Good afternoon. My name is Kim, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the TechnipFMC fourth quarter earnings conference call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers' remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. Thank you. Matt Seinsheimer, you may begin your conference.

Good afternoon and welcome to TechnipFMC's fourth quarter 2017 earnings conference call. Our news release and financial statements issued yesterday can be found on our website. I'd like to caution you with respect to any forward-looking statements made during this call. Although these forward-looking statements are based on our current expectations, beliefs and assumptions regarding future developments and business conditions, they are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in or implied by these statements. Known material factors that could cause our actual results to differ from our projected results are described in our most recent 10-K, most recent 10-Q, and other periodic filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the French AMF and the UK Financial Conduct Authority. We wish to caution you not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof. We undertake no obligations to publicly update or revise any of our forward-looking statements after the date they are made, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Because this is the fourth quarter of operations following our merger, we have prepared pro forma financial statements for 2016 as if the merger had been completed on January 1, 2016. All prior-year quarter comparisons are to these pro forma results. I will now turn the call over to Doug Pferdehirt, TechnipFMC's Chief Executive Officer.

Thank you, Matt. Good morning and good afternoon. Thank you for participating in our fourth quarter earnings call. We delivered another quarter of solid results, further demonstrating our commitment to strong operational execution, the realization of merger synergies, and a commercial focus that's driven to take a completely new business model to market and win. Q4 serves as another important milestone in our brief history that further validates our commitment to deliver results for all of our stakeholders. Total company revenues were $3.7 billion in the fourth quarter, with all segments delivering strong performance in the period. Total adjusted EBITDA was $573 million, demonstrating strong growth over the prior-year period, with margins up 360 basis points to 15.6% on a pro forma basis. Total company orders were $3 billion, and year-end backlog stands at $13 billion. And in Subsea, we achieved a full-year book-to-bill of just under one on the strength of a solid Q4 inbound. 2017 proved to be a strong start to our first year as TechnipFMC. The women and men of our new company stepped up to the challenge in this time of significant change, achieving early and important success for our company. Executing and winning, that's how we drove our success in 2017, and we see even more opportunity ahead given the strength of our market positions and our advantages in both new business models and new technologies. Solid execution led to our strong financial results. Operationally, we have relentlessly focused on project execution. And despite the usual distractions of merger integration, our operational performance was both ahead of plan and market expectations. We have been delivering some of those complex and challenging projects across the globe. Importantly, we have executed without losing focus on the most important element, the health and well-being of our employees…

Thanks, Doug. While our discussions today focus on fourth quarter results, we are pleased with our full-year results as well, which demonstrated solid execution in all of our business segments throughout the entire year. Our previous restructuring activities, the merger synergies we have captured, and the further plans we have for sustainable cost reductions should all be supportive of achieving 2018 expected results. Let me now focus on the quarter. As Doug said, and I will reiterate given its importance, total company-adjusted EBITDA was $573 million in the quarter. Quarter-over-quarter adjusted EBITDA margin increased 360 basis points to 15.6% despite a revenue decline of 16%. This is the result of good project execution and incremental cost savings. Our execution, both in our Onshore/Offshore and Subsea projects supported the margin performance in the quarter and full year. Improving activity levels in Surface Americas and the benefit of the restructuring initiatives and client-focused actions demonstrated the leverage in our North American land business. We believe these quarterly results are another example of our improving operational performance. Adjusted diluted earnings per share from continuing operations in the quarter were $0.20 when excluding after tax charges and credits of $0.53 per diluted share. These charges and credits totaled $245 million including the impact of tax reform. We have provided more detail for these items in the accompanying schedules to our release. We incurred $138 million of charges related to tax reform in the quarter, most of which was related to U.S. tax reform. When you exclude these charges and other discrete items, the effective tax rate in Q4 was approximately 33%. Also recorded in the quarter was $91 million of additional liability related to our joint venture partners that was recorded within net interest expense. We ended the quarter with net cash of $2.9…

Your first question comes from the line of Bill Herbert from Simmons. Your line is open. William Herbert - Simmons & Company International: Good morning. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can, Bill. William Herbert - Simmons & Company International: Thank you, Doug. So, Maryann, I was curious with regard to the components of Subsea revenue in 2017, especially Book & Turn and service and what you expect those to be in 2018.

Thanks, Bill. So as we have previously mentioned, our service revenues in 2017 and 2018, we really don't expect much change. We've talked about that being in the range of about $1 billion for services. So the lion's share of the change from 2017 revenues to 2018 is driven by our project revenues. William Herbert - Simmons & Company International: Okay, and with regard to Book & Turn?

So as you see, we've got about $3.4 billion in our backlog that is executable for 2018. And then, if you will, assume roughly another $1 billion in services. That would say we need about $800 million in what we would consider Book & Turn or revenues that will come from new inbounds in 2018. William Herbert - Simmons & Company International: Okay. And secondly for me, Doug, with regard to LNG FIDs, what are you tracking now in terms of numbers? And how many industry awards, roughly speaking, would you expect for each 2018 and 2019 with a backdrop of less than a handful effectively have been awarded over the last two years?

Thank you for the question, Bill. So let's go from the beginning. In terms of the concept work that we're doing through our Genesis team, as noted in my prepared remarks, their activity level has really accelerated and is quite high right now. I'd prefer not to give out exact counts, but it has certainly seen a significant recovery from where we were over the last couple of years. In terms of active LNG FEED studies, some, as I talked about in my prepared remarks, I did not mention the Arctic LNG 2 FEED study that we have previously discussed on the earnings calls. That continues to progress quite well, as well as we've talked about the potential on some of our existing terrestrial LNG facilities, the opportunity to add additional trains. So that work is going on, let's say, on the Onshore portion. On the Offshore portion, there are actually a few FEED studies going on. Some of them are around some of the big new discoveries. I'd rather let the operators comment than myself, but there's some associated gas on some of these larger new oil discoveries in these new regions. And one option to address the associated gas would be to introduce FLNG into those projects. In terms of the timing of projects in 2018-2019, Bill, I think you represented it well. We have been in a period of over oversupply in LNG. By most expectations, that should come into balance around 2025, which would mean if you want to FID an FLNG, which is a 60-month delivery, or a terrestrial project, which is closer to seven years, it puts you into that timeframe of 2018, 2019, 2020 needing to start to see some FIDs move forward. So we're seeing it on the concept. We're seeing it flow through to the FEED. And as I highlighted in my prepared remarks, we see some of the larger projects now being discussed and actually short-listing the amount of companies that are going to be participating in those going forward. The actual timing of the award though, as you know, these are large projects. The timing tends to be a bit fluid. So I'd hate to predict if it's going to be 2018 or 2019 or how many are actually going to occur, but we do see a ramp up in activity and do expect to see some additional LNG awards in the coming years. William Herbert - Simmons & Company International: Okay, thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Gregory Brown from Credit Suisse. Your line is open. Gregory Brown - Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd.: And good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for taking my questions. Firstly, then, in the LNG market, you mentioned LNG Canada and the operator group, as suggested, are yourselves in partnership with KBR and another consortium, have been invited to bid for a lump-sum EPC contract. That's obviously a very large opportunity, but you've also mentioned risk management. I was wondering if you'd be able to comment on your appetite to take on such a project on a lump-sum basis and how you would intend to assess the risk involved. That's the first question. And on the second one, perhaps on Subsea. Are you seeing any sort of a trend whereby aftermarket or services work is bundled into an additional order? I guess that's part of your integrated life-of-field offering. So, are you seeing any positive momentum there?

Thank you, Gregory, for the question. So, I'll take them in the order that you presented them. So, we have a very robust process in terms of the selectivity around the types of projects – the projects and the types of commercial models that we will accept on projects. And you'll see over a period of time, as we've demonstrated at our analyst event just back in November, that we've moved our portfolio from being predominantly lump-sum turnkey projects to really introducing a much more robust reimbursable or services component to our Onshore/Offshore portfolio. And we're really quite proud of that, really supported by the strength of our process technologies group and the differentiation that that brings, as well as our project management consulting, both of which drive a large portion of our service or our reimbursable activities. The contract that you mentioned, LNG Canada, indeed, we've been shortlisted. We're very excited about the project. We're working closely with the customer. And we believe that there's a lot of learnings that we could bring to make that project successful, both in the use of – the fabrication of mega modules and a lot of the work that we've done on other recent LNG terrestrial projects that we're currently working on. So, we think we have a lot to bring to that project. I will maybe correct you on the lump-sum turnkey portion of that. This is a contract that's still under discussion. There's still discussions between us and the customer in terms of which portion of the contract, if any, would be taken as a lump-sum turnkey portion. It would be reasonable to expect that a portion of the contract would be lump-sum turnkey. It is not reasonable to expect that the full contract would be a lump-sum turnkey. But…

Your next question comes from the line of Sean Meakim from JPMorgan. Your line is open.

Thank you. So, Doug, just to start, I want to talk about the Subsea margin trajectory, just considering the strong performance in the fourth quarter, we've talked before about expectations for some lumpiness quarter to quarter, but how should that 4Q result guide investor expectations for the trajectory between first half and second half 2018? And I guess the other thing I was thinking about in that context is how do we think about the margin outlook relative to the guidance band for revenue that you've offered? Is that going to be higher end of the revenue? Should we think about that being positively correlated with the margin or negatively correlated? Just curious how you think about that flex within the guidance band.

Okay, Sean, thank you. So indeed, we're very proud of the performance of our Subsea – across all three operating segments, but as you pointed out specifically in Subsea in the fourth quarter, and I realize that in the context of the guidance for 2018 even made it more – even put more focus on it. But it is important to point out, and we've said it before, there are headwinds as we transition and start to move from the existing backlog. The inbound, we're very happy with the inbound in 2017, we'll start to see some of that flow through in 2018. We need to maintain the competencies and the capabilities to continue to deliver world-class projects to our customers. And, therefore, we will continue to ensure that we have the right workforce and assets to be able to manage that going into 2018 and – in 2018 and beyond. We've talked a bit about the utilization of our fleet, and there will be some softness as we transition into greater SURF activity, which tends to come at a later stage in the lifecycle of the project. You see the equipment side first and then the SURF side a little bit later. So, those are some of the headwinds that we face and why we think that the margin guidance that we provided for 2018 is the appropriate margin guidance. In terms of the sequencing of it, I'd rather not get into attempting to do quarterly guidance, because so much of it really comes down to projects and project milestones. And when we achieve and close out certain projects in a successful manner, that can have an impact as it did, by the way, in the fourth quarter of 2017. It is important to note, though, and has been historical, the first quarter is always a soft quarter, and that mainly has to do with the weather associated with many of the areas that we operate our fleet, and therefore, we'll see less activity in our Riserless Light Well Intervention activity that I was referring to earlier on Gregory's question, indeed is very soft in the first quarter as is historical and picks up and hits its stride in Q2 and Q3. So, indeed, we would expect this step down in the first quarter. And in terms of the band relative to the revenue, I was going to let Maryann add some additional color on that comment.

Hey, Sean. Thank you. So, maybe just a few other comments to add to Doug. Keep in mind, we, as Doug said earlier, we had planned for the inflection point in 2016 to see the recovery of Subsea, and timing has a critical element attached to our margin performance. Obviously, the sooner we get inbound in, the faster we can execute. The later we get it, obviously, the bit of a challenge to get it executed in a given year. One of the things that we've said is that we want to be sure that we retain all of the core competencies of our ongoing project management and our engineering organization. So, we see that backlog growing. As Doug reiterated on his comments here this morning, we expect 2018 to be another positive year with respect to Subsea inbound. So, the timing of that, the sooner we get inbound, our ability to leverage that inbound and improve, we could see some positive momentum around the margins. And the other thing is we also talked about our investment in R&D to maintain our technology development and that's certainly a part of our 2018 guidance as well.

Great. Thank you for that detail. Just one more on Subsea if I could. Just thinking about the Subsea 2.0 customer reception and plans for commercialization this quarter. Can you maybe give us an update on getting the first set of equipment wet, how that's progressing and what we should expect going forward beyond that?

Thank you, Sean. And it's important to note, when we talk about the next generation of subsea equipment, as we had a chance to demonstrate firsthand at our analyst event in November, it's about making it real. Everybody can talk about things that they're doing. Ours is real. It has been – as we talked about at the analyst event, it was there, live and in person. And most importantly, we have already begun to receive orders. As we indicated at the Analyst Day, we had not put the full suite of offering to the market. I'm very happy to say today that I can report that we received our first order for our automation and control, our new automation and controls – next generation automation and control system. We had previously informed the group that we had the first orders on the trees. And I don't remember if we said 8, 9 or 10 but it continues to grow orders for our new compact robotic manifold. So, we're now able to actively bid that entire suite, to your point, Sean, and we're very excited about the impact that that will have on the tenders that we're currently submitting. Up until now, we have not been able to tender that entire offering because we were still going through qualification and – well, just, yeah, qualification and testing. That's now complete. We're in the process – the manifolds, as we discussed back in November, are there. The tree being installed very soon. And now we have the commitment on the next generation automation and control. And we always said it's as much about time as it is about cost, and it's just stunning, the next generation automation and control system. We're going to be able to do this in terms of months, not in terms of years, in terms of being able to respond to the customer and the customer need, really making a long-cycle business, a short-cycle business.

Very helpful. Thanks for the detail.

Your next question comes from the line of Rob Pulleyn from Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.

Hi. Three questions, if I may. The first one is, if we look at what's happening in the subsea installation market whereby, including yourselves, the industry is installing projects which were sanctioned at the tail end of the last cycle and yet, we also hear that the new raft of projects essentially are becoming much shorter in lead time, shorter from FID to first oil. Surely, that also means that the time between FID and when the vessels are needed also will be a lot faster. Is that leading to any bunching effect whereby key enabling vessels both in your fleets and your competitors' are busy and yet, actually, these inbound orders and the projects you see require these vessels, and that's creating actually some tightness maybe ahead of expectations in the installation market? The second and third questions, please, to Maryann, are a little bit on the housekeeping side. Could you possibly give us a bit of a steer on the working capital moves for 2018, which will clearly be a key driver of free cash flow? And finally, in terms of U.S. tax reform, obviously, we saw the charge. Given you're already planning a significant improvement in the tax effect, and that seems to be captured in 2018 guidance, could we expect any further improvements in the tax range beyond 2018? Thank you very much.

Okay, Rob, I'll take the first one then, actually quite an intriguing insight. Clearly, if you make a long cycle business short cycle, if you are able to deliver the subsea equipment as we described in some cases in 10 months versus 24 months. And now, as TechnipFMC, the only subsea company that can deliver the equipment installed and commissioned on the sea floor, what you are describing is indeed a new reality in the business. The good news is we have that visibility because we're the ones doing the integrated FEED studies. So we have an idea where are those shorter-cycle opportunities. We build that into our roadmap. Clearly, we will prioritize the iEPCI opportunities that we have to where we can do the fully integrated subsea system installed on the sea floor. Speaking more broadly for the market, I don't think that the market is necessarily tight at this point, to be blunt. I think that what you're pointing out is that the tightness could occur sooner than most people anticipate, and I think that's a fair statement.

Rob, Maryann here. So first question, working capital, for 2018, we do not expect to see the same level of working capital use as we did in 2017, in part because many of our projects are obviously coming to significant completion. But also because of the inbound that we're expecting, we're also assuming that we will see incremental milestones and advance payments. So I would estimate somewhere in the range of about 50% of the working capital use that we saw in 2017. Your second question was around U.S. tax reform. And I will tell you for TechnipFMC, U.S. tax reform is a net benefit. It's a plus. First and foremost, as you saw in the release, our charge is a non-cash charge. Much of the restructuring work that we've been sharing with you was completed by the end of October. And so our tax adjustment that was reported is really a non-cash charge. We were able to benefit from most of the work that we've done with the restructuring or what we call the out-from-under net operating losses in the U.S. as well as foreign tax credits. So, as we increase the amount of North American income, Doug talked about the strength in the North American market recovering to similar peaks of 2014 and the leverage that we're seeing, this will be a net benefit. So in other words, what we normally would have paid only on U.S. income at the 35% tax rate, we'll now pay at 21%. So as that North American income improves, we would expect to see incremental benefit going forward.

That's extremely helpful. Thank you very much, Maryann, and just one follow-up, if I may, very quickly. When we think about the Yamal project and the cost-plus component, which is not entirely culled into backlog, I was just wondering whether you could quantify how much of that is still outstanding given the progress that's actually been made on the construction of the second and third trains, if possible. Thank you.

Sure. So we are we are through Phase 1, which includes obviously all the modularization as well as the first train. And as you know, we were happy to announce, of course, the successful startup of Train 1 and first cargo. So what's remaining is Train 2 and Train 3. In the backlogs that you see reported for the Onshore/Offshore business, a total of about $6.369 billion at the end of 12/31/2017, you can see a big portion of that, about $4.2 billion, is recognizable in 2018. And obviously, there is much of that backlog that is associated with Yamal. Having said that, there are still portions of reimbursable scope associated with Yamal that could help influence revenue in 2018. Because Train 2 and Train 3 are left, we still have revenues in the backlog both for 2019 and a portion for 2020 currently in our $6.4 billion backlog.

Your next question comes from the line of Bertrand Hodée from Kepler Cheuvreux. Your line is open. Bertrand Hodée - Kepler Cheuvreux SA: Yes. Hello, everyone. Thank you for taking my question, two questions, if I may. The first is on the next generation of LNG/FLNG technologies that you're putting in place. Can you give us a flavor of what is at stake here and what are the potential benefits for the clients? And the second question related to iEPCI momentum, can you disclose what was the amount of order intake that was linked to iEPCI in 2017? So out of the $5.1 billion subsea order intake, how much related to iEPCI? Thank you.

Bertrand, thank you for the questions. So in terms of the next-generation LNG/FLNG, obviously different applications, being offshore or terrestrial, but the objective remains the same, which is to achieve, as we are in the rest of our 2.0 portfolio and the vision for our company, to drive project economics by driving toward simplification, more system integration, as well as new technologies that will result in a 50% reduction. So here we're talking about really driving towards being able to deliver LNG projects at a much lower cost and therefore much more improved project economics, be it from $2,000 a metric ton down to $1,000 a metric ton, which will bring LNG, particularly FLNG, into a completely new market, one that I inferred earlier, which will be a market where there's associated gas with oil developments, which today would not bear the cost because of the reserve capacity for the current scale of FLNG. So, that's one example of what we're working on there. In terms of iEPCI, in 2017, it was not a material portion. Again, the company was created in 2017. We were early in the conversion of integrated FEEDs to integrated EPCI. We didn't have that many opportunities. What we have said though is that by our second year of operation, which is this year 2018, we expect that to approach 25% of our total inbound will come from this new integrated model. Why is that important? These are direct awards. So, we're not in the competitive marketplace. And it's also our ability to get engaged early through the integrated FEED, demonstrate to our customer the value of our integrated business model as well as our new technologies, and then go in to direct award for the execution phase of the project. This is unique to us and creates an opportunity set that others do not have access to. Bertrand Hodée - Kepler Cheuvreux SA: Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Kurt Hallead from RBC. Your line is open.

Hey. Good morning. Good morning, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Kurt. How are you?

I'm doing well, doing well. Thanks. So, I want to just maybe follow up a little bit on the – you mentioned earlier in your prepared commentary, Doug, about a high degree of enthusiasm for the Subsea 2.0. Just wondering, post your Analyst Day that you had in November to where we are now, is there some additional color commentary that you may provide around potential timing of additional awards for the projects that relates specifically to Subsea 2.0?

Okay. I'll try to be brief. But you know I can get pretty excited on this question, but I'm going to do my best. Understand that prior to the Analyst Day, we had taken every major subsea client and, in many cases, their executive team through the technology demonstration area that you were able to see back at the analyst event. So, they've been aware of it for some time. They've been looking at it. We've been, therefore, setting up qualification programs with different clients or collectively with groups of clients, which is certainly the more efficient way to go about it. And we're past that. And that's a challenge in subsea. It takes quite a bit of time to go from the concept and the idea to really having something qualified to be able to use in a subsea environment. As we stated at the Analyst Day, the manifold was completed. The tree was near completion. And we had had our first order, and we're looking forward to actually the installation of that in short order. Indeed, that's moving forward and will happen in the coming quarters. What is new from the Analyst Day was that the next generation automation, which is actually a significant step change and really changes our entire operating model and makes it much more efficient for us as well, has now been – we've now received that award and will be going to what's called TRL Level 4 and 5 as a result of that very soon. That now allows us to take that complete package including the access now to the flexible jumpers to be able to move towards our vision as we demonstrated at the Analyst Day.

That's great color. Appreciate that, Doug. And then maybe one follow-up I have for Maryann. So, I appreciate the transparency on all the guidance provided and when you look at the Onshore/Offshore business, obviously that that went up. I just want to get a general sense, like longer term, do you think that there is going to be – outside of the Yamal project and the benefit that's providing, are you guys kind of thinking about the longer term margin dynamics in that business? I think, historically, you guys have suggested, don't think about 10%, think about more like 5% or 6% kind of margins. But just wondering if your excellence in execution really kind of alters your view on how you can drive margins in that business.

Yeah. Thanks, Kurt. Over the next couple of years, as I mentioned, we've got work left to do on Yamal. But when we think about beyond that time period, we are really trying to continue to capitalize on the strength of the risk management approach. If you look historically even in the prior years without as much revenue coming from Yamal, the execution has been good and the margins really better than competitive landscape. When we think about going forward, our approach is really to try to continue to change the amount of lump sum and focus more on reimbursable scope. You saw from Analyst Day how we've already begun that movement. Second, we are really looking for that opportunity to improve margins beyond that time period. We've said that we think margins in the range of 5% to 6% EBITDA are clearly a target, and we'll continue to work diligently to ensure that that's sustainable beyond that time period. But we feel good about our ability to deliver that post the completion of Yamal.

Great, thanks.

Your next question comes from the line of Amy Wong from UBS. Your line is open.

Hi. Good afternoon. Two questions for me, please. First one is one of your subsea competitors just acquired a majority stake in a early energy consulting business and all in the name of providing – getting in early to engagement with their clients. So, could we have some of your thoughts in terms of TechnipFMC's position in terms of providing that integrated solution? How do you differentiate your offering, please? And do you see a threat of your competitors trying to replicate your offering and how would you react to that, please? Thanks.

Thank you for the question, Amy. So, I'll do the second one and then I'll go back to the first one. To be very blunt, I would be quite surprised if our competitors did not try to emulate what has been created with TechnipFMC. We've talked about 25% of our inbound in 2018 coming from this new integrated model. It's clearly having a level of market acceptance that I think far exceeded anyone's expectation because it's delivering real substantive and sustainable change needed in the industry. So, actually, I would be surprised to the opposite if someone did not react. In terms of the actual transaction that you referenced, it's important to note that we have Genesis. Genesis is our agnostic, front-end concept and front-end engineering organization. It is extremely well known in the market. We have a phenomenal group of people within our Genesis team, and we are an industry leader. So, just to put it in perspective, our Genesis organization is twice the size of the other organization that you were referencing. So, again, no surprise that others are trying to emulate, but it's going to be very difficult. What was created with TechnipFMC by just bringing together two companies will not be possible by the combination of any other two companies. So, we're a year into it. Second year of operation, we're seeing 25% of our revenue come from this new integrated model. Integrations take time and integrations have challenges. And we're well on our way and operating and continue to maintain a strong focus both on execution as well as the safety and well-being of our workforce. So, I couldn't be more proud of where we were, and I'm awful glad we went first.

Thank you. I just have a quick follow-up also on your Subsea business, and this time just focusing a little bit on your flexible pipes business because we're really losing any kind of granularity in that. And I know you guys are always reluctant to give any specific metrics, but could you give some indication on activity levels in 2018 versus 2017 on your flexible pipes business. How loaded up are your manufacturing plants, please?

Yeah. It's one of the interesting parts of our business that's maybe a little countercyclical to some of the other parts of our business in that the activity level will actually be up in 2018 versus 2017. That's a result of several key project awards from our largest customer, which is Petrobras, but also due to other awards that we're receiving and the influence that iEPCI has on our flexibles business. The flexibles and the application of flexibles is very intricate and integral to our integrated offering. So, when you hear us talking about integrated EPCI, indeed, we're creating additional market for our flexibles offering as well. There's a lot that we can do on the technology side and you should expect to hear more from us through 2018 and what we're going to do to drive to a future of flexibles 2.0.

Your last question comes from the line of Mick Pickup from Barclays. Your line is open. Your last question comes from the line of Byron Pope from Tudor, Pickering, Holt. Your line is open. Byron K. Pope - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc.: Good morning. Doug, I was wondering if I could get you to provide some additional color on one of the subsea industry trends that you touched on, which is the growing prominence of independents. And naturally the Gulf of Mexico and North Sea come to mind as two of those markets where you might be seeing that trend. But as you look out on the horizon over the next couple of years, could you speak to some of the subsea areas and regions where you see that growing prominence of independents?

Sure. Thank you, Byron, and I appreciate your patience. So clearly, we have seen the first movement. If you go back in time, it really first occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, and we have some very strong long-term relationships with independents in the Gulf of Mexico, and I would say in also the UK sector, the North Sea. More recently, we're seeing the Norwegian sector of the North Sea where we have been very successful at aligning with the new operators who we think are -and we're a natural partner for those type of projects because of our ability to be able to provide the full integrated subsea system. We're also seeing, from a private equity point of view and from other small independents, movement in other parts of the world, be it the Mediterranean or be it in Asia Pacific and there, it's very interesting. And again, because of our relationship, because of the way that we have – we always form deep intimate relationships with our customers, very transparent and very – with a high track record of success in terms of delivering on the projects that we say we'll deliver on at the price we say we'll deliver on, I think we've just built – the brand is quite strong and quite important in that area. Going forward, I think we'll see more of those type of awards. I would expect those type of awards to also influence our iEPCI in a very positive way, as well as you could see awards where we maybe offer even beyond just the traditional integrated subsea and include the FPSO or additional production capability because of the unique footprint of TechnipFMC. Byron K. Pope - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc.: That's helpful. Thanks, Doug. Appreciate it.

I now turn the call back to Matt Seinsheimer. Your line is open.

This concludes our fourth quarter conference call. A replay of our call will be available on our website beginning at approximately 8:00 PM Greenwich Mean Time today. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the Investor Relations team. Thanks for joining us. Operator, you may end the call.