林德集團 (LIN) 2022 Q3 法說會逐字稿

Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Linde plc Third Quarter 2022 Earnings Teleconference. (Operator Instructions) Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. (Operator Instructions)

各位好，感謝您稍候。歡迎參加林德（Linde plc）2022 年第三季財報電話會議。（接線員指示）請注意，今天的會議將被錄音。（接線員指示）

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

我現在把會議交給投資人關係主管 Juan Pelaez 先生。先生，請開始。

Thanks, Cecilia. Good morning, everyone, and thank you again for attending our 2022 third quarter earnings call and webcast. I am Juan Pelaez, Head of Investor Relations. And I'm joined this morning by Sanjiv Lamba, Chief Executive Officer; and Matt White, Chief Financial Officer.

謝謝你，Cecilia。各位早安，並再次感謝各位參加我們 2022 年第三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執行長 Sanjiv Lamba，以及財務長 Matt White。

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 to this presentation.

今天的簡報資料可於我們網站 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已收錄於本簡報的附錄中。

Sanjiv will provide some opening remarks, and then Matt will give an update on Linde's third quarter financial performance and outlook. After which, we will wrap up with Q&A.

Sanjiv 將先作開場致詞，接著 Matt 將更新林德第三季的財務表現與展望。之後我們將進行問答。

Let me now turn the call over to Sanjiv.

現在我把電話交給 Sanjiv。

Thanks, Juan, and good morning, everyone. Linde employees once again delivered a strong quarter despite the economic challenges. EPS increased 21%, excluding FX, while operating margins expanded 90 basis points when adjusting for contractual cost pass-through, all underpinned by $2.6 billion of operating cash flow and a record ROC of 21.8%.

謝謝你，Juan，各位早安。儘管面臨經濟挑戰，林德員工再次交出強勁的一季。排除匯率影響後，每股盈餘（EPS）成長 21%；在就合約性成本轉嫁進行調整後，營業利益率擴張 90 個基點；這一切皆由 26 億美元的營運現金流與創紀錄的 21.8% 投資資本報酬率（ROC）所支撐。

Now in addition to achieving this financial performance, the company recently received approval for its absolute emission reduction targets by the science-based targets initiative, confirming our road map to help decarbonize the planet.

此外，除了達成上述財務表現外，公司近期也獲得科學基礎減量目標倡議（SBTi）對我們絕對排放減量目標的核准，確認了我們協助全球去碳化的路線圖。

I'm pleased to see these results which are truly a testament to the quality of our team and our relentless execution culture. These financial results highlight both the resilience and growth capabilities of the business in any environment. In times like these, it's important to remind investors of our stable and diversified growth trends, which you can find on Slide 3.

我很高興看到這些成果，這確實證明了我們團隊的品質以及我們不懈的執行文化。這些財務結果凸顯了本業在任何環境下的韌性與成長能力。在這樣的時刻，提醒投資人我們穩定且多元化的成長趨勢很重要，相關內容可見投影片第 3 頁。

We continue to experience robust underlying sales growth this quarter, with each business segment growing double digit versus last year. Resilient end markets, which make up about 1/3 of sales, are collectively growing double-digit percent with food, beverage and electronics up almost 20% and health care slightly down from prior year pandemic volumes.

本季我們持續經歷強勁的內生成長，各業務部門相較去年皆呈現雙位數成長。具韌性的終端市場約占銷售額的三分之一，整體合計亦以雙位數百分比成長，其中食品、飲料與電子接近 20% 成長，而醫療保健則因去年疫情期間的高基期量而略低於去年。

Our gases are critical for the production and packaging of everyday consumer items such as food, carbonated beverages, respiratory applications and electronic components. These volumes track to broad consumption levels rather than specific technologies or trends. So they are quite stable even during volatile economic periods.

我們的氣體對日常消費品的生產與包裝至關重要，例如食品、碳酸飲料、呼吸相關應用以及電子元件。這些需求量更貼近整體消費水準，而非特定技術或趨勢，因此即使在經濟波動期間也相當穩定。

Furthermore, despite what you may be reading in the news, we continue to see healthy supplies of gases into electronics fabs in every region. In fact, our total electronics project backlog increased to $1.4 billion after recently being awarded a second large sale of gas contract for a major semiconductor manufacturer in the U.S.

此外，儘管您可能在新聞中看到不同說法，我們仍持續在各地區看到對電子晶圓廠（fabs）的氣體供應維持健康。事實上，在近期於美國獲得一家主要半導體製造商第二份大型供氣合約後，我們的電子相關專案在手訂單總額增加至 14 億美元。

The bottom half of the table provides the trends for the more cyclical end markets. And similar to electronics, these trends probably don't align with what you're hearing and reading. Recall that a significant portion of these sales are underpinned by fixed payment structures independent of customer volumes, including on-site fees and cylinder rentals. It's important to note that we spend a lot of time on contract language to ensure our returns are protected and force majeure clauses are absolutely clear.

表格下半部呈現較具循環性的終端市場趨勢。而與電子業類似，這些趨勢可能與您聽到或讀到的資訊不一致。請記得，這些銷售中有相當部分由與客戶用量無關的固定付款結構所支撐，包括現場服務費與鋼瓶租賃費。我們在合約條款上投入大量時間，以確保我們的報酬受到保護，且不可抗力條款絕對清楚。

I won't speak for the industry, but I have confidence in the strength of Linde contracts. We've demonstrated this through countless regional and global challenges, including the most recent pandemic, and so I don't see today being any different.

我不代表整個產業發言，但我對林德合約的強度有信心。我們已在無數區域與全球性挑戰中證明這一點，包括最近的疫情，因此我不認為今天會有任何不同。

In addition, a large portion of our customers represent the most competitive in their markets, with assets that tend to be the last ones running.

此外，我們的客戶中有很大一部分在其市場中具備最強競爭力，其資產往往是最後仍在運轉的那一批。

A disciplined, long-term approach to capital allocation continues to be validated during these challenging times.

在這些充滿挑戰的時期，我們一貫紀律嚴謹、著眼長期的資本配置方式持續獲得驗證。

And almost 60% of sales, the cyclical end markets are also up double-digit percent. While growth is broad-based, we continue to see strength in mining for battery materials; merchant hydrogen sales; aerospace, including commercial space; and general manufacturing, especially in Americas. In fact, the U.S. continues to be our best growth market as a combination of natural resource security, consumer resiliency and a strong dollar to support further economic expansion. This is especially true for the Gulf Coast, which is experiencing one of the highest investment activity in quite some time, driven by lower cost energy and the ability to economically decarbonize with the passage of the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, which you can find on the next slide, 4.

而約 60% 的銷售來自循環性終端市場，亦同樣呈現雙位數百分比成長。雖然成長面向廣泛，我們仍持續看到電池材料相關的採礦、商用氫氣銷售、航太（包含商業太空）以及一般製造業（尤其在美洲）表現強勁。事實上，美國仍是我們成長最佳的市場，原因在於天然資源安全、消費韌性，以及強勢美元有助於支撐進一步的經濟擴張。這在墨西哥灣沿岸尤其明顯；該地區正經歷相當長一段時間以來最高的投資活動之一，受惠於較低成本能源，以及隨著《美國通膨削減法案》（Inflation Reduction Act，IRA）通過而具備經濟可行的去碳化能力，相關內容可見下一頁投影片第 4 頁。

The IRA has accelerated significant growth prospects from our unrivaled hydrogen and atmospheric gas network as well as potential new markets being developed across the U.S. With this effect, we've grouped these activities into 3 different categories of Decarbonized Linde, Decarbonized Customers and New Markets.

IRA 加速了我們憑藉無可匹敵的氫氣與空分氣體網路所帶來的重大成長前景，也推動美國各地正在開發的潛在新市場。基於此影響，我們將這些活動分為三大類：去碳化的林德（Decarbonized Linde）、去碳化的客戶（Decarbonized Customers）以及新市場（New Markets）。

Let me start with Decarbonized Linde, which represents the ability to sequester existing CO2 emissions generated from our own hydrogen production. This provides simultaneous benefits: the production and supply of blue hydrogen into our network and the reduction of Scope 1 emissions for our stated sustainability goals. The potential investment to Decarbonize Linde exceeds $3 billion while considering our existing hydrogen production asset base.

我先從「去碳化的林德」開始，這代表我們有能力封存由自身氫氣生產所產生的既有二氧化碳排放。這帶來同步效益：將藍氫生產並供應至我們的網路，同時降低我們為達成既定永續目標所需的範疇一（Scope 1）排放。若考量我們既有的氫氣生產資產基礎，去碳化林德的潛在投資超過 30 億美元。

The second category of Decarbonize Customers represents 2 separate opportunities. The first, to enable our customers to decarbonize their processes through fuel switching. That is by using low carbon intensity hydrogen as fuel in their refineries, crackers or furnaces. The second opportunity is our ability to capture and sequester existing carbon emissions from customers currently connected to our pipeline network, especially in the Gulf Coast.

第二類「去碳化客戶」代表兩項不同機會。第一項是透過燃料替代協助客戶為其製程去碳化，也就是在其煉油廠、裂解裝置或工業爐中，以低碳強度氫氣作為燃料。第二項機會是，我們能夠捕捉並封存目前已連接至我們管線網路之客戶的既有碳排放，尤其是在墨西哥灣沿岸。

This will be a revenue model similar to our current on-site business and customers would benefit by decarbonizing their own operations in addition to monetizing tax credits over the contract period. Together, our potential investment in this category could easily exceed $10 billion, which I view to be on an accelerated path given the incremental IRA benefits and the strength of Linde's existing network and asset base to support it.

其營收模式將類似我們目前的現場供氣（on-site）業務；客戶除了可為自身營運去碳化外，亦可在合約期間將稅額抵減（tax credits）變現。合計而言，我們在此類別的潛在投資很容易超過 100 億美元；在我看來，鑑於 IRA 額外效益，以及林德既有網路與資產基礎的優勢可提供支撐，這正走在加速的軌道上。

The third category of new markets represents greenfield opportunities that are starting to materialize with the signing of the IRA, and I expect to announce some new project wins very soon. These, too, will be similar to our current on-site business, with fixed payment contracts and stable returns. We estimate more than $20 billion of potential investment, with some of the larger ones related to blue and green hydrogen and blue ammonia.

第三類「新市場」代表隨著 IRA 簽署而開始具體成形的綠地（greenfield）機會，我預期很快就會宣布一些新的專案得標。這些同樣將類似我們目前的現場供氣業務，採固定付款合約並帶來穩定報酬。我們估計潛在投資超過 200 億美元，其中較大型者部分與藍氫、綠氫以及藍氨相關。

Regardless of which projects are pursued, we plan to follow a few overarching principles. The first, we intend to partner with subsurface experts for all underground operations. We at Linde are not geologists. Second, all projects will follow our investment criteria. In other words, earn a commensurate return for the risk undertaken. Third, we will stick to our core, which is management of industrial gases. We have no interest to own or speculate on globally traded chemicals. Rather, we have offtakers for our products.

無論推進哪些專案，我們都計畫遵循幾項總體原則。第一，我們打算在所有地下作業中與地下地質專家合作；林德並非地質學家。第二，所有專案都將遵循我們的投資標準，換言之，承擔何種風險就必須獲得相稱的報酬。第三，我們將堅守核心，也就是工業氣體的管理。我們無意持有或投機全球交易的化學品；相反地，我們的產品有承購方（offtakers）。

Finally, it's important to understand the nature of the tax credits in the IRA. While the first 5 years are direct pay, essentially like grants, year 6 through 12 are tax credits that must be used against our U.S. tax liability up to a cap. Therefore, it's important for us to have an understanding on the monetization of these tax credits as we develop these projects, whether used by Linde or sold to a third-party. Of course, we won't speculate on the market value of excess tax credits over the next decade.

最後，理解 IRA 中稅額抵減的性質很重要。前 5 年為直接支付（direct pay），本質上類似補助款；第 6 年至第 12 年則為稅額抵減，必須在上限內用以抵減我們的美國應納稅額。因此，在我們開發這些專案時，必須了解如何將這些稅額抵減變現，無論是由林德自行使用或出售給第三方。當然，我們不會對未來十年超額稅額抵減的市場價值進行投機性推測。

The IRA has accelerated the U.S. clean energy transition. And from what we are seeing today, the total investment opportunity for Linde in the U.S. alone exceeds $30 billion over the next decade.

IRA 加速了美國的潔淨能源轉型。就我們目前所見，僅在美國，林德於未來十年的總投資機會就超過 300 億美元。

Overall, I'm very bullish on the clean energy opportunities in front of us, and I expect to announce meaningful projects in the near term. This secular growth driver, coupled with our operating discipline and relentless focus on pricing and productivity within our base business, is what gives me the confidence in our ability to keep delivering 10-plus percent EPS growth over the next several years.

整體而言，我對眼前的潔淨能源機會非常看好，並預期在短期內宣布具意義的專案。這項結構性成長動能，加上我們在既有本業中的營運紀律，以及對定價與生產力提升的持續專注，使我有信心在未來數年持續交出 10% 以上的 EPS 成長。

I'll now turn the call over to Matt to walk you through the financial numbers.

接下來我把電話交給 Matt，請他帶各位看財務數字。

Thanks, Sanjiv. Please turn to Slide 5 for an overview of the third quarter results.

謝謝你，Sanjiv。請翻到投影片第 5 頁，了解第三季業績概覽。

Sales of $8.8 billion grew 15% over last year and 4% sequentially. Cost pass-through, which represents the contractual billing of higher energy costs, reached 8% year-over-year as energy prices continue to escalate. As a reminder, this is merely a contractual gross-up and has no effect on operating profit dollars but will dilute operating margins. This is mostly offset by unfavorable currency translation of 7% as the U.S. dollar has strengthened against every major currency.

銷售額88億美元，較去年成長15%，較前一季成長4%。成本轉嫁（cost pass-through），亦即依合約將較高能源成本轉為計費，因能源價格持續攀升而達到年增8%。提醒一下，這僅是合約性的加計（gross-up），對營業利益金額沒有影響，但會稀釋營業利益率。此影響多數被不利的匯率換算（currency translation）7%所抵銷，因美元對所有主要貨幣皆走強。

Divestiture headwind of 1% is from the Russian deconsolidation. And the 4% growth in Engineering relates to favorable timing of project billing.

處分（divestiture）帶來的1%逆風來自俄羅斯業務去合併（deconsolidation）。而工程（Engineering）4%的成長則與專案開立帳單（project billing）的有利時點有關。

Excluding these items, underlying sales increased 11% over 2021. Volume expanded 3% as 1/3 came from the project backlog and the remainder from increases in Americas and APAC, partially offset by slightly lower volumes in EMEA.

排除上述項目後，基礎（underlying）銷售額較2021年增加11%。銷量成長3%，其中三分之一來自專案訂單積壓（project backlog），其餘來自美洲與亞太（APAC）的成長，部分被歐洲、中東與非洲（EMEA）略低的銷量所抵銷。

Pricing of 8% continues to be strong as all regions around the world are taking proactive and sustainable actions to recover inflation.

8%的定價（pricing）仍然強勁，因全球各區域都在採取積極且可持續的行動，以回收通膨影響。

Underlying sequential growth of 3% is driven by similar factors as broad-based price improvements and volume growth in Americas and APAC more than offset weaker volumes in EMEA from a combination of macroeconomic conditions and normal seasonal factors.

基礎的季增3%由與前述相似的因素所驅動：廣泛的價格改善，以及美洲與亞太的銷量成長，足以抵銷EMEA因總體經濟情勢與正常季節性因素交織所造成的較弱銷量。

Operating profit of $2 billion resulted in a 22.8% margin, which is 90 basis points above last year when excluding the effects of cost pass-through. Sequentially, operating margins ex pass-through declined 20 basis points from both weaker volumes and a lag effect of merchant and package pricing in EMEA. We still expect consolidated operating margin ex pass-through to expand more than 100 basis points for the full year.

營業利益20億美元，營業利益率22.8%；若排除成本轉嫁影響，較去年高出90個基點。就季比而言，排除轉嫁後的營業利益率下滑20個基點，原因在於銷量較弱，以及EMEA地區商用（merchant）與包裝（package）定價的遞延效應。我們仍預期全年合併口徑、排除轉嫁後的營業利益率將擴張超過100個基點。

EPS of $3.10 increased 14% over prior year or 21% when excluding currency. This represents the eighth quarter in a row of EPS ex FX growth exceeding 20%, demonstrating the breadth of Linde's portfolio.

每股盈餘（EPS）3.10美元，較去年增加14%；若排除匯率影響則增加21%。這是連續第八個季度在排除外匯（ex FX）後的EPS成長超過20%，展現林德（Linde）產品組合的廣度。

Return on capital of 21.8% reached another record from double-digit percent profit growth over a stable capital base. Our unrivaled asset network across all 3 supply modes enables industry-leading growth without significant capital intensity, although we have ample capacity for greater investments, of which we expect to announce large wins in the near future.

資本報酬率（ROC）21.8%，在資本基礎穩定下，受惠於兩位數的獲利成長，再創新高。我們在三種供應模式（supply modes）皆具無可匹敵的資產網路，使我們能在不顯著提高資本密集度的情況下達成產業領先的成長；同時我們也有充足能力進行更大投資，且預期近期將宣布重大斬獲。

The ROC trend is also a result of disciplined capital and cash management. Sanjiv mentioned how we intend to approach clean energy investments no different than other opportunities, which is an integral part of our multi-decade successful track record. Our owners expect stable, long-term returns commensurate with risk, making ROC one of the most important metrics in our industry.

ROC的趨勢也來自嚴謹的資本與現金管理。Sanjiv提到，我們對潔淨能源投資的評估方式將與其他機會無異，這是我們數十年成功紀錄的重要一環。我們的股東期望在與風險相稱的前提下獲得穩定的長期報酬，使ROC成為本產業最重要的指標之一。

Slide 6 provides more details on the third quarter capital management. Cash flow continues to be a key indicator of company stability and longevity, especially against the current backdrop of geopolitical uncertainty and rising interest rates.

第6頁投影片提供第三季資本管理的更多細節。現金流持續是公司穩定性與長久性的關鍵指標，尤其在當前地緣政治不確定性與利率上升的背景下更是如此。

You can see operating cash flow trends, with Q3 being the highest of 2022, up 24% sequentially and 3% from last year. In addition, available cash flow, which we define as operating cash flow less base CapEx, remains steady at $1.5 billion to $2 billion per quarter. Recall that base CapEx represents all nonproject investments, of which approximately half are dedicated to growth initiatives.

你可以看到營運現金流趨勢，第三季為2022年最高，較前一季增加24%，較去年增加3%。此外，可用現金流（available cash flow；我們定義為營運現金流扣除基礎資本支出base CapEx）仍維持每季15億至20億美元的穩定水準。請記得，基礎CapEx代表所有非專案投資，其中約一半用於成長計畫。

The right part of the slide shows how we deployed year-to-date cash flow. As a reminder, our capital allocation policy is simple and stable. We have a mandate to maintain an A credit rating while growing the dividend each year. Our priority is to invest in core business opportunities that meet our criteria and any leftover cash is used for stock repurchases.

投影片右側顯示我們年初至今如何運用現金流。提醒一下，我們的資本配置政策簡單且穩定：我們的要求是在成長股利的同時維持A級信用評等。我們的優先順序是投資符合標準的核心業務機會，剩餘現金則用於庫藏股回購。

Currently, our metrics are better than a single A credit rating, and thus we are actively recapitalizing the balance sheet. Year-to-date investments have totaled $2.4 billion between CapEx and acquisitions, of which I anticipate an acceleration based on the current set of opportunities.

目前，我們的各項指標優於單一A級信用評等，因此我們正積極進行資產負債表再資本化（recapitalizing）。年初至今在資本支出與併購之間的投資合計24億美元；基於目前的機會組合，我預期投資將加速。

Finally, we've returned $6.3 billion back to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock repurchases, an increase of 31% from last year.

最後，我們以股利與股票回購的形式向股東回饋63億美元，較去年增加31%。

This slide clearly demonstrates that irrespective of the macro climate, Linde will continue to drive steady, long-term quality growth while sharing a substantial portion with our owners each year.

這張投影片清楚顯示，無論總體環境如何，林德都將持續推動穩健、長期且高品質的成長，並每年與股東分享相當可觀的成果。

I'll wrap up with guidance on Slide 7. For the fourth quarter, EPS is anticipated to be $2.80 to $2.90 or 9% to 13% growth excluding an estimated 8% currency headwind. This represents a $0.25 or 8% sequential decline from Q3 to the midpoint.

我以第7頁投影片的財測作結。第四季EPS預期為2.80至2.90美元；若排除估計8%的匯率逆風，成長率為9%至13%。以區間中點計，較第三季季減0.25美元或8%。

There are 3 major assumptions driving this. First, 4% the decline is driven by Engineering project timing. Engineering results are naturally lumpy due to project progress and we had a sizable Americas project billing in Q3. And while the Engineering business has been streamlining the organization and rebuilding the backlog to maintain strong competitiveness and quality results, I still expect Q4 to have lower sales and profit from this timing.

這主要由三項假設所驅動。第一，4%的下滑來自工程專案時點。工程業績會因專案進度而自然呈現波動，我們在第三季於美洲有一筆較大的專案開立帳單。儘管工程業務一直在精簡組織並重建訂單積壓，以維持強勁競爭力與高品質成果，我仍預期第四季因時點因素而出現較低的銷售與獲利。

Second, we anticipate currency rates to worsen, driving down sequential EPS by another 2%. Rates seemed to stabilize in October, but we'll have to wait until January to see where they ultimately finish.

第二，我們預期匯率將轉差，使EPS再季減2%。匯率在10月似乎趨於穩定，但仍需等到1月才能看到最終落點。

Finally, we completed the divestiture of the noncore GIST business at the end of September. This had a minor effect at 1%, but we provided more details in the appendix so you can better model the future impact.

最後，我們在9月底完成非核心GIST業務的處分。影響不大，約1%；但我們在附錄提供更多細節，方便你更好地建模未來影響。

Note, we are also assuming no base growth at the top end of Q4 guidance and, thus, recessionary conditions at the midpoint. Consistent with prior quarters, this economic assumption is merely a placeholder. So if conditions are better, we'll do better. And if they're worse, we'll take actions to mitigate.

請注意，我們也假設第四季財測上緣不含任何基礎成長，因此以區間中點而言，反映的是衰退情境。與前幾季一致，這項經濟假設僅是占位符（placeholder）。因此若情況較好，我們表現會更好；若情況較差，我們也會採取行動以降低衝擊。

The full year guidance of $11.93 to $12.03 represents 17% to 18% growth from last year when excluding currency. The midpoint of the range is $0.15 higher than last quarter, driven by better Q3 results.

全年財測11.93至12.03美元，若排除匯率，較去年成長17%至18%。區間中點較上季提高0.15美元，主要由第三季較佳的結果所帶動。

Overall, the Linde team continues to execute despite the global challenges. We've demonstrated resilient high-quality performance through recessionary conditions and 2023 will be no exception. So regardless of what you read in the news, you can count Linde to deliver.

整體而言，林德團隊在全球挑戰下仍持續落實執行。我們已在衰退環境中展現具韌性且高品質的表現，2023年也不會例外。因此，不論你在新聞上看到什麼，你都可以期待林德交出成果。

I'll now turn the call over to Q&A.

接下來把電話交給問答（Q&A）環節。

(Operator Instructions) We will now take our first question from Peter Clark from Societe Generale.

（接線員指示）我們現在開始第一個問題，來自法國興業銀行（Societe Generale）的Peter Clark。

Yes. You called out good inflation management across the gases regions. And I know you brought in wide marketing's team, I think, over a year ago to try and pitch best practice. Just wondering what you added from that and how you think it gave you an advantage or a heads-up against the competition in this price inflation environment.

是的。你提到在各氣體區域的通膨管理做得很好。我也知道你們大概在一年多前引入了更廣泛的行銷團隊，嘗試推廣最佳實務。想請教你們從中新增了哪些作法？以及在這個價格通膨環境下，你認為這如何讓你們相較競爭對手取得優勢或更早的預警？

Peter, there are 2 things that I'd say that happened as a consequence of inflation coming through. You might recall, Peter, that very early in the process, we said that we were looking at inflation and working through it and not believing it's transitionary. I think that's obviously been proven now. And we brought in the LatAm teams as one example of best practice within the group, shared that more broadly.

Peter，我認為通膨發生後帶來了兩件事。你可能記得，Peter，在很早的階段我們就說過，我們正在觀察並處理通膨，而且不認為它只是暫時性的。我想現在顯然已被證明如此。我們也把拉丁美洲（LatAm）團隊作為集團內最佳實務的一個例子，並更廣泛地分享。

The difference that lies over here, Peter, is all about execution. And we have a relentless execution culture. That's what drives that pricing every day. You know as well that our performance culture requires that every month we sit down and review the progress that's been made. And that cadence of operating rhythm of doing that is the other piece that I think drives pricing as we look at it.

Peter，這裡的差異關鍵在於執行。我們有一種不懈的執行文化，這就是每天推動定價的動力。你也知道，我們的績效文化要求每個月坐下來檢視已取得的進展。我認為，這種固定節奏的營運韻律，也是推動定價的另一個因素。

Decisions are made every day. They're not made every week or every month because they know that at the end of the month, we have to have a conversation about the decisions we've made and any deviations that come out of that. It is really under driven by -- or underwritten by the performance culture of the organization.

決策是每天做的，不是每週或每月才做一次，因為他們知道月底我們必須就所做的決策，以及由此產生的任何偏差進行討論。這一切其實都是由組織的績效文化所驅動——或說所支撐。

And can I sneak in a little one. On the European smaller customer, medium-sized customer, industrial customer, are you seeing any change in behavior at all? Because we've heard other companies getting quite concerned about how these small customers are suffering in the current environment.

我可以再補問一個小問題嗎？在歐洲的小型客戶、中型客戶、工業客戶方面，你們是否看到任何行為上的改變？因為我們聽到其他公司對這些小客戶在目前環境下的困境感到相當擔憂。

Peter, there are a couple of ways to address that. As I look at the different end markets, and obviously, we're paying a lot of attention to the medium- and small-sized customers across Europe, there are 2 factors that we particularly look at. One is what's happening to receivables. And I can confirm to you that cash generation receivables remain within expectation, which I think is a very important indicator as to how the markets are currently responding. I'm not going to predict what's likely to happen in the next quarter or beyond, but I can say for now that I think we've seen that accounts receivable reflect a certain amount of resilience across that customer base as well.

Peter，這可以從幾個角度來看。當我觀察不同終端市場時，顯然我們非常關注歐洲的中小型客戶，我們特別看兩個因素。第一是應收帳款（receivables）的狀況。我可以向你確認，現金回收與應收帳款仍在預期範圍內，我認為這是市場目前反應的重要指標。我不會去預測下一季或更久之後可能發生什麼，但就目前而言，我認為我們看到應收帳款反映出該客戶群也具有一定程度的韌性。

The other piece I'd just mention to you is when you look at EMEA volumes, and I know you see a minus 3 over there, if you strip out the significant pandemic impact that came out of the health care, for most other end markets, volumes remained reasonably stable. Yes, they've softened a little, but they remain reasonably stable. And that includes the small- and medium-sized customers as well.

另外一點我想提醒你的是，當你看 EMEA 的銷量時，我知道你看到那邊是負 3，如果把醫療保健業務在疫情期間所受到的重大影響剔除掉，對於大多數其他終端市場而言，銷量仍然相對穩定。是的，它們確實稍微走弱了一點，但仍然相對穩定。而且這也包括中小型客戶。

We will now take our next question from Duffy Fischer from Goldman Sachs.

接下來我們將請高盛的 Duffy Fischer 提問。

Just a couple of questions around your Slide 4 and the Inflation Reduction Act. So first, if you look out maybe 2 or 3 years, how much can it absolutely grow your backlog? Do you think -- what kind of bogey should we have for backlog increase?

我有幾個問題想請教，主要是關於你們的投影片 4 以及《通膨削減法案》（IRA）。首先，如果往後看大概 2 到 3 年，它最多可以把你們的在手訂單（backlog）推升多少？你認為我們應該用什麼樣的目標值來看待在手訂單的增幅？

Second, what percent of that do you think will end up being sale of gas versus sale of plant?

第二，你認為其中有多少百分比最後會是售氣（sale of gas），相對於售廠（sale of plant）？

And then just the last one, relative to the size of your typical projects historically, what do you think the average size of the projects around the IRA will be?

最後一個問題，相對於你們過去典型專案的規模，你認為圍繞 IRA 的專案平均規模會是多少？

Thanks, Duffy. Let me start off with the backlog question first. As you will recall, Duffy, in the past calls, I've talked about a probability weighted number of about $5 billion. That's obviously a global number. Today, when I look at that number, that's trending close to $7 billion to $9 billion. Remember, we tend to be quite conservative. These are decisions in the next 2 to 3 years. And I'm expecting something of the order of $7 billion to $9 billion in actual decisions around projects in the next couple of years related to this, obviously accelerated in part by the IRA. Those decisions will obviously then end up in the backlog given the size of these projects.

謝謝你，Duffy。我先從在手訂單的問題開始。你會記得，Duffy，在過去幾次電話會議中，我談到過一個以機率加權計算、約 50 億美元的數字。那顯然是全球的數字。今天我看這個數字，趨勢大約接近 70 億到 90 億美元。請記住，我們一向相當保守。這些是在未來 2 到 3 年內要做出的決策。我預期在未來幾年內，與此相關的專案實際決策金額大約會落在 70 億到 90 億美元的量級，當然其中一部分也因 IRA 而加速。考量這些專案的規模，這些決策之後自然會反映到在手訂單中。

As far as sale of gas and sale of plant is concerned, we have in this -- in our industry, we have the unique advantage of being able to do both, capability to execute both and ensure that both of them actually enhance our returns. So from that perspective, that optionality is something that I certainly want to keep. And I want to make sure that we work our way through the quality of the projects, the risks associated with that before we make that final call. Our customers and developers recognize that and actually appreciate the fact that we have that flexibility to offer as well.

至於售氣與售廠，我們在這個——在我們這個產業裡，有一個獨特優勢，就是兩者都能做：我們有能力執行兩種模式，並確保兩者都能提升我們的報酬。因此從這個角度來看，這種選擇權是我確實希望保留的。我也希望在做最後決定之前，先把專案品質以及相關風險都充分評估清楚。我們的客戶與開發商也理解這一點，並且其實很欣賞我們能提供這種彈性。

So I'm not going to give you a kind of percentage in terms of what you see out of sale of gas versus plant. It is fair to say as a principal though, that principally we like sale of gas as a base model, and it's where we find that the risks are probably a little bit different to what we would expect. That's where we would opt out then for the sale of plant model.

所以我不會給你一個售氣相對於售廠的百分比。作為一個原則可以說的是，我們原則上偏好以售氣作為基本模式；而當我們判斷風險可能與我們預期略有不同時，我們就會選擇改採售廠模式。

Largely on size of projects, I say to you, as you look at this, number of $30-plus billion that we're talking about, you're going to see projects probably 20 to 25 large projects happen to make up that number. That kind of gives you a bit of an average view. There is no particular size that I can attribute to these projects, they range depending on the scope of the project itself.

至於專案規模，我會這樣跟你說：當你看我們談到的 300 億美元以上這個數字時，你可能會看到大約 20 到 25 個大型專案來構成這個總額。這能讓你對平均值有個概念。但我無法把這些專案歸納成某一個特定規模，因為它們會依專案本身的範疇而有所不同。

We will now take your next question from Stephen Richardson from Evercore ISI.

接下來我們將請 Evercore ISI 的 Stephen Richardson 提問。

I appreciate the comments on limiting your expertise to industrial gases and limiting some of the exposure in the subsurface. A couple of questions on that. Where would your scope of CapEx end in these projects, Sanjiv, in terms of how you're thinking about them in a greater blue kind of hydrogen setup? And then also, do you think that, that subsea partner needs to be part of the project consortium? Or is this something you think you can secure for a fee?

我很感謝你提到把專長限制在工業氣體、並降低在地下層面（subsurface）的曝險。針對這點我有兩個問題。Sanjiv，在這些專案中，若以更廣義的藍氫（blue hydrogen）架構來看，你對資本支出（CapEx）的範疇界線會畫在哪裡？另外，你認為那個海底/地下（subsea/subsurface）合作夥伴需要成為專案聯盟（consortium）的一部分嗎？還是你覺得可以用付費方式取得他們的服務？

Thanks, Steve. So let me talk about the scope first. So typically, carbon capture is absolutely within our scope in almost every instance. That is capability that we bring. There is proprietary technology that we are pushing hard at, at the moment. We think we've got some world-leading technology that we call [HISOP] PSA. These are CO2 PSAs that absorb that CO2 capture rate and allow us to then take it forward for storage and sequestration. So quite, quite excited, and that's the part of the technology that we want to make sure will always be within our scope.

謝謝你，Steve。我先談範疇。一般來說，碳捕捉在幾乎所有情況下都絕對在我們的範疇之內。這是我們帶來的能力。我們目前也在大力推進一項專有技術。我們認為我們有一些世界領先的技術，我們稱之為 [HISOP] PSA。這些是 CO2 PSA（變壓吸附）系統，可提升 CO2 捕捉率，並讓我們能把 CO2 往後端送去儲存與封存（sequestration）。所以我們非常、非常興奮，而這部分技術我們要確保永遠都在我們的範疇之內。

Beyond that, ensuring that you pressurize and transport that CO2 is something that we also would like to do typically, but are more flexible on. It's part of the scope that we would obviously give to our partner would be all around that CO2 going downhole and what happens to that CO2 beyond that, including monitoring longer term, et cetera.

除此之外，確保把 CO2 加壓並運輸，通常也是我們希望承作的部分，但在這方面我們彈性更大。我們會交由合作夥伴負責的範疇，主要會圍繞 CO2 下井（downhole）以及之後 CO2 的處置，包括長期監測等等。

As far as the approach to subsurface partnerships are concerned, there are various models, Steve, that we would follow. There's a whole range from consortium approach that we've been working on already and hopefully we'll announce in the near term, to having them as being partners, joint venture partners within the project itself. So that whole range is available to us. We find that depending on the market and the actual project scope, that kind of best defines where that partnership is then put together.

至於地下層合作夥伴的合作方式，Steve，我們可以採用多種模式。範圍從我們已經在推動、並希望在近期宣布的聯盟（consortium）模式，到讓對方成為專案本身的合作夥伴、以合資（joint venture）夥伴身分參與。這整個光譜我們都可以運用。我們發現，取決於市場以及實際專案範疇，最能決定最終合作關係如何組成。

That's great. And if I can have a quick follow-up just on how you're thinking about the Decarbonized Customers. Again, we appreciate all the detail here. But if we think about on-site in the Americas, for example, in hydrogen, is it right to think that you've got a natural jump-off point at the end of contracts where you can start opening the conversation about, okay, can we convert this to a blue project -- a blue hydrogen project and what that looks like? Or is the incentive now so high that the customers are coming to you saying, can we work together on some interim solution? Just curious what the contract tenor, if anything, could mean for the timing of this build-out.

很好。如果我可以再追問一下，關於你們如何看待「去碳化客戶」（Decarbonized Customers）。我們也很感謝你提供這麼多細節。但如果以美洲的現場供氣（on-site）為例、特別是在氫氣方面，是否可以這樣理解：在合約到期時，你們有一個自然的切入點，可以開始跟客戶談，好，我們能否把它轉成一個藍色專案——也就是藍氫專案，以及那會是什麼樣子？還是說現在誘因高到客戶會主動來找你們，說我們能否一起做一些過渡性的解決方案？我只是好奇，合約年期（tenor）如果有影響的話，對這波建置時程會意味著什麼。

Steve, it's definitely the latter where a number of customers are very actively engaged in conversations with us. What tends to happen is you have to think about this as an incremental service offer, if you like, on an existing asset. When we talk about Decarbonize Linde as an example, that's where we would capture CO2 of our existing facilities and transform that gray hydrogen of today into blue hydrogen that goes into the network and feeds existing customers. So that's kind of one way to think about it. And that's where we're seeing a number of customers quite interested given the strength of our network and the asset footprint that we have in the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Steve，確實比較偏向後者，也就是有不少客戶正非常積極地與我們洽談。通常發生的情況是，你必須把它視為在既有資產上提供一個增量式的服務方案。以「去碳化林德」（Decarbonize Linde）為例，我們會捕捉既有設施的 CO2，把目前的灰氫轉換成藍氫，然後送入管網，供應既有客戶。這是一種思考方式。而我們看到不少客戶對此相當有興趣，原因在於我們在美國墨西哥灣沿岸擁有強大的管網與資產佈局。

In addition to that, there will be conversations for sure that happen, it just depends on the timing of the contracts in many cases.

除此之外，當然也會有一些對話會發生，只是很多情況下取決於合約的時間點。

The underlying takeaway from this that I want you to kind of keep in mind is there is urgency in the customer base to want to progress given that both 45Q and 45V in many ways is actually pushing them to try and monetize the benefit that comes out of this decarbonization kind of effort that IRA is supporting.

我希望你記住的核心重點是：客戶端有一種急迫感想要推進，因為 45Q 與 45V 在很多方面其實正推動他們試圖把 IRA 所支持的這類去碳化努力所帶來的效益變現。

We will now take our next question from Steve Byrne from Bank of America.

接下來我們將請美國銀行的 Steve Byrne 提問。

I recall, Sanjiv, you making some comments during the summer about what at least I perceived you had as kind of a longer-term estimate of the production costs for gray, blue and green hydrogen. And I recall it being gray $1 a kilogram, $1.50 for blue, $4.50 for green. Perhaps I didn't hear that correctly, but that was all pre IRA.

Sanjiv，我記得你在夏天時曾提到一些評論，至少我理解你當時對灰氫、藍氫與綠氫的生產成本有一個偏長期的估計。我記得是灰氫每公斤 1 美元、藍氫 1.50 美元、綠氫 4.50 美元。也許我聽得不完全正確，但那都是 IRA 之前的看法。

And I would suspect your Niagara Falls project might actually have cost structure below that $4.50. So post IRA, these 3 look like they're getting pretty close. Would you share that view? And where do you see the most incremental demand in development right now? Is it -- the blue seems like a bit of a layup for your pipeline customers, but where do you see the demand for green coming from?

而我猜你們的尼加拉瀑布專案的成本結構可能甚至低於 4.50 美元。所以在 IRA 之後，這三者看起來正在變得相當接近。你會同意這個看法嗎？另外，你目前看到正在開發中的新增需求主要來自哪裡？藍氫對你們管網客戶看起來像是相對容易的選項，但你認為綠氫的需求會從哪裡來？

Right. Steve, you've got good memory or good notes, as the case might be. So it was $1.30 for gray, $1.50 for blue and about $4.40 for green that I offered, I think, a couple of quarters ago. And that was all at I think natural gas price, if I'm not wrong, of around $3.50. Obviously, natural gas prices change along the way as well.

好的。Steve，你記性很好，或是筆記做得很好，可能兩者皆是。我記得我在幾個季度前給出的數字是：灰氫 1.30 美元、藍氫 1.50 美元、綠氫大約 4.40 美元。那是在我沒記錯的話，天然氣價格大約 3.50 美元的情況下。當然，天然氣價格也會隨時間變動。

But the moot point over here that you make, and I will validate for you, is gray and blue are coming close to parity today with the benefit of the 45Q in place. They are almost at parity, I would say.

但你在這裡提出的關鍵點——我也可以替你確認——是：在45Q稅收抵免到位的情況下，灰氫與藍氫今天的成本正逐漸接近持平。幾乎已經持平了，我會這麼說。

As far as green is concerned with the 45V, the $3 a kg is pretty attractive. The issue with green remains scalability, and I'll talk a bit more about blue and green in that context. But from a cost point of view, that $4.40 is now trending anywhere between $2.50 to $3. So it has come down substantially. But again, because of lack of scale and the availability of cheap renewable energy, that pricing for green remains a little bit higher than what I would see as long-term inflection point which you've heard me talk about 150 as a long-term inflection point for us to see huge acceleration happen. Not quite there, but certainly heading in the right direction as far as we're concern.

至於綠氫，在45V之下，每公斤3美元相當有吸引力。綠氫的問題仍在於可擴展性，我會在這個脈絡下再多談一些藍氫與綠氫。但從成本角度來看，那個4.40美元現在正走勢落在2.50到3美元之間，所以已經大幅下降。不過再說一次，由於規模不足以及廉價再生能源的可得性，綠氫的定價仍略高於我認為的長期拐點——你們也聽我談過，我們認為150（長期拐點）會帶來巨大的加速。還沒到那裡，但就我們而言，確實正朝正確方向前進。

Coming on to where I see this development moving and really I think, for me, blue today is available at scale. It's technology that's tested. And it's an offering that's available in the market today, which is why a lot of the conversations I referenced in my previous answer are being driven because that ability is available today.

接著談我認為這項發展會走向哪裡。對我來說，藍氫在今天已經可以規模化供應。它是經過驗證的技術，也是目前市場上就能提供的方案，這也是為什麼我在前一個回答中提到的許多對話會被推動——因為這種能力今天就已經存在。

The challenge with green remains the ability to scale up and get access to reliable renewable energy at reasonable costs. That combination isn't quite here. And while the 45V out of the IRA give some really good incentive at its max $3 per kg of green hydrogen, unfortunately, the impediment really is around scale-up to getting that to a point of inflection and significant acceleration.

綠氫的挑戰仍在於能否擴大規模，以及能否以合理成本取得可靠的再生能源。這個組合條件尚未完全到位。雖然IRA中的45V在最高每公斤3美元的綠氫稅收抵免上提供了非常好的誘因，但不幸的是，真正的阻礙在於擴產，讓它達到拐點並出現顯著加速。

So you summarize that, I expect a decade plus of blue as a great bridge to ultimately large-scale industrial scale green, which is reliably available at cost where that conversion makes a lot of sense.

所以總結來說，我預期藍氫將作為一個很好的橋樑，持續十年以上，最終過渡到可大規模、工業化且能以合理成本可靠供應的綠氫，屆時這種轉換就非常有意義。

We will now take our next question from Mike Leithead from Barclays.

我們現在接聽下一個問題，來自Barclays的Mike Leithead。

Just three quick ones for Matt. I think you made a comment about recapitalizing the balance sheet. And since EBITDA is growing, I'm assuming that should mean buybacks should be growing faster from here. I guess, one, is that correct?

給Matt三個很快的問題。我想你提到要對資產負債表進行再資本化。既然EBITDA在成長，我假設這代表從現在起回購應該會更快增加。我想第一個問題是：這樣理解正確嗎？

Two, what's the ideal leverage ratio? Obviously, what's staying within your kind of credit parameters you'd like to be at.

第二，你們理想的槓桿比率是多少？顯然是在你們希望維持的信用參數範圍內，你們想落在哪個水準？

And maybe 3, just a quick housekeeping. Do you include buyback benefits in your 4Q guidance? Or is that just using a third quarter share count?

第三，簡單的例行確認：你們在第四季指引中有把回購帶來的效益算進去嗎？還是只是使用第三季的股數？

Mike, so taking them in order. Yes, you are correct, recapitalize the balance sheet essentially means essentially reduce our equity through buybacks and that could imply the debt building up. So that is absolutely correct.

Mike，我按順序回答。是的，你的理解正確。所謂再資本化資產負債表，基本上就是透過回購來降低我們的股權，而這可能意味著負債會增加。所以這完全正確。

As far as the ideal leverage ratio, again, you are correct, the single A under the S&P scale and A2 under Moody's is what we are aiming for. And as you know, they do have their own proprietary metrics which rely on certain adjustments for things like capitalized leases and pensions.

至於理想槓桿比率，你也說得對：我們的目標是在S&P評等體系下維持單A，並在穆迪維持A2。如你所知，他們有各自的專有衡量指標，會針對資本化租賃、退休金等項目做特定調整。

But when looking at what I call the simplified metric that we use, which today we're showing at 1.1x on debt to EBITDA, I think you can get that in the mid-2s or higher as options and we've seen that in the past. Clearly, you'd have to work with the rating agencies to ensure your rate -- your ratings are still aligned. But I think that is definitely a feasible area.

但若看我所稱的、我們使用的簡化指標——目前我們的淨負債對EBITDA為1.1倍——我認為把它提高到2倍中段或更高是可選項，我們過去也見過。當然，你必須與評等機構合作，確保你的評等仍然一致。但我認為那確實是可行的區間。

And then as far as guidance, yes, generally, when we look at that, we sort of take that on kind of our share count. There might be a little bit of benefit of some of the buyback. But realize, as you know, probably, the buyback, the way it affects into the EPS, it's sort of a cumulative effect. So what you're doing in any given quarter tends to have more of a lag effect anyways. So it would more be a function of what we've done to now and maybe a little bit of what we do in the fourth quarter. And then what we do in the fourth quarter will have a bigger impact in Q1 and going forward. So there will be a little bit in there, but it will be more a function of what we completed here in the third quarter.

至於指引，是的，一般而言我們在看指引時，會以我們的股數為基礎來估算。回購可能會帶來一點點好處。但要理解，如你可能也知道，回購對EPS的影響是累積性的。因此，你在任何單一季度所做的回購，通常會有一些滯後效應。所以它更多會取決於我們截至目前已完成的回購，可能再加上一點第四季會做的部分。而第四季所做的回購，對第一季及之後的影響會更大。所以會有一點點反映在裡面，但更多是第三季已完成回購的結果。

We will now take our next question from Nicola Tang.

我們現在接聽下一個問題，來自Nicola Tang。

Just to ask a little bit about the buy -- sorry, the start-up contribution into 2023. Could you confirm that Exxon is still on track for next year? And I think you talked about a 1% sort of volume impact in Q3. Can you give us a share on what we should expect for next year?

想請教一下關於——抱歉，是關於2023年的投產（start-up）貢獻。你能否確認Exxon的項目仍按計畫在明年上線？另外我記得你提到第三季大約有1%的量的影響。你能分享一下我們對明年的預期應該是什麼嗎？

Nicola, I didn't get the question entirely, but I heard Exxon and sale of gas for next year. And I want to just confirm to you that, that project is progressing on track and we expect to have that from a commercial structure in place for next year, and you'll see that reflected next year as well.

Nicola，我沒有完全聽清楚你的問題，但我聽到Exxon以及明年的售氣。我想先向你確認，那個專案正按計畫推進，我們預期明年會把商業架構安排到位，你也會在明年的表現中看到反映。

I didn't get the second part of your question, Nicola.

Nicola，你問題的第二部分我沒有聽清楚。

I was just asking for the overall project start-up contribution in 2023.

我只是想問2023年整體專案投產的貢獻。

Right. We expect to see a similar start-up contribution, obviously upped by what we see from an Exxon perspective, which is a single large project that you would see. But you should expect -- excluding that, we should expect the same level of start-ups next year as this year, which we said earlier on was about $1 billion of start-ups in the course of this year.

了解。我們預期會看到類似的投產貢獻，當然會加上我們從Exxon角度看到的提升——那是一個你會看到的單一大型專案。不過你應該預期——不含那個專案——明年的投產水準會與今年相同；我們先前提到今年全年的投產約為10億美元。

We will now take our next question from Jeff Zekauskas from JPMorgan.

我們現在接聽下一個問題，來自JPMorgan的Jeff Zekauskas。

In the third quarter sequentially, did your price versus raw materials, did that margin widen out? Or did it shrink? And can you speak to the effect of higher interest rates on Linde and its interest expense for its returns over time?

第三季相較第二季，你們的售價相對於原物料的變化，毛利是擴大了還是縮小了？另外，你能談談利率上升對Linde的影響、對利息費用以及長期報酬的影響嗎？

Jeff, I'll take the first question and ask Matt to talk you through what we're seeing on the interest side of things.

Jeff，我先回答第一個問題，然後請Matt帶你看我們在利息方面看到的情況。

So the way to kind of best describe it is you will see sequentially our margins in the Americas improved, APAC was stable and slightly up. And we did have a lag in the EMEA region, which obviously you've seen as well. We put a table on the EMEA slide just to explain that.

最好的描述方式是：你會看到我們在美洲的利潤率按季改善，亞太（APAC）持平且略有上升。而在EMEA地區我們確實有一些滯後，你顯然也看到了。我們在EMEA那張投影片上放了一個表格來說明。

So yes, as far as sequentially, our recovery was more than offsetting inflation and Americas and APAC were able to reflect that. We're seeing some record pricing there. In EMEA, we had record pricing of 14%. This obviously excludes any pass-through, 14%. But despite that, there is a lag. We were seeing electricity price increases in EMEA and Germany and U.K. in 80s and 60%. And that lag will be there for a month or so, as you've seen from previous quarters. And I fully expect the team in EMEA is very conscious of that and working through both pricing and cost actions to make sure we have a recovery as we move forward.

所以是的，就按季而言，我們的回收（recovery）足以抵消通膨，美洲與亞太都能反映出來；我們在那裡看到一些創紀錄的定價。在EMEA，我們的定價也創紀錄，達到14%，這顯然不包含任何轉嫁（pass-through），是14%。但即便如此，仍存在滯後。我們看到EMEA、德國與英國的電價上漲幅度在80%與60%這樣的區間。這種滯後會持續一個月左右，正如你從前幾季所見。我完全預期EMEA團隊對此非常清楚，並正透過定價與成本行動來確保我們在往前走時能夠回收。

And Jeff, this is Matt. So on the interest expense, maybe I can provide a high-level answer and then get to your specific question. So when thinking about, I'd say, modeling interest expense, there's really 2 components to think about. One is going to be essentially what you're referring to, which is our current debt structure -- net debt structure. So the cash, the debt, whether it's variable or fixed, and then the interest effect on that, both as interest income and interest outflow.

Jeff，我是Matt。關於利息費用，也許我先給一個高層次的回答，再回到你的具體問題。談到利息費用的建模，我認為主要有兩個組成部分。第一個基本上就是你提到的：我們目前的債務結構——淨負債結構。也就是現金、負債、是浮動或固定，以及其利息影響，包含利息收入與利息支出。

But secondly, we do have some FX volatility that always occurs in our interest line. Some is related to the derivatives we have on intercompany loans, this would be the points that you may have that move up and down based on currencies. But the bigger volatility will actually be unhedged intercompany loans, where they get marked to market to the interest line based on whatever the prevailing interest rates are.

第二，我們的利息項目中一直會出現一些外匯波動。有一部分與我們對關係企業借款所做的衍生品有關，這會是你可能看到會隨貨幣上下波動的點數。但更大的波動其實來自未避險的關係企業借款：它們會依當時的市場利率，在利息項目中按市價評價（mark to market）。

So they do tend to create volatility on the interest line, the unhedged loans. They actually have no effect on cash because they're intercompany. So when you exclude that, I would say, our run rate interest number is somewhere in the sort of low 20s to mid-20s right now. And what we have is when you think about our capital structure right now, our cash, which is earning deposit interest, is somewhat close to our variable debt, which right now is mostly commercial paper. The rest of our debt is fixed. It's bonds.

因此，未避險借款確實會在利息項目上造成波動；但因為是關係企業之間的借款，實際上對現金沒有影響。所以把那部分排除後，我會說我們目前的利息常態水準大約在低20多到中20多（百萬）之間。再看我們目前的資本結構：我們的現金正在賺取存款利息，規模與我們的浮動利率負債相當接近；而浮動負債目前主要是商業本票。其餘負債則是固定利率，也就是債券。

So what I would anticipate right now is you wouldn't see much of a material change in that until the next bond issuance. And at that point, obviously, when you do that new bond issuance, you will have a yield in what the prevailing markets are and then that will be layered in. And you essentially will then have certain maturing bonds that might be at lower interest rates.

所以我目前的預期是，在下一次發行債券之前，你不會看到那方面有太多實質性的變化。而到了那個時點，顯然當你進行新的債券發行時，殖利率會反映當時的市場水準，然後會被納入其中。基本上，屆時你也會有一些到期債券可能是較低的利率。

So from my perspective, what you're seeing today is mostly volatility of FX rates. And then as we go to the bond market in the future, at least based on the prevailing rates, I would expect to see net interest start to rise.

所以從我的角度來看，你今天看到的主要是外匯匯率的波動。接著當我們未來進入債券市場時，至少以當前利率水準來看，我預期淨利息將開始上升。

We will now take our next question from David Begleiter from Deutsche Bank.

接下來我們將接聽德意志銀行 David Begleiter 的提問。

Back to Slide 4. Sanjiv, how should we think about the returns on these projects? And how is the competition shaping up for these projects? Is it more or less intense on your traditional projects? My first question, can we see return actually above your normalized rate given the uniqueness of these projects?

回到投影片 4。Sanjiv，我們應該如何看待這些專案的報酬？而這些專案的競爭態勢如何？相較於你們傳統專案，競爭是更激烈還是較不激烈？我的第一個問題是，鑑於這些專案的獨特性，我們是否可能看到報酬實際上高於你們的常態化水準？

David, as far as we are concerned, these projects have to meet the same investment criteria that we set out. So when we say that we want, we expect returns to be commensurate with risk, there is no free pass for clean energy projects. They have to provide the same return profile that we see vis-a-vis the risk that we're taking on board. So you can rest assure that our return profiles will reflect that on an ongoing basis as well.

David，就我們而言，這些專案必須符合我們所設定的相同投資標準。因此，當我們說我們希望、也預期報酬要與風險相匹配時，潔淨能源專案並沒有任何「特別通行證」。它們必須提供與我們所承擔風險相對應、同樣的報酬輪廓。所以你可以放心，我們的報酬輪廓也會持續反映這一點。

As far as competition is concerned, I think competition is a little bit varied in this space. As you'll appreciate, we have a range of players who all have a role to play. We are seeing partnerships shape up as maybe a critical part of the offering that comes to market as far as decarbonization is concerned. And we believe strongly that I think good partnerships make a lot of sense for us as well, both in managing our risk profiles, subsurface is a good example of that, but also alongside that, ensuring that we've got people with skin in the game, particularly sometimes bringing an offtaker in as a partner, to make sure they've got skin in the game and that offtake piece really has some teeth as we move forward.

至於競爭，我認為這個領域的競爭情況有些多元。如你所知，我們看到一系列參與者，各自都扮演著角色。就減碳而言，我們看到「合作夥伴關係」正在成形，可能成為市場端供給方案的一個關鍵部分。我們也堅信，良好的合作夥伴關係對我們而言同樣非常合理：一方面有助於管理我們的風險輪廓，例如地下地質（subsurface）就是一個很好的例子；另一方面也能確保合作方真正「有利害關係」（skin in the game），尤其是有時把承購方（offtaker）納入成為合作夥伴，以確保他們也有投入，並且在我們往前推進時，承購（offtake）這一塊確實具有約束力與可執行性。

So a range of -- there's no -- it's an evolving market space, and we watch it to see how that competition piece evolves. But at the moment, that's kind of what we're seeing.

所以這是一個多元的——沒有——這是一個正在演進的市場領域，我們會持續觀察競爭態勢如何演變。但目前大致就是我們所看到的情況。

Very good. And just on Europe, on your take or pay contracts, are you seeing any issues with any contracts given the current elevated energy price environment?

很好。再就歐洲部分，你們的 take-or-pay 合約，在目前能源價格高漲的環境下，你們是否看到任何合約出現問題？

Similar answer to that is no. We have strong takeaway contracts. There are some customers who are below take-or-pay at the moment in Europe, but those contracts are being enforced and payments are happening.

類似的回答是：沒有。我們有強健的提取/運輸（takeaway）合約。目前在歐洲確實有一些客戶的提取量低於 take-or-pay 的約定水準，但這些合約都在被執行，款項也都有支付。

We will now take our next question from Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley.

接下來我們將接聽摩根士丹利 Vincent Andrews 的提問。

Matt, just wanted to circle back on the balance sheet question and get a mark-to-market from you on where you think Linde can borrow at these days and then how that feeds into. As you're discussing new projects, how are you baking in higher financing costs in terms of project returns and the like?

Matt，我想再回到資產負債表的問題，請你就目前市場狀況給我們一個市價（mark-to-market）的看法：你認為林德（Linde）現在大概能以什麼水準借款？以及這會如何影響你們？當你們在討論新專案時，你們如何把更高的融資成本納入專案報酬等考量？

Sure, Vince. I think with the projects, to me, we don't take the current prevailing rates and bake it into that perspective. And the reason is, as you know, we're making 15-, 20-year investments. And embedded with that, we already incorporate inflation recovery on the facility fees. So when you tend to see elevated rates, that does come back through the inflation adjustment mechanisms as it is anyways. And we don't need to debt finance these projects as we build them. As you know, they take several years to build anyways.

當然可以，Vince。我認為就專案而言，我們不會把當前的市場利率直接「烘焙」進去作為判斷基礎。原因是，如你所知，我們做的是 15 到 20 年期的投資。而在這之中，我們已經在設施費用（facility fees）中納入通膨回收機制。因此當利率偏高時，這本來就會透過通膨調整機制反映回來。另外，我們在建造這些專案時也不需要以舉債來融資；如你所知，這些專案本來就需要好幾年才能建成。

So from that perspective, we've been through many, many decades, as you well know, on interest rate cycles, and our long-term model continues to be quite resilient with the contractual inflation recovery that enables to equivalate that.

所以從這個角度來看，正如你很清楚的，我們經歷過許多、許多個十年的利率循環，而我們的長期模型在合約式通膨回收的支持下，仍然相當具韌性，能夠把這些因素大致對等化。

As far as borrowing rates, I mean, we -- yes, we're a single A, but lately we've been tended to be more AA or better on the spreads. When we decide to go to the market, I would expect our spreads should be some of the better ones you would see. But of course, it's from a benchmark that's higher today.

至於借款利率，我是說，我們——是的，我們是單 A 評級，但最近我們在利差（spreads）上往往更接近 AA 或更好。當我們決定進入市場時，我預期我們的利差應該會是你所能看到的較佳水準之一。但當然，是建立在今天更高的基準利率之上。

So you can take the benchmark today and just take some of the spreads you've seen demonstrated at kind of our rating or better, and that's sort of what we would borrow at. But at this point, I feel pretty good about our access to capital and still get some of the lowest cost capital around.

所以你可以用今天的基準利率，再加上你看到在我們這個評級或更好評級所展現的一些利差水準，這大致就是我們的借款成本。不過就目前而言，我對我們取得資本的能力感到相當有信心，而且仍能取得市場上相對最低成本的資金之一。

We will now take our next question from Laurence Alexander from Jefferies.

接下來我們將接聽 Jefferies 的 Laurence Alexander 的提問。

This is Dan Rizzo on for Laurence. You talked a bit about the return on capital for the -- for investments. I was just wondering with the new opportunities in gray, green and blue hydrogen at this point if we should assume the return on capital is below the traditional products but should exceed it within, I don't know, the next 5 to 10 years? Or how we should think about the return on capital on these new opportunities?

我是代 Laurence 提問的 Dan Rizzo。你談到了一些關於投資的資本報酬。我想問的是，面對目前灰氫、綠氫與藍氫的新機會，我們是否應該假設資本報酬會低於傳統產品，但在未來 5 到 10 年內會超過傳統產品？或者我們應該如何看待這些新機會的資本報酬？

So in terms of return on capital, let me go back to the question that I responded to earlier, by saying that the investment criteria that we set out for our projects, double-digit unlevered returns is what we would look at, obviously, commensurate with the risk that we take on. That is what is reflected in the projects that we currently look at and approve. And that is reflected, therefore, in the return on capital that you see within our business today.

就資本報酬而言，讓我回到我先前回覆過的問題：我們為專案所設定的投資標準，是我們會尋求兩位數的無槓桿報酬（double-digit unlevered returns），當然要與我們承擔的風險相匹配。這正是我們目前所評估並核准的專案所反映的，也因此反映在你今天在我們業務中看到的資本報酬上。

I expect these projects to continue to support that return on capital elements, and our investor -- our investment criteria has not changed for projects in the clean energy space, whether it's blue or green. Obviously, there is some support available through the IRA that holds that return or supports that return profile as well and of course accelerates decision-making from our customer's point of view.

我預期這些專案會持續支撐這些資本報酬要素，而我們的投資——我們對潔淨能源領域專案的投資標準並沒有改變，不論是藍氫或綠氫。顯然，《通膨削減法案》（IRA）也提供了一些支持，有助於維持或支撐這樣的報酬輪廓，並且當然也會從客戶角度加速決策。

And maybe I could just add one more point, Dan. When we make our decisions, we make it on an essentially cash basis, an IRR unlevered, after-tax cash basis. So that won't change. .

Dan，我也許可以再補充一點。我們做決策時，基本上是以現金基礎來看，也就是無槓桿、稅後現金基礎的 IRR。因此這點不會改變。.

As you know, the ROC is more of an accounting metric. So I wouldn't look at that 21.8% in a benchmark in any way or in any form. I mean, obviously, we're getting benefits there from the noncapital portion of our business today which we expect to continue going forward. But when we make project decisions, as Sanjiv mentioned, it's more on an IRR basis on how we think about that.

如你所知，ROC 更偏向一個會計衡量指標。所以我不會把 21.8% 當作任何形式的基準。我的意思是，顯然我們目前的業務中有非資本（noncapital）部分帶來的效益，我們也預期未來會持續。但當我們做專案決策時，正如 Sanjiv 提到的，我們更多是以 IRR 的基礎來思考。

We will now take our next question from Geoff Haire from UBS.

接下來我們將接聽 UBS 的 Geoff Haire 的提問。

I'm going to fly the flag for Europe slightly. With a lot of talk about the Inflation Reduction Act in the U.S., how does that influence politicians' thinking in Europe from what you understand in terms of changing the way investments are done for low carbon hydrogen in Europe?

我想稍微為歐洲發聲一下。美國《通膨削減法案》被談論很多，依你了解，這會如何影響歐洲政治人物的思維，特別是在改變歐洲低碳氫投資方式方面？

That's a great question, Geoff. It's topical as well because I had -- over the last couple of days, I've had a number of conversations with political leadership in different parts of Europe.

這是一個很好的問題，Geoff。而且也很切題，因為在過去幾天，我和歐洲不同地區的政治領導人進行了多次對話。

Two things. First, the IRA, I think, came as a surprise to many people, including many of the political leadership in Europe, and they have recognized that it has a galvanizing effect in terms of moving the pace at which change happens on clean energy in the U.S. and obviously are envious of that change given that European Commission requires time and a fair amount of work to kind of be able to get to its point of decision-making.

兩點。第一，我認為 IRA 讓很多人感到意外，包括歐洲許多政治領導人；他們也認知到，這在推動美國潔淨能源變革速度方面具有凝聚與催化的效果，並且顯然對這種變革速度感到羨慕，因為歐盟執委會需要時間以及相當多的工作，才能走到其決策點。

The other piece, I think, is that, that awareness has then led them to recognize that some urgent actions are needed. I'll give you 2 quick examples of conversations. I may not quote them in detail, but I'll let you know that the fact that Europe was all about green hydrogen only clearly has changed, and there is a greater acceptance of the fact that blue provides a very effective bridge to getting to clean energy in due course.

我認為另一個面向是，這樣的認知讓他們意識到需要採取一些緊急行動。我給你兩個簡短的對話例子。我可能不會逐字詳述，但我可以告訴你，歐洲過去只談綠氫的立場顯然已經改變，對於「藍氫」能作為通往潔淨能源的有效過渡橋樑，接受度更高了。

Today, Europe just needs energy. They are burning more coal than they had planned for, as you know. So really, that pragmatism, which was lacking in the past, on making sure that low carbon intensity hydrogen, was welcomed into Europe on par. There was no discrimination against blue versus green, et cetera. I think that's a change that I think is fundamental and we'll see some of that.

今天，歐洲就是需要能源。如你所知，他們燃燒的煤炭比原先計畫的更多。所以真正的重點是：過去所欠缺的那種務實態度——也就是確保低碳強度氫能以同等地位被歐洲所接納，不會對藍氫與綠氫等有所差別對待——我認為這是一個根本性的改變，我們將會看到其中一些變化。

And the fact that Europe also recognized that while they can talk about developing projects in Europe, they desperately need to ensure that they have processes in place to import significant amounts of clean energy, and in this case, blue, green hydrogen, ammonia, et cetera, into Europe to be able to leverage and build infrastructure needed is the other change that I'm expecting to see in the near term.

而且，歐洲也意識到，雖然他們可以談在歐洲開發專案，但他們迫切需要確保已建立相關流程，以便將大量潔淨能源——在此情況下包括藍氫、綠氫、氨等——進口到歐洲，從而能夠加以運用並建設所需的基礎設施；這是我預期短期內會看到的另一項變化。

So I'd say the IRA has provided some real soul searching opportunity for Europe, and they are going to do something about it.

所以我會說，IRA 為歐洲提供了一個真正自我反思的機會，而他們也會採取行動。

We will now take our next question from John Roberts.

我們現在接聽下一個問題，來自 John Roberts。

If you add sequestration to hydrogen for an existing refinery customer, do you expect that existing refinery customer to pay a premium for blue hydrogen where you just expect to get the credits to cover the cost of adding sequestration? And how do the existing contracts anticipate this? I'm just trying to understand from the customer's perspective how this is going to work.

如果你們為現有煉油廠客戶的氫氣加上封存，你們是否預期該現有煉油廠客戶會為藍氫支付溢價，還是你們只是預期透過取得抵免額來覆蓋新增封存的成本？現有合約如何預先考量這一點？我只是想從客戶角度理解這將如何運作。

John, when we look at customers and discussions that we're having, the customers are themselves trying to leverage that blue hydrogen into their own product slate, in some cases, moving towards more renewable fuels, which then attract significant and attractive further benefits that come out of places like California as an example. So moving to renewable fuels, accessing California's low-carbon standard framework and accessing further incentives allows them to consider premiums that would become available on -- and pay for on the blue hydrogen as well.

John，當我們看客戶以及我們正在進行的討論時，客戶本身也在嘗試把藍氫運用到他們自己的產品組合中；在某些情況下，他們正朝向更多再生燃料轉型，而這又會帶來額外且相當可觀的利益，例如以加州為例。也就是說，轉向再生燃料、適用加州低碳燃料標準（LCFS）架構並取得進一步的激勵，使他們能夠考慮對藍氫可取得的溢價——並且也願意為藍氫支付。

But in truth, I'd say to you that if I look at broad-based adoption of blue hydrogen, the IRA provides through the 45Q credit a significant benefit in terms of accelerating that decision and does come from a point of return perspective, does support the return to moving to blue hydrogen even with marginal premiums on it.

但坦白說，如果我看藍氫的廣泛採用，IRA 透過 45Q 抵免提供了顯著的效益，有助於加速該決策；從投資報酬的角度來看，即使藍氫有些微溢價，也確實支持轉向藍氫的報酬。

We will now take our next question from Kevin McCarthy from Vertical Research Partners.

我們現在接聽下一個問題，來自 Vertical Research Partners 的 Kevin McCarthy。

This is Cory Murphy on for Kevin. In your packaged gases business, can you comment on what you're seeing in terms of demand for hardgoods as opposed to gas and rent? I recall the hardgoods tend to be a leading indicator, so curious if you're seeing any trends in the business that would portend slower macro growth ahead.

我是代 Kevin 提問的 Cory Murphy。就你們的包裝氣體業務而言，能否談談你們看到的硬體（hardgoods）需求相較於氣體與租賃的情況？我記得硬體通常是領先指標，所以想了解你們是否看到任何趨勢，可能預示未來總體成長放緩。

Thanks. So hardgoods business, both, on the package side, I'd say to you, both gases and hardgoods business are both growing double digits as things stand.

謝謝。關於硬體業務，無論是在包裝端，我會說目前氣體與硬體業務都維持兩位數成長。

On the hardgoods side, we look at 2 different aspects of it when you talk about kind of leading indicators to what we're seeing around economic activity, we see both on equipment sales as well as consumable sales. And I can tell you, I see demand and growth on the equipment side as well would suggest that people are still putting some cash on the ground to make sure that they are able to catch up with many of the supply chain issues that have plagued manufacturing more broadly. So I still -- at this point in time, still feel pretty good about where we are seeing hardgoods development as things stand. And I'm talking about the U.S. here.

在硬體方面，當你談到作為經濟活動的領先指標時，我們會從兩個面向來看：設備銷售以及耗材銷售。我可以告訴你，我看到設備端的需求與成長，顯示人們仍在投入資金，確保能夠追趕並解決更廣泛製造業一直受供應鏈問題困擾的情況。所以截至目前，我對我們所看到的硬體發展仍然相當有信心。我這裡談的是美國。

We will now take our next question from Mike Sison from Wells Fargo.

我們現在接聽下一個問題，來自 Wells Fargo 的 Mike Sison。

Nice quarter. Just curious, I'm sort of impressed that your volumes remained positive given recessionary conditions or no growth. If demand firmly goes negative in '23, what do you think your volume outlook would sort of unfold in that scenario?

這一季表現不錯。我只是好奇，在衰退環境或零成長的情況下，你們的銷量仍維持正成長，讓我有點印象深刻。如果 2023 年需求明確轉為負成長，你認為在那種情境下你們的銷量展望大概會如何發展？

Mike, I'd love to speculate, but I'm not going to do that. We'll come back to you in the next quarter, you know, and we'll give you a full outlook for 2023. We're going to go through our own very detailed planning exercise. I'll have the guys in here from all over the world over a 3-day period where we'll run through each one of their planning processes. A lot of these assumptions will get tested and challenged in the course of that.

Mike，我很想推測，但我不會這麼做。我們下個季度再回覆你，並會給你一份完整的 2023 年展望。我們會進行我們自己非常細緻的規劃作業。我會讓來自全球各地的團隊在這裡用三天時間，逐一跑過他們各自的規劃流程。許多假設會在過程中被測試並受到挑戰。

But again, I just want to -- I think the point that you make is that resilience stands out, Mike, and sometimes people take that for granted. But in our case, we recognize and our volumes showing through is just another element of that resilience, in addition to the fact that I explained at the last earnings call, our defensive business model, including the contractual structure that we have, even when volumes are down, we're able to actually preserve much of our profit and our top line as well.

但我還是想說——我認為你提到的重點是韌性很突出，Mike，而有時人們會把這視為理所當然。但就我們而言，我們認知到這一點，而我們的銷量表現只是這種韌性的另一個面向；此外，正如我在上次財報電話會議所說，我們具防禦性的商業模式（包括我們的合約結構）使得即便銷量下滑，我們仍能實際保住相當大部分的獲利與營收。

Again, just a recognition of that is quite important in these times particularly. But we'll give you more in the next quarter, for sure.

再次強調，在這樣的時期，對此有所認知特別重要。不過我們下個季度一定會提供更多資訊。

We will now take our final question from Mike Harrison from Seaport Research Partners.

我們現在接聽最後一個問題，來自 Seaport Research Partners 的 Mike Harrison。

I have two questions. First of all, in Europe, any thoughts on the recent decline in natural gas prices and what that could mean for your costs? Are you going to realize some of that?

我有兩個問題。首先，在歐洲，對近期天然氣價格下跌有何看法？這對你們的成本可能意味著什麼？你們會實現其中一部分的好處嗎？

And then the second question is around electronics. You acknowledged that there has been some negative headlines around semiconductor producers. Curious for some additional color on the near-term and longer-term impacts that might have on your electronics business, if there is some reduction in capital spending from those fabs.

第二個問題是關於電子業務。你提到半導體製造商出現了一些負面新聞。想請你補充說明，若那些晶圓廠資本支出有所減少，對你們電子業務的短期與長期影響可能是什麼？

Thanks, Mike. So just on natural gas, very quickly on EMEA. Obviously, we've seen continued volatility around natural gas pricing. We've been able to push that through our contractual cost pass-through structure. We will continue to do the same. If natural gas prices come down significantly, margins will get enhanced as a consequence. As you know, it's a clear math around how pass-through works. And really no concerns from our perspective. Obviously, lower natural gas pricing will help the broader economy and hopefully some economic tailwind as a result of that which should be positive for us.

謝謝，Mike。先很快談一下 EMEA 的天然氣。顯然，我們看到天然氣價格持續波動。我們已能透過合約中的成本轉嫁機制把它轉嫁出去，未來也會持續如此。如果天然氣價格大幅下降，毛利率將因此提升。如你所知，轉嫁機制如何運作在數學上很清楚。從我們的角度來看，真的沒有疑慮。當然，較低的天然氣價格將有助於整體經濟，並希望因此帶來一些經濟順風，這對我們應該是正面的。

As far as electronic segment is concerned, let me kind of break that up into 2 parts. Let's start with the long term in terms of investments being made and the CHIPS Act out of the U.S. and a similar act out of Europe pushing to have localized investments in their regions, continues to drive fab investments as we move forward.

至於電子事業部，我把它分成兩部分來說。先從長期來看：美國的《CHIPS 法案》以及歐洲類似法案推動在各自區域進行在地化投資，持續帶動晶圓廠（fab）投資向前推進。

In conversations with some of our largest customers more recently, I have seen commitments from them of staying at the same level, if not increasing their investment levels. Some of them tend to invest countercyclical. That's been a strategy that's worked well for them. And I expect to see those levels remain fairly stable in the midterm, I'd say. So that's from now until the next 4 to 5 years. Of course, we are winning more than our fair share of those, and I feel good about the fact that we'll see continued growth as a result of that.

在最近與我們一些最大客戶的對話中，我看到他們承諾維持相同水準，甚至提高投資水準。其中一些客戶傾向於逆景氣循環投資，這一直是對他們很有效的策略。我預期這些水準在中期會相當穩定，我會說是從現在到未來 4 到 5 年。當然，我們拿到的份額超過我們應得的比例，對於因此帶來的持續成長，我感到很有信心。

In the near term, most of our large customers continue to consume, which is what I -- the pointed comment I made earlier on, that despite what you read in the press, our consumers continue to consume gases at every fab that we supply. And that's a really good position to be in.

就短期而言，我們的大型客戶多數仍在持續消耗（用量），這也就是我先前特別指出的：儘管你在媒體上看到的內容如此，我們所供應的每一座晶圓廠，客戶仍持續消耗氣體。這是一個非常好的位置。

There are some concerns around China that I've heard from investors as well. And again, I want to confirm that our volumes in China continue to be unimpacted by current embargoes and so on and so forth that might exist. They might have an effect on longer-term investments in China, but we are yet to kind of see that reflected in the demand pull that we see from the markets.

我也聽到投資人對中國有一些疑慮。同樣地，我想確認的是，我們在中國的銷量目前仍未受到現行禁運等各種措施的影響。這些措施可能會影響中國的長期投資，但我們尚未看到它反映在市場需求拉動上。

I would now like to turn the call back to Juan Pelaez for any additional or closing remarks.

我現在想把電話交回給 Juan Pelaez，請他做任何補充或結語。

Cecilia, thank you. And thank you, everyone, on the line for participating in today's call. Please feel free to reach out if you have any further questions. Have a great rest of your day. Take care.

Cecilia，謝謝。也謝謝線上各位參與今天的電話會議。如有任何進一步問題，歡迎隨時與我們聯繫。祝各位今天剩下的時間愉快。保重。

Thank you. That will conclude today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. Ladies and gentlemen, you may now disconnect.

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