“And our expectation is by the end of this year and getting into next year, we'll then be up and running full and that will be contributing at its full potential.”

In context

“hugely. And it's a tremendous credit to the people in that business, their ability to upgrade the feedstock and upgrade the products to high- value products and do it at lower cost. That's a real hat trick there that a lot of organizations struggle to accomplish, but the chemical business that we've got and the people running have done an excellent job in that space. With respect to China, I would just say we're still in the early days of starting that up. We feel good about the production. And as I said earlier, it's come on real well, and we're basically selling into that market. But that will be -- we're -- we still haven't got it running up at full rates. And when you got that kind of capital in the ground, you need to get full utilization. So I would say that's a continuing journey. And our expectation is by the end of this year and getting into next year, we'll then be up and running full and that will be contributing at its full potential. Operator: The next question is from Alastair Syme with Citi. Alastair Roderick Syme: I wonder if I could return to the very first question on M&A because it's quite an important comment, I think you made. I mean, I take your point that volume is not a criteria. Do you feel limited by scale? I'm trying to ascertain whether you're sort of talking about bolt- on transactions or something larger in your perspective. Darren W. Woods: Yes. No, scale, obviously, is important, but it's got to be the right kind of scale. And I think the point I was always try to make is, if you're going after volume for scale and you're paying for that volume, then you really aren't doing your shareholders, you're not creating any real advantage and you're not creating any value for your shareholders. And so what”