind of lost the word there.

好的。Jeff，我是 Matt，我可以回答。我想先確認我理解正確：你的第一個問題是在問與能源相關的利潤率。你可以再重複一次嗎？我剛剛漏聽了一個詞。

Yes. So obviously, you've got big margin improvement that you've been reporting almost every quarter since you've come -- you've merged. What I'm just trying to understand is within that margin improvement, you've obviously had rising energy costs. Does that give you a benefit to the margin as well? And so I'm trying to look at what the margin improvement would be net of rising energy costs?

好的。很明顯，你們自從完成合併以來，幾乎每一季都在報告很大的利潤率改善。我想了解的是，在這些利潤率改善之中，你們同時也面臨能源成本上升。能源成本上升是否也會對利潤率帶來某種好處？因此我想看的是，扣除能源成本上升後的淨利潤率改善會是多少？

Yes. So on that one, the actual -- the rising energy costs will dilute your margins. And that's what we call cost pass-through. So we isolate cost pass-through. And obviously, what that is, it's a simple grossing up. So you'll see the sales and cost of goods rise equal dollar amounts. So therefore, it has no effect on our variable contribution or gross contribution dollars, but it will have a negative effect on your margin because you're simply doing a gross-up effect. So we isolate that out as cost pass-through that is primarily natural gas and electricity energy. So those components tend to drive that. Obviously, as inflation you're seeing in those type commodities rises, we will pass them through, but they will dilute our margins.

是的。就這點而言，實際上——能源成本上升會稀釋你的利潤率。我們把這稱為成本轉嫁（cost pass-through）。我們會把成本轉嫁單獨拆出來。很明顯，這其實就是一個簡單的「總額放大」（grossing up）。因此你會看到銷售額與銷貨成本以相同的金額同步上升。所以它對我們的變動貢獻或毛貢獻金額沒有影響，但會對利潤率造成負面影響，因為你只是做了總額放大的效果。我們把這主要來自天然氣與電力等能源的成本轉嫁單獨列示。這些項目通常是主要驅動因素。顯然，當你看到這類商品的通膨上升時，我們會把它轉嫁出去，但它會稀釋我們的利潤率。

So for example, year-over-year, I mentioned while we're up to 350 bps on our margin that includes a 50 basis point headwind related to this cost pass-through. So excluding that, we would have been up 400 basis points year-over-year. So we are passing it through as our contracts enable, but it will be dilutive.

例如，以年對年來看，我提到我們的利潤率上升了 350 個基點，其中包含了與這項成本轉嫁相關的 50 個基點逆風。因此，若排除這項因素，我們年對年的利潤率本來會上升 400 個基點。我們會在合約允許的範圍內進行轉嫁，但它確實會造成稀釋。

As far as operating cash flow, yes, to your point, the $300 million that was incremental year-over-year, it's about $250 million sequentially with the impact of taxes and that is purely timing just when payments were made. In addition, working capital probably was about $100-or-so million unfavorable. Part of that is growth, and we are growing, so we're consuming a bit of working capital. But when I look at our cash conversion cycles, our DSOs, they're quite good across the board. Another piece is simply engineering timing. As you saw, engineering was consuming a bit of their backlog, what that is on a cash cycle, you tend to have more of a negative downside. But as Sanjiv mentioned, we have a high degree of confidence of our entire backlog, including sale of plants. So we feel that's something looking forward will turn around. And I feel pretty good about where our Q3 cash flow will be and making some of this timing back up, both on working capital as well as cash taxes.

至於營運現金流，是的，如你所說，年對年增加的 3 億美元，環比大約是 2.5 億美元，主要受到稅款影響，而那純粹是時點問題——也就是付款發生的時間。此外，營運資金大概有約 1 億美元左右的不利影響。其中一部分來自成長，我們確實在成長，所以會消耗一些營運資金。但當我看我們的現金轉換週期、應收帳款週轉天數（DSO），整體表現都相當不錯。另一部分則只是工程業務的時點因素。正如你看到的，工程業務正在消化部分在手訂單（backlog）；在現金週期上，這通常會帶來較多負面影響。但如 Sanjiv 所提，我們對整體在手訂單（包括工廠出售）有高度信心。因此我們認為，往前看這會回轉。我對第三季的現金流狀況感覺相當不錯，並且能把部分時點影響補回來，包含營運資金以及現金稅兩方面。

Our next question comes from Markus Mayer from Baader Bank.

下一個問題來自 Baader Bank 的 Markus Mayer。

Two questions from my side. First of all, on your nitrogen business. Given the recovery of the oil price, was there already a positive effect on your nitrogen for enhanced oil recovery business? And if not, what kind of oil price if you think you need -- or your business need to see a recovery there to kind of be back to '13, '14 levels? And the second question would be on the effect of startups, you expect this year and also next year that we can basically strip out the underlying business together -- this new business?

我這邊有兩個問題。第一，關於你們的氮氣業務。考量油價回升，你們用於提高採收率（EOR）的氮氣業務是否已經出現正面影響？如果還沒有，你認為油價需要回升到什麼水準——或你們的業務需要看到什麼程度的復甦——才能回到 2013、2014 年的水準？第二個問題是關於你們預期今年以及明年會有的投產（startups）影響：我們是否可以把既有基礎業務與這些新增業務的影響拆開來看？

Thanks, Markus. So your question on nitrogen enhanced recovery using nitrogen. As you know, we've got a couple of large customers who do that. That's been fairly stable through this period. So we haven't really seen significant volatility in that. It's been stable and works right through. The geology is, Markus, that as you are using nitrogen for enhanced recovery, you are then in that process linked to that, you can't really step out or provide a lot of volatility. It isn't great for the field. So you see that at fairly stable levels.

謝謝，Markus。你問到用氮氣做提高採收率的氮氣業務。如你所知，我們有幾個大型客戶在做這件事。在這段期間它一直相當穩定，所以我們並沒有看到顯著的波動。它很穩定，且運作一直持續。Markus，從地質與作業特性來看，當你使用氮氣做提高採收率時，在那個流程中你是被綁定在裡面的，你不太可能中途退出或造成很大的波動，這對油田並不好。因此你會看到它維持在相當穩定的水準。

In terms of startups, yes, we do have a number of startups happening. As you know, from time to time, we kind of release -- provide a press release that covers some of those. I don't want to name them, but we do have a few happening towards the end of this year. And yes, beginning of next year as well, there will be a few more startups that will happen.

就投產而言，是的，我們確實有多個投產正在發生。如你所知，我們不時會發布新聞稿，涵蓋其中一些。我不想點名，但我們確實有幾個會在今年底前後投產。而且是的，明年初也會有幾個投產會發生。

But the kind of magnitude of growth, can you give us some kind of indication?

但就成長的幅度而言，你能給我們一些指引嗎？

So one way to think about that, Markus, is I'll bring you back to something that we've said in the past and just gives you a correlation, which is when I think about our EPS growth, I'd say our backlog, and therefore, that really -- that backlog getting converted into startups provides us roughly a 2 percentage point over a 3- to 4-year period. That's what we're likely to see from the backlog that we currently have. And that's one way to think about how the startup impact comes through down to the EPS level.

Markus，有一種思考方式是，我帶你回到我們過去說過的一點，提供一個關聯性：當我看我們的每股盈餘（EPS）成長時，我會說我們的在手訂單（backlog）——因此，這些在手訂單轉化為投產——在 3 到 4 年期間大約能為我們帶來約 2 個百分點的貢獻。這大致就是我們從目前在手訂單中可能看到的結果。這也是一種理解投產影響如何一路傳導到 EPS 層面的方式。

And our next question comes from John McNulty from BMO Capital Markets.

下一個問題來自 BMO Capital Markets 的 John McNulty。

So I guess 2 of them tied to the same topic, which would be inflation. So obviously, we're in a really kind of almost hyperinflationary market. Can you remind us, in terms of the backlog that you've got and the projects that are in that backlog, how much of the equipment, the materials, et cetera, have already been locked up so that you don't have to worry about inflation? And what percent is maybe not necessarily locked in at this point that we have to kind of think about?

我想有兩個問題都跟同一個主題有關，也就是通膨。顯然，我們正處在一個幾乎是超通膨的市場。能否請你提醒我們：就你們目前的在手訂單（backlog）以及其中的專案而言，有多少設備、材料等已經被鎖定，因此你們不需要擔心通膨？又有多少比例目前還不一定已鎖定，需要我們去考量？

Sure. John, so when we get into a point of securing a project, whether it's on the sale of gas or the sale of plant side, by then, we get into a very -- a fairly detailed costing mechanism, and we lock in our costs at that stage with all the OEMs, in particular, but other subvendors as well. So when we are in a backlog stage, most of our costs are already locked in pretty much. So that should give you a sense of how we stand. As we are seeing inflationary trends now, we're already factoring those in into the proposals that we are developing and providing to customers. So again, we have good mechanisms in place, a lot of experience of having managers, John, to make sure that, that coverage is very strong and a very diligent process or rigorous process around it in our engineering team.

當然可以，John。當我們進入確定一個專案的階段——不論是售氣端或售廠端——到那時我們會進入一套非常、相當細緻的成本估算機制，並在那個階段與所有 OEM（原始設備製造商），尤其是 OEM，但也包括其他分包供應商，一起把成本鎖定。因此當我們處於在手訂單階段時，我們的大部分成本基本上都已經鎖定了。這應該能讓你了解我們目前的狀況。當我們現在看到通膨趨勢時，我們也已經把這些因素納入我們正在制定並提供給客戶的提案之中。再者，我們有良好的機制，也有很多經驗豐富的管理者，John，來確保這方面的覆蓋非常到位；而我們工程團隊在這方面也有非常勤勉或嚴謹的流程。

Got it. No, that's helpful. And then I guess, just kind of tied into that, given this inflationary environment, it does look like your European business, your Asian business, we saw some price acceleration. Is that something -- given the inflation levels that we're seeing that we could see further acceleration from the pricing that you're putting through? I know it's pretty lofty already, but can we see even more of that just given the environment? How should we think about that?

了解。不，這很有幫助。然後我想，某種程度上也跟這點相關，在這樣的通膨環境下，看起來你們的歐洲業務、亞洲業務，我們看到一些價格加速。這是否意味著——考量到我們看到的通膨水準——你們所推動的定價還可能進一步加速？我知道現在已經相當高了，但在這樣的環境下，我們還可能看到更多嗎？我們應該如何看待這件事？

So John, that's a great question. And as we've kind of shown 3% overall pricing comes through, you know that a large part of the pricing comes through the merchant and package business. And very little of that really comes through the on-site line. So therefore, you can do the math and you'll get to a number that says mid-single-digit on average on pricing across those different segments, particularly from merchant and packaged.

所以，John，這是個很好的問題。正如我們所展示的，整體約3%的定價已經反映出來；你也知道，定價的很大一部分來自商用與包裝氣體業務，而真正來自現場供氣（on-site）線的非常少。因此，你可以自己算一下，就會得到一個數字：在不同分部之間的平均定價大約是中個位數，特別是商用與包裝氣體。

Now our team has done a fabulous job of making sure that we remain ahead of the curve as far as inflation is concerned. We've been telling you this for about 2 quarters now. And I expect that team to continue to do that as we move forward. So for us, making sure that we are working that pricing lever, having those conversations with our customers as we see those inflationary trends continue to come through, it remains right on top of mind for us.

現在，我們的團隊在確保我們在通膨方面保持領先上做得非常出色。我們大概已經跟各位說了兩個季度了。我也預期這個團隊在接下來會持續做到這點。所以對我們而言，確保我們運用好定價這個槓桿，並在看到這些通膨趨勢持續出現時，與客戶進行這些對話，仍然是我們最優先關注的事項。

Our next question comes from Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley.

下一個問題來自摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）的Vincent Andrews。

Just a question, the $1 billion of base CapEx that you talked about, could you just talk to us about sort of what -- how sort of robust that menu of opportunity is? And why you choose it to be $1 billion versus why it is not $500 million or $2 billion? Is it -- as far as I can see, how do the returns there compared to the traditional CapEx backlog?

我想問一下，你提到的10億美元基礎資本支出（base CapEx），能否跟我們談談——這個機會清單到底有多充足？以及你們為什麼選擇10億美元，而不是5億或20億？就我所見，這些投資的報酬率與傳統的資本支出積壓（CapEx backlog）相比如何？

Sure. Vince, that's a great question. I'm glad you asked that question because I've been itching to talk a little bit about small on-site. So that's a good lead in there. So let me first just describe that. So essentially, when we have projects, and I think small on-site is a great example to just illustrate the point. Here, we have long-term contracts, so these are contracted. We have kind of secured cash flows in there. But individually, these are less than $5 million each typically, what we call our small on-sites. And they have shorter execution time lines. They're accretive, good solid returns. These are projects we'd love to do every day. And the reason I want to particularly talk about it today also is because I think in the first half of this year, we did 20 -- more than 25 of these projects already.

當然。Vince，這是個很好的問題。我很高興你問到，因為我一直很想多談一點小型現場供氣（small on-site）。這個問題切入得很好。我先描述一下。基本上，當我們有專案時——我認為小型現場供氣是用來說明這點的很好例子——我們有長期合約，所以這些是已簽約的。我們也有某種程度上已鎖定的現金流。但就單一專案而言，通常每個都低於500萬美元，我們稱之為小型現場供氣專案。而且它們的執行期更短。它們具增益性（accretive），報酬穩健扎實。這些是我們每天都很想做的專案。我今天特別想談它的原因之一也在於，我認為今年上半年，我們已經做了20——超過25個這類專案。

We've signed up more than 25 small on-site projects already. Now that's a 50% jump over last year. Same period last year, we are more -- 50% higher than that. And I love these projects because great solid returns, good strong execution. These are packaged plants so we can go in there and work on them very quickly and which is why we get that execution advantage as well.

我們已經簽下超過25個小型現場供氣專案。這比去年增加了50%。與去年同期相比，我們高出——高出50%。我喜歡這些專案，因為報酬扎實、執行力強。這些是套裝式（packaged）工廠，因此我們可以很快進場並迅速施工，這也是我們能取得執行優勢的原因。

And I think the other point to just make over here and while I -- most points, I think we think about the merger being over, and that's true. But here is an example of revenue synergies that we talked about. We never really kind of -- we never really put a number to it, but this is a good example of how the revenue synergies from the merger are flowing through. We brought in 2 suites of technologies giving us a really strong position in that space, and we're leveraging that actively in kind of winning these deals that you see us put through.

我想在這裡再補充一點。雖然在大多數層面，我們認為併購已經結束了，這也沒錯。但這裡就是我們談到的營收綜效（revenue synergies）的例子。我們從未真正為它量化一個數字，但這是個很好的例子，說明併購帶來的營收綜效如何逐步反映出來。我們帶來了兩套技術組合，使我們在該領域擁有非常強的地位，而我們也正積極運用這點，去贏得你們看到我們拿下的這些案子。

Now all of these come through that base CapEx piece. So am I excited about that number of $1 billion? I am. There isn't a cap to it, and that flexes with what the business does and what the needs of the market are. And clearly, we will flex that with what we see in the market demand. All it needs is, those investments have to meet our investment criteria. That's all it needs. Good quality projects, any day, any time, happy to do, small or big. I hope that answers.

現在，這些全部都會歸入那個基礎資本支出（base CapEx）的部分。所以我對10億美元這個數字感到興奮嗎？是的。我們並沒有為它設上限，它會隨著業務表現與市場需求而彈性調整。而且很明顯地，我們會依據市場需求所見來調整。唯一的要求是：這些投資必須符合我們的投資標準。就這樣而已。高品質的專案，不論何時、大小皆可，我們都樂於去做。希望這回答了你的問題。

That was great. And maybe just as a follow-up, and I might be reading more into this than I should. But now that you're combining sort of the sale of gas backlog and the sale of plant backlog, it feels to me you're sort of bringing the sale of plant business a little bit more to the front of the stage than perhaps it's been in the past. And I see clearly that, that's a lower-margin business, but it's obviously a CapEx-light business versus the sale of gas. So I'm just wondering, am I correct that you're kind of thinking about the engineering business having more prominence on a go-forward basis? And do you have a plan there to sort of improve the margins and the returns? Or is there more we're going to be hearing about it in the quarters and years to come?

這很棒。那我再追問一下，我可能解讀得比應該的更多。但現在你把售氣（sale of gas）積壓與售廠（sale of plant）積壓合併來看，讓我感覺你們把售廠業務推到舞台更前面一些，可能比過去更突出。我也清楚那是較低毛利的業務，但相較於售氣，它顯然是更輕資本支出（CapEx-light）的業務。所以我想確認，我是否理解正確：你們是否在思考未來工程業務會更具重要性？你們是否有計畫提升毛利與報酬？或者我們在未來幾季、幾年會聽到更多相關內容？

That's a great question, Vince. Let me just take a step back, if I may, and just talk about the concept of how we think about our business and opportunities, right? So the starting point for us is, we want to be able to participate in the whole range of opportunities that we see in the marketplace. And to do that, I have a unique competitive advantage, which I am going to leverage, which is the ability to offer an attractive sale of gas model or in some cases where that customer looking at those 2 models is not particularly keen on that to be able to offer and get the business with the sale of plant model, right? So either proposal for me works quite well.

這是個很好的問題，Vince。如果可以的話，我先退一步，談談我們如何看待自身業務與機會的概念。對我們而言，起點是：我們希望能參與市場上看到的完整機會範圍。為了做到這點，我有一個獨特的競爭優勢，我會加以運用：也就是能提供具吸引力的售氣模式；或者在某些情況下，當客戶在這兩種模式之間評估、但對售氣模式並不特別偏好時，我們也能提供售廠模式並拿下業務。對我來說，兩種提案都運作得很好。

Now the profiles are a little bit different. You're right in saying that doing an EPC-type structure, for us is asset-light. It is ROC accretive, it's cash flow positive for us. So we do think our engineering capabilities and the fact that we have those capabilities, executing day-in and day-out at a tremendous level is a really strong competitive advantage that we have, and we want to make sure that we leverage that as much as we need to. Now I do want to just make sure that you understand and recognize that we aren't giving prominence to one or the other. These are 2 -- these are kind of 2 options I have, and I use those options where I need to and where I can exercise them and do what's best for the organization.

當然，兩者的特性略有不同。你說得對，採用EPC類型的架構，對我們而言是輕資產（asset-light）的；它能提升ROC（資本報酬率），也能帶來正向現金流。因此，我們確實認為我們的工程能力，以及我們日復一日以極高水準執行的能力，是我們非常強的競爭優勢，我們也希望確保在需要時盡可能加以運用。不過我也想確保你理解並認知：我們並不是讓其中一種更突出。這是兩個——這是我手上的兩個選項，我會在需要、也能運用時使用它們，做出對組織最有利的選擇。

Now there are 2 kind of underpinning principles in there. One, I want to be able to approach every opportunity in my space that I have the advantage and the ability to execute on. And two, I want to maintain discipline in my investment criteria. And I think this is that unique advantage that we get bringing the 2 together.

這裡有兩個基本原則。第一，我希望能接觸並爭取我所在領域中、我具備優勢且有能力執行的每一個機會。第二，我希望在投資標準上維持紀律。我認為把這兩者結合起來，正是我們獲得的獨特優勢。

Our next question comes from Mike Sison from Wells Fargo.

下一個問題來自富國銀行（Wells Fargo）的Mike Sison。

Nice quarter there. Historically, inflationary environments tend to be good for industrial gas demand. And I'm just curious, given where we're at in this inflationary cycle, do you think there could be sort of a step-up in the multiplier for demand for industrial gases as we head into the next couple of years?

這一季表現不錯。歷史上，通膨環境往往對工業氣體需求有利。我很好奇，考量我們目前所處的這一輪通膨循環，你是否認為在未來一兩年，工業氣體需求的乘數效應可能會出現某種程度的上升？

Mike, that's a good question. So when we think about inflation, typically, we've spent most of our time talking about what happens on the pricing side. But you're right, inflationary environments, we actually like inflation, as you've heard us say before, largely because on the pricing side, we have the ability to pass much of that inflation through our contractual structures on to the customers. And also, it's a good opportunity for us to open a conversation on pricing. Now typically, when we see inflationary environments, we do see some industrial activity pick up and recoveries happen and constraints that lead to that inflationary environment. That's where we play actively. And yes, I think in some areas, we will see some of that play out into demand, on the demand side as well.

Mike，這是個好問題。當我們談通膨時，通常我們大部分時間都在討論定價端會發生什麼。但你說得對，通膨環境下，我們其實喜歡通膨——你們以前也聽我們說過——主要是因為在定價端，我們有能力透過合約架構把相當一部分的通膨轉嫁給客戶。同時，這也給了我們一個很好的機會去開啟定價對話。一般而言，當我們看到通膨環境時，我們確實會看到一些工業活動回升、復甦發生，以及導致通膨環境的各種供需限制。這正是我們積極參與的地方。是的，我認為在某些領域，這些因素也會在需求端反映出來，帶動需求。

Our next question comes from Kevin McCarthy from Vertical Research Partners.

我們的下一個問題來自 Vertical Research Partners 的 Kevin McCarthy。

Sanjiv, I was wondering if you could provide an update on the Snam deal that you announced in December of last year to develop clean hydrogen projects in Europe. How is that partnership going in the early days? Is the paradigm to move inexpensive energy from Northern Africa up to the European continent? And if so, what are the barriers, if any, to making more substantial capital investments in that arena? Does it have to do with technology and production economics or perhaps more on the commercial side? Maybe you can flesh out how you see the future there.

Sanjiv，我想請你更新一下你們在去年 12 月宣布與 Snam 達成的交易，該交易旨在歐洲開發潔淨氫能專案。這項合作在初期進展如何？其範式是否是將北非的低成本能源輸送到歐洲大陸？如果是的話，在該領域進行更大規模資本投資的障礙（如果有）是什麼？是與技術與生產經濟性有關，還是更多在商業端？也許你可以更具體說明你如何看待那裡的未來。

Thanks, Kevin. That's a really good question. So the partnership with Snam has gone well, and we are like-minded in our view of how the market needs for hydrogen in Europe, in particular, Mainland Europe needs to be met. And that kind of common understanding and common appreciation of what needs to happen is critical for that partnership development to move forward to getting something substantial to happen. Now as with all good things, Kevin, these things take time. And there is, as you are aware, a lot of funding activity happening in Europe as we speak. And as part of that, I think we are waiting and watching to kind of see how that develops. So that's in terms of how the partnership itself is moving forward.

謝謝你，Kevin。這是個非常好的問題。我們與 Snam 的合作進展良好，而且我們在如何滿足歐洲、特別是歐洲大陸對氫能的市場需求方面看法一致。這種對需要發生什麼的共同理解與共同認知，對於推動這項合作關係的發展、進而促成實質性成果至關重要。不過就像所有好事一樣，Kevin，這些事情需要時間。而且如你所知，歐洲目前正有大量資金投入活動在進行中。作為其中一部分，我想我們也在等待並觀察其發展情況。以上是就合作本身的推進而言。

I want to just take a bit of time and talk about your other part of the question, which is what do we see as elements that will either encourage or create barriers for some of these substantial developments to accelerate and get momentum. And here -- and unfortunately, Kevin, I'll be repeating myself a little bit here, but I said earlier on that -- to Nicola's question, that you need a couple of things to be happening in tandem, right? One, you need to see the regulatory environment with some TEEP come into place in Europe, we do have that. But I must admit, at the same time that it is complex. I won't say bureaucratic, but it's almost that. It has a number of administrative controls. It goes through a country process first, then at the European Union level and then some allocations will happen. There's a whole suite of activities that need to happen before some of that funding and incentives become actually available for you to be able to go out and make these substantial developments happen. So there is a whole piece that is just -- it's part of the process.

我想花一點時間談談你問題的另一部分，也就是我們認為哪些因素會鼓勵或形成障礙，使得一些重大開發能夠加速並取得動能。在這裡——很遺憾，Kevin，我可能會稍微重複一下——我先前在回答 Nicola 的問題時提到，你需要幾件事情同步發生，對吧？第一，你需要看到歐洲的監管環境中有一些 TEEP 落地，我們確實有。但我必須承認，同時它也很複雜。我不會說是官僚，但幾乎接近。它有許多行政管制，先走各國流程，再到歐盟層級，之後還會進行一些分配。在部分資金與激勵措施真正可用、讓你能夠走出去推動這些重大開發落地之前，還有一整套活動需要完成。所以其中有一大部分——這就是流程的一部分。

On the technology side, the other piece that I mentioned, you need a road map where you can develop on the assumptions and Europe has kind of chosen the path of green. My view is that scale will happen on blue hydrogen before it happens on green. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, that is true today and will be true for a number of years to come. Technology for scaling up on blue exists today. Linde provides that whole suite of technologies today to be able to do that. So on the green side, which is where Europe's kind of move forward and I won't say selected, but certainly leaned towards. We will need to see that technology development to scale happen. I think that is a technology road map that's kind of 3 to 5 years out.

在技術面，另一個我提到的重點是，你需要一個可以依據假設來推進開發的路線圖，而歐洲某種程度上選擇了綠氫這條路。我的看法是，藍氫會先於綠氫實現規模化。我毫不懷疑，這在今天是事實，且在未來數年也會如此。藍氫的擴產技術今天就已存在。Linde 目前就能提供完整的一套技術來做到這點。至於綠氫，也就是歐洲推進的方向——我不會說是選定，但確實更偏向——我們需要看到技術發展到可規模化。我認為這是一個大約 3 到 5 年後的技術路線圖。

You need low-cost renewable energy, again, that's a development that's in progress not available everywhere in Europe, as you know, which is why this whole concept of Africa becomes so attractive -- Northern Africa, in particular. And you also need effective technology road map for the electrolysis to be able to bring that capital and efficiency up to a point. So capital down efficiency up to get to a point where you can then create a cost advantageous position for green. I see those as both work in progress. We are actively involved in all of those activities as we move forward, but it is still work in progress.

你需要低成本的再生能源；如你所知，這項發展正在進行中，但在歐洲並非到處都具備，這也是為什麼非洲——特別是北非——這個概念會如此具有吸引力。你也需要一個有效的電解技術路線圖，才能把資本效率提升到一定程度。也就是資本成本下降、效率提升，進而達到能為綠氫建立成本優勢的水平。我認為這兩者都仍在進行中。我們在推進過程中積極參與所有這些活動，但目前仍然是進行中的工作。

And we'll take our last question from Laurence Alexander from Jefferies.

接下來我們的最後一個問題來自 Jefferies 的 Laurence Alexander。

Can you just elaborate on the discussion around pricing? Are you seeing existing on-site customers start reopening contract negotiations or renewals earlier than normal to get in front of the inflationary cycle?

你能否再詳細說明一下關於定價的討論？你是否看到現有的現場（on-site）客戶開始重新開啟合約談判，或比平常更早進行續約，以便在通膨循環之前先行因應？

Laurence, sorry, it's Matt. I would say, no. Things are pretty consistent with, as you'd expect. I mean normal pattern is usually 2 to 3 years prior to the expiration. You begin to talk about the renewal and any type of inflationary environments usually don't have any impact on that.

Laurence，不好意思，我是 Matt。我會說，沒有。整體情況相當一致，符合你的預期。一般的正常模式通常是在到期前 2 到 3 年就開始談續約，而任何通膨環境通常不會對此造成影響。

Thank you. And that does conclude our question-and-answer session for today's conference. I'd now like to turn the call back over to Juan Pelaez for any closing remarks.

謝謝。今天會議的問答環節到此結束。接下來我想把電話交回給 Juan Pelaez，請他做任何結語。

Crystal, thank you. And thank you, everyone, on the line for participating in today's call. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out. Have a great day.

Crystal，謝謝你。也謝謝各位線上與會者參加今天的電話會議。如有任何問題，歡迎隨時聯繫。祝各位今天愉快。

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation, and you may now disconnect. Everyone, have a wonderful day.

各位女士、先生，今天的電話會議到此結束。感謝各位的參與，現在可以掛線。各位，祝大家今天美好。