TotalEnergies Stock

Hello, everybody. Good afternoon or good morning for those who are in the U.S. And before Jean-Pierre will go through the details of the second quarter financials, I would like first to make a few opening comments. Starting, obviously, with the current conflict in the Middle East, which has picked up again in the last few days and which is clearly impacting our markets and our operations and our perspectives.

Although, we are all hoping in mid-June that the resolution could be envisaged for the signature of the MOU and ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran. The situation has remained, to say the least, extremely volatile with the Strait of Hormuz almost being an intermittent battleground where the risk premium to navigate in these waters is increasingly high. Some are even beginning to consider that this could become a new normal with the strait opening on and off, depending on level of tensions between the parties. This unstable and chaotic environment has been prevailing for the second quarter, but I would say the last 15 days in June where we have seen some quite interesting reactions of the market with crude oil going down very quickly, but products going to the roof at the same time. We don't know how long this conflict will continue. We have no specific information. I don't know if anybody knows, by the way. But of course, for us, safety of our teams will remain our utmost priority.

As Jean-Pierre will show you in a moment, we can say we have managed this quarter to deliver, once again, strong results and cash flows from both our strategic pillars. Thanks to the strong performance of the teams who managed to capture very favorable market conditions for many of the energies we are producing and selling. The oil prices rose above $100 per barrel, even if differentials have widened, while refining, petrochemicals, biofuel margins, but also distribution margins were increased with some even reaching historic levels. And gas, LNG, electricity were also at strong levels. Once again, TotalEnergies is demonstrating its capacity to capture these margins and high prices, leveraging the integrated and diversified business model along the value chains of oil, gas and electricity.

First, for oil upstream and downstream businesses have been performing very strongly at the same time, which is not so frequent in fact, since quite often, one benefits from a supportive environment at the expense of the other. But currently, both are capturing high prices and margins given the tensions on global demand for products. As we speak, integrated margins this morning are around $130 per barrel, Brent of crude oil around $95 per barrel, and margins at $35 per barrel. E&P delivered a strong quarter in terms of production, thanks to a solid 4% organic growth, higher than our forecast, coming from our rich and diversified portfolio of projects, which was planned in particular from Brazil, the U.S., and Libya. And I must say it's very good from a strong operational performance, limiting, I would say, the unexpected stoppage of the production. So it was a very good performance from an operational point of view. And all that allowed us to partly compensate the production losses in the Middle East.

E&P has been delivering, once again, this quarter a strong cash flow from operations despite, as well, I would say, and there was a disturbance in the Middle East between the production reported and the capacity to lift these productions, which impacted because the lifting in the Gulf, of course, was very limited by access to Strait of Hormuz. Looking forward on the Middle East situation, beginning of July, end of June, I would say, the production was going up quite quickly, and we had limitations, I would say, only 5% of our global production. But this weekend after the conflict came back, we were more back to 8%, 10% of limitations. So difficult, I think we see 5% to 10% in our perspective. It will obviously depend on the way that the conflict will develop. And again, it's not only production for us also lifting offloading the crude oil, which might be affected. And when we look to what happened in the second quarter, the real offloading was, in fact, affected as per our guidance at 15% of our production. So we'll see what will happen for this quarter.

Refining and Chemicals performed in an exceptional way, I must say, leveraging market conditions, managing well the tensions on supply of refined products to maximize capturing margins. Our refiners have adjusted the way they use their plants in the second quarter to prioritize, in particular, production of diesel and jet fuel, which were offering higher margins. And also by doing that, contributing to security of supply of France and Europe. This performance was achieved. Also, some of our facilities have been impacted by events outside of our control like the SATORP refinery in Jubail, Saudi Arabia, which was hit in mid-April, if I remember well, by some drones and which has been used at around -- which is back today at 70% of capacity and full capacity by the end of the third quarter is expected. But also Port Arthur in the U.S. suffered unfortunately in June from a lightning strike during the tropical storm and now is progressively coming back to normal production levels.

Our crude oil and petroleum products trading activities have been very successful for the second quarter in a row with a strong performance and made another $500 million, I would say, over performance on the top of our usual performance of $500 million. And last but not least, on the downstream, Marketing & Services has reported the best ever quarter driven by the positive impact of the seasonality in Europe, but also higher, I would say, unit margins, in particular, on products like lubricants. After a strong outperformance in the first quarter, our gas trading activities results in the second quarter were not good, to be clear, and impacted by flat to declining European market conditions, whereas our traders were positioned to see the more supportive European gas environment in line with supply-demand fundamental expectations.

Our traders took a long position on gas, thinking, being bullish on the market, which seems to be reasonable because many indications were pointing to gas prices increasing because of lower supply out of the Middle East and from Qatar because European inventories were low at less than 15% below the 5-year average. But these factors did not materialize during the second quarter, even in fact, prices have declined through the quarter, leading to, I would say, weaker or poor results on the trading business. The story is not over. As you have probably seen now gas price in Europe have rallied. And as our traders are rightly stubborn, since early July, their gas trading results are following and we will be back to some overperformance again.

On our second pillar, electricity, there was multiple good news during this quarter. Integrated Power delivered one of its best quarters ever with a strong cash flow. In fact, the second best since 2024, even in the absence of farm downs during this quarter. But it was supported by the closing of the transaction with EPH in April, 1 month earlier or 1 to 2 months earlier than expected. And the cash flow coming from EPH was as per the expectations. So the strong deliveries on almost all fronts, but I would say, gas trading for once. We have generated at the company level next to $10 billion this quarter, which has been allocated in a very consistent manner as I've announced to you last April during the call for the first quarter.

First, of course, we have deleveraged down to a gearing ratio of 13%, which shows an improvement of 2.4 percentage points quarter-to-quarter, benefiting from a $3.3 billion reduction in net debt and also a $1.2 billion working capital release. And second, of course, we have confirmed the increase of our interim quarterly dividend by 5.9% to EUR 0.9 per share, which places TotalEnergies once again in the leading pack of the growing dividend companies. Along this quarter, our cash generation has also allowed us to sustain our production growth targets with disciplined capital investment of $3.4 billion, comforting our annual guidance of $15 billion and also to increase as announced, our buybacks to $1.5 billion in the second quarter. And the Board has authorized us to maintain this buyback with another $1.5 billion for the third quarter.

With all this good news, I now hand it over to Jean-Pierre, who has an easy work to go through the details of the second quarter financial results.

Thank you, Patrick. So I will start by commenting on the price environment in the second quarter '26 versus the first quarter. We captured high commodity prices, although gradually decreasing over the quarter. Brent averaged $104 per barrel during the second quarter versus $81 per barrel in the first quarter, meaning plus $23 per barrel, more than 25%. While average liquid price was up by $18 per barrel due to widened differentials and a lifting schedule weighted towards the end of the quarter in the crude market, which softened in June in the context of the ceasefire in the Middle East. TTF averaged $15.6 per MMBtu versus $13.7 MMBtu and our average LNG price increased by 20% at $10.2 per MMBtu. Oil prices started to impact LNG prices with 1 to 2 months of lag effects according to LNG pricing formulas. Finally, the European refining margins increased by $13.5 per barrel on average over the quarter.

In this price environment, the company reported very strong financial results, increasing by almost 15% compared to the first quarter with second quarter '26 cash flow of $9.8 billion and adjusted net income increasing to $6 billion. These results were possible because of the strong operational performance of all businesses, demonstrating the company's ability to fully capture the environment upsides. Upstream delivered an underlying accretive production growth of over 4% year-on-year, which is above the annual 3% guidance and partially offsetting the production loss in the Middle East. Downstream: a very good operational performance as explained by Patrick from our refineries, which has been deliberately geared towards maximizing distillate production, diesel, jet fuel, to capture higher refining margins. And Integrated Power cash flow generation increased by 25% over the quarter, supported by contribution of EPH assets in line with expectation since the closing of the transaction at the end of April.

TotalEnergies generated these very strong results, the highest since the end of '22, despite 2 challenges. Although oil production from the Middle East was higher than originally expected, a significant portion of this production could not be lifted during the quarter and recognized in E&P results based on the crude price from June, meaning less than $70 per barrel. Our gas trading underperformed after an overperformance in the first quarter because of the decline in gas price for the quarter as explained by Patrick. TotalEnergies has delivered strong profitability this quarter with return on equity at 15.9% and ROACE close to 14%.

Now moving to the business segment, starting with hydrocarbons. On production on a year-on-year basis, excluding the impact of the Middle East conflict, second quarter hydrocarbons production increased by more than 4% above the guidance provided of 3% for '26, benefiting from the ramp-up of the projects started since the beginning of '25 and from improved operational facility availability. The impact of the conflict in the Middle East is around 210,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day over the quarter, below the guidance communicated last quarter of 360,000 barrels due to the company's production ramp-up in the offshore United Arab Emirates and the restart of production in the other countries in the region during June. Although physical lifting turned out to be in line with the guidance with an impact of 350,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day.

Looking forward, we expect to maintain a strong momentum with oil and gas production as in the first quarter, excluding the Middle East impact, expected to grow around 3% compared to the third quarter of '25 in line with the annual growth guidance.

Turning to the quarterly results and starting with E&P, the segment generated an adjusted net operating income of $3.2 billion this quarter, up by 25% quarter-to-quarter, capturing the increase in average liquid price of $17.90 per barrel over the quarter and demonstrating the accretive new projects contributing this quarter to the yearly production growth. Similarly, cash flow reached $5.8 billion, up 27% quarter-to-quarter. On the cost side, very important as well, once again, we maintained our leadership with an average OpEx per barrel equivalent below $5 in the second quarter.

On Integrated LNG, the LNG production decreased by 10% quarter-to-quarter mainly due to shut-in production in Qatar related to the Middle East conflict. In contrast to the outperformance in the first quarter, this quarter, the second quarter was impacted by the underperformance of gas trading activities in an overall flat or even bearish European market, reflecting the significantly decreased adjusted net operating income and the cash flow of the segment quarter-to-quarter of $0.8 billion. Given the evolution of oil and gas prices in recent months and the lag effect on pricing formula, the company anticipates an average LNG selling price of above $11.5 per MMBtu for the third quarter of '26.

As we execute our consistent strategy in LNG, the main milestone of the quarter was the startup of Energía Costa Azul LNG plant on the Pacific Coast of Mexico, strengthening the diversification of the LNG portfolio of the company towards the Asian markets. TotalEnergies loaded the first cargo at ECA LNG and shifted it to the Asian market where the company pursued its strategy of signing long-term oil index LNG contracts with new clients in China or in Japan.

Turning now to Integrated Power. Net power generation increased to 14.8 terawatt-hour, up 28% year-on-year, driven by an increase of nearly 15% in generation from renewable sources, reflecting growth in installed capacity and a 2 terawatt-hour increase in production from flexible gas-fired capacity resulting notably from the completion of the transaction with EPH end of April. TotalEnergies is on track to reach its annual objective in integrated power, in particular to generate more than 60 terawatt-hours over the year. Cash flow from operation was above $700 million, supported by the contribution again of EPH assets, in line with expectation since the closing of the transaction. And this quarter again, we provide more granularity in the Integrated Power financial performance with a split in cash flow between what we call production assets, meaning renewables and gas-fired power plants and sales activity, B2B, B2C, and trading. The former contributed 60% of the cash flow and the latter contributed 40%.

TTEP, the new venture with EPH, will continue providing its growing contribution to the company's results throughout the year in line with expectation. As TTEP has started contributing in the second quarter, we said in the first quarter that integrated power should benefit in 2026 from 10 terawatt-hour of net power production, in line with the 15 terawatt-hour guidance given for a full year, and more than $500 million contribution to available cash flow.

Moving to downstream. During the second quarter, Refining and Chemicals was able to fully capture the increase in refining and petrochemical margins, notably adapting the refinery run to produce more distillates. Overall, for Refining and Chemicals, adjusted net operating income was up by $200 million quarter-to-quarter to $1.8 billion, and cash flow reached $2 billion. Marketing and Services delivered outstanding results, the best in at least 10 years, driven by the positive impact of the seasonality in Europe and the higher unit margin, as noted by Patrick, notably on lubricants. Adjusted net operating income was up 21% year-on-year at $500 million and cash flow close to $850 million, up 19% year-on-year.

Moving to the company level and starting with working capital. The working capital decreased by $1.2 billion during the second quarter, largely driven by the reversal of the first quarter buildup with the lower hydrocarbon prices at the end of the second quarter compared to the end of the first quarter. The company has kept the course for capital expenditure with net investments amounting to $3.4 billion in the second quarter with a contribution of net disposal to $1.2 billion. This as explained by Patrick, comfort our guidance for full year '26 net investment level of $15 billion. As a result, the gearing has improved by more than 2 points to reach 13.1% at the end of the quarter, reflecting a reduction in net debt of $3.3 billion.

To conclude, once again this quarter, the integrated model of TotalEnergies demonstrated its ability to capture higher prices and higher margins with a growing cash flow to support the deleveraging of the company, our shareholder distribution with a clear priority to the dividend and the CapEx to deliver our growth.

I think now we can open the line for questions.

[Operator Instructions] The first question is from Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley.

Two questions, if I may. I know there's an awful lot of attention, of course, on the Middle East, but I wanted to ask you a quick one about Namibia. It's still very important for Total. Where do you stand on, sort of, the FID of Venus versus the completion of the transaction with Galp on Mopane? I was hoping you could say a few words about that.

And then secondly, I wanted to ask you about the payout ratio for this year because the guidance was more than 40%. I think we're sort of tracking below that so far. Of course, you see volatile macro environment is perhaps no surprise. But the, sort of, the payout guidance, over which period should we expect that to be realized? Would you still expect to have more than 40% payout sort of over the year? Or should that become a longer-term target?

Thank you, Martijn, for the first question. So I will be more precise, on the Galp transaction related to Mopane versus Venus, we have received end of last week, the approval, official approval of the Ministry of Energy of Namibia. And so we are just, in fact, finalizing the last papers to close the deal potentially tonight or tomorrow. So we are just -- your question came at the right time. So that's important, of course, because this is the fact that we will be on both developments as operator has a strong value for us in order to engage with the first FID.

On the FID of Venus, I would say there are intense discussions as well. We have a joint target between the government of Namibia and the consortium to sanction it by end of July. There are discussions progressing. We'll see if we can conclude in July or if we need to have a little more time. Technically, I think we have selected all contractors. So we are ready to take the FID subject to finalizing discussions with the government of Namibia. There have been some progress, but there's still some progress to be done. So again, generally, it's when the last minute we can conclude, but we'll see if we can do it. Otherwise, we'll wait. But I'm, I would say, reasonably optimistic that all the parties, there is a joint interest clearly and in particular, the Namibian authorities are fundamentally supportive to have a strong operator being able to capitalize on synergies between the projects.

I remind you that now that the Mopane will be approved and will be closed, the next step is to engage in the second half to appraise Mopane. We have 3 wells in '27 and the FID will be taken in '28. So all that as we engage in a strong momentum. And clearly, for us, Namibia will and is becoming a very important hub for future growth, not only to 2030 but beyond 2030.

But then on the other topics, no, yes, we are clear. We are targeting 40% of payout. We have increased buyback level and the dividend level between the first quarter and the second quarter. I don't know where we'll go. To be honest, you could say we have been -- there was a little cautiousness in the fact that we have raised from $750 million to $1.5 billion. We maintained the $1.5 billion for the next quarter because I can tell that we were quite impressed also when the MOU was signed in June by the quick drop of the crude oil price down to $70 per barrel. So it's difficult, honestly, to anticipate what will be the cash flow for the second half of the year. Of course, we will be globally above the guidance we gave. I even gave to you end of April, I think I mentioned the cash flow guidance at $80 per barrel, $7 per barrel refining margin of $32 billion. Obviously, we'll be higher than that. Where will it land between $35 billion, $40 billion? I mean, I don't know. It's difficult to guess.

So we can make the math like you. If we were at $35 billion, there is a miss -- I mean, a miss, not a miss. There is a question of $1 billion, a little more than one, around $1 billion to increase in the return to shareholders, $1 billion in the last quarter, we'll see, and there will be a debate at the Board at the different ways we could imagine to execute it. But I think, again, my message to you is, first, it's a good topic because that means that we are generating more cash flow than compared to the guidance we gave you in February. So it's a matter of, I would say, rich company. It's a good topic. But the idea that we will get to 40% is really on the yearly basis.

I remind you, by the way, that we are quite in advance if you want to make it in a multiyear case, as you suggested in your question, I think the last year, we were at 55% the previous year around 50% or 53%. So if I make it multiyear, which is not the case, by the way, because we are simple guys. But we are quite in advance compared to 40%. So again, consider that 40% guidance is guiding the Board. And again, the Board is also, as I was explaining you last quarter, looking, thanks to your support and your strong guidance last year in the same period of the year to the gearing ratio. And going down to 10% is quite also an objective for the company, and we might achieve it this year. So that's the equation of the capital distribution, I would say, for the Board. And I think we will manage that as we've done that regularly and respecting our different, I would say, stakeholders.

The next question is from Michele Della Vigna, Goldman Sachs.

I wanted to ask 2 questions. The first one is if you have an update on the 2 giant oil developments you're operating in Uganda and Suriname? The second one is more of a macro question. I was wondering if you have a view on China demand. We've seen a drop of about 5 million barrels per day in import since the beginning of the conflict. It's very difficult to unpick what is destocking, demand substitution, demand destruction? I was just wondering if you had any view of how to think about it.

Okay. First question, on Uganda, okay, we are, I would say, in the last 6 months of development. I would say we expect the crude oil production to start before the end of the year. I would say '27 will be the year where we reach the plateau. We have 2 developments. We have Tilenga on one side and the other one, the offshore Kingfisher, I think it is ready to start up by September. If my information is good, the pipeline is also ready by, I would say, September. So we might start, in fact, in the next quarter the production at a rate which is, I think Kingfisher was around 60,000 barrels per day. And then Tilenga will come ramping up, I would say, on the first half of '27. So full plateau for me is by mid-'27. So this is where we are.

And by the way, it's an opportunity for me, and we will follow that carefully. Of course, Uganda is affected today by a disease Ebola. But if it was not the case, we think that we might organize -- if it stops, we might organize a field trip with some of you, the ones who are brave to go to Uganda in 1 year in September 2027. So Uganda, for me, now it's a matter of finalizing and turning the wells on.

On Suriname, things are moving very well, I would say. We confirm that the production will start up by first half '28. That's where we are according to planning I have. It was our first quarter, maybe second quarter, but we are in first half '28 and the news of the construction, it has already progressed by 40%. We are at 40% advancement, with the FPSO in the yard is building correctly. And so no, I would say, this is more classical. It's more complex to execute an onshore project than an offshore one. So we are in Suriname, we are in a project which for TotalEnergies is a deepwater project. We know how to execute them.

Then China is very interesting demand. Of course, we have all been surprised when we discovered the statistics of May and June, I would say, where, in fact, you are right. The refinery runs went down from 15.5 million barrels of oil per day in February to 12.5 million barrels per day in June. So clearly, with the policy, which was, firstly, I remind you that the Chinese authorities have decided very quickly to stop exporting products out of China. And they reduced the run rate of the refineries in China by 10%, down to 90%, I would say, voluntary reduction of Chinese. So it was more affecting the exports. The domestic demand, it's difficult to say that it's a domestic demand disruption. So I would not say that.

It's also true probably that -- so that's what we're sure is that we observe it. It seems that there is some, I would say, turnaround on Chinese refineries in July, August and summertime. So we don't expect, in fact, much increase of this demand from China. It's true that when you look at that, you can consider that the system in China has quite an impact on the oil market. And probably we are commenting in April, the fact that the Strait of Hormuz blockade was representing 10 million to 12 million barrels of oil per day of the market. The Chinese by themselves with their policy have, I would say, absorbed 4 million barrels of oil per day. If you add on that, that the U.S. has released almost 2 million barrels per day of the SPR. They have solved the 2 countries, I would say, have solved almost 60% of the problem. That's probably why, by the way, the price of oil went up to $120, but not so high.

So for the coming months, Michele, you can observe like me that we are back to the blockade today. There are no vessels, no tankers are crossing the Strait at all. So we are back to the situation. I know that the Chinese have announced that they will allow again some few refineries to export some few products. It was during, I would say, the quiet period at Hormuz. Today, we can imagine that again, it might not be the case again with these events. So that's what I can comment. So for sure, less exports, domestic demand disruption? Difficult to have data on this one.

The next question is from Biraj Borkhataria, RBC.

Just 2 on your LNG business. In June, there were reports around Russian decree to authorize the sale of 10% of Arctic LNG 2, I think, related to the European sanctions. So I don't believe you have commented, but are you aware and are you planning to exit there? And related to that, are you any clearer on the, sort of, legal language around EU sanctions and what it means for Yamal at this point? I know I asked at the full-year results, and it wasn't quite clear exactly what it would mean and there's been some conflicting reports. So any color there would be helpful.

Thank you, Biraj, for your questions. I know that you have specific interest for Russian matters for good reasons, by the way. So Arctic LNG 2, as you know, I remind you that we decided in 2022. It was very early in March in the accounts of March 31, 2022, shortly after the war. We recorded an impairment of $4.1 billion, which was, in fact, concerning notably Arctic LNG 2, full write-off. Secondly, that Arctic LNG 2 has been placed under sanctions by U.S. authority on the 2nd of November '23. And as a result, immediately, we suspended procedures in accordance with existing contracts. And in consequence, in fact, our rights and obligations under these contracts related to Arctic LNG 2 have been suspended since November '23.

In such a context, Novatek approached us, indeed, and initiated discussions for the transfer of our 10% in Arctic LNG 2 to one of their own subsidiaries, Nordline. And this has been publicly authorized, as you noticed, by a special decision of the Russian presidency in June. In fact, given this context of Arctic LNG 2, we, on our side, consider that it's in the joint interest of TotalEnergies and Novatek to dispose of our Arctic LNG 2 shares, which again were fully impaired in '22. We have notified our partners and lenders, and we expect the transfer process initiated by Novatek to be completed in the near term. The Arctic LNG 2 chapter will be over for TotalEnergies in such a context.

The second question, I would love to be able to answer you, but we are waiting to see what is the legal language precisely. So as you have seen -- there was some press news this morning that there was intense discussion about the new sanctions package at Brussels. And among these different topics, and we are not part of everything, even if we try to understand, we are not in the room, there was a debate which came from, I would say, the Greek authorities, which were claiming that the Greek LNG tankers should be allowed to transport some LNG from Russia if it was to be offloaded outside of the EU. So that's the case. And it says that there is a legal language, but again, which could, in fact, have an impact on Yamal LNG, according to what we've heard. And which could, in fact, allow, I would say, some transfer and purchase of Yamal LNG if we were using EU LNG tankers outside of EU, again. So a specific case.

So it's a little complex story. But that might have, yes, an impact on, in fact, if it is the case, that means that TotalEnergies could not use a force majeure to say like it was until now because until now, we could, in fact, with the regulations which were in place, which were banning the LNG exports to the EU, but there was a question mark. I made that comment, I think, in April to all of you or in February, I remember that we were questioning whether there was a different interpretation of the European sanctions, but that even an EU company could not purchase any of Russian LNG either for EU or outside of EU. So it seems that the new language could, in fact, clarify it in a way that it could be done outside of the EU if we use some EU LNG tankers in fact. Which, in fact, would mean that the interest of EU companies would be somehow preserved independently of this, if it's outside of the EU.

So again, I'm just commenting some verbal information. We have been in contact with different, I think the final resolution will be delivered probably tonight or tomorrow morning. They are drafting the last ones, and we'll see what will be the outcome. Of course, we need to analyze it because we have a policy where we don't want to take any risk with sanctions. But My comment is that if that is the case, again, I think the interest of EU companies will be preserved because honestly, to let the Russian LNG being sold outside of the EU, not by EU companies, but only by our competitors was a little odd to all the EU companies involved. So let's see. That's what I can tell you. And we'll keep you aware, obviously, because it has some impact on our own business. And we'll keep you aware of the situation.

The next question is from Doug Leggate of Wolfe Research.

Patrick, I wonder if I could pick up on Martijn's prior question about cash returns and the 40% and so on. I think we would all agree probably this is a bit of a windfall environment and maybe formulaic returns of capital. One could be forgiven if there was some flexibility there. My question is specifically around the hybrid bonds as opposed to the net debt target and whether you would consider these windfalls as an opportunity to perhaps address some of that longer-term financing as part of your capital structure? That's my first question. I've got a follow-up on exploration, please.

I should give that to Jean-Pierre, but I know that I'm still -- to be honest, the hybrid bond is -- for me, it's a debt. It's a debt, but it's not a debt. It's quasi-debt with a low interest rate compared to what we can issue bonds. So I don't make a lot of difference between the different bonds that we have issued. So I would say we -- it's around EUR 11 billion of 3% coupon. So it's quite a cheap debt. So is it a priority unwind all that? My answer will be clear, it's no. And it's no, and we have made some partial reimbursement, but it's not a priority. And again, we are more looking at, I would say, as the CEO, I'm more looking to the global cost of different bonds rather than the specific one. Maybe Jean-Pierre will say, right?

It's highly dependent on the market. So if you could consider it cheap debt, there is no reason not to keep the hybrids in our portfolio. But of course, it's highly dependent on the conditions as Patrick explained, what is important for us is, globally the cost of global debt, senior bonds plus hybrids.

Yes. My follow-up, Patrick, is very specific on exploration. So you hired Nicola out of Eni and you have Mopane and Venus in Namibia. Back in 2016, Total drilled the only deepwater well in Uruguay. And Eni, late last year farmed into Uruguay. It seems that activity there is picking up a bit. So my question is, when you roll all that together, does Total have any ambitions to move into Uruguay?

Okay. I mean, Doug, you will need to ask a question to Nicola. To be honest, Nicola did not come to my office to tell me, we need absolutely to come back to Uruguay, so to be clear. Our own experience in Uruguay has been quite average, to be honest. And in fact, it's a whole basin because this basin, which was the Pelotas basin, if I remember well, in fact, we drilled in Uruguay. We also drilled in the other side in Brazil, which was not, as well, quite a success. So we made 2 drillings in this deepwater basin, which was honestly not very encouraging.

So I have noticed that there were some companies last year, which went back. Nicola is quite excited by Namibia by coming back on Suriname with [indiscernible]. So he has some other ideas or other African countries. But again, I discussed with him through your intermediary, Doug, if he wants to come back to Uruguay. As the CEO, the policy is quite clear. We allocate $1 billion per year to exploration and appraisal. This is my commitment to Nicola when we are in. And I told him it's up to you to decide where we'll put the money. You have to share with you your convictions. But if it's your idea, we know we follow that.

By the way, when I was looking to potentially not buy it down, but the Venus case, looking to the department, Venus development might generate quite a nice cash flow paying many years of like Suriname, the GranMorgu development will pay many years of exploration. So that we need to keep in mind, but it's in terms of cash generation of added value, exploration for me is a good nice engine. But again, I trust Nicola that he will bring to us ideas. I don't know if it's Uruguay or not. But until now, it's not Uruguay.

The next question is from Christopher Kuplent, Bank of America.

Just 2 quick questions for me, Patrick. The info that you've given us on the positioning of your gas traders is very helpful. Can you maybe comment on whether their bullishness has extended into power and your merchant and spark spread position there? And what you expect on that side now that you've got access to the EPH portfolio?

And the second question, as ever, I keep trying to get comments out of you on the state of the M&A market. But maybe now we have a specific example that you know more about than we do, which is the Danish deal, which I believe is entirely operated by yourself. What do you think about this environment? You've made use of inorganic before. Is this an environment to sell or to buy? Any comment once again would be appreciated.

I commented the gas trading, but gas trading has been, again, a lower performance on trading. So just to tell you that now the position is I would say, the winning one. On electricity, honestly, I don't have the visibility on that. Your question, of course, we have -- as you know, the EPH deal is a deal where we are buying the assets, but we transform all assets in a tolling mode in order to have access to the electrons in order to trade ourselves around this electricity. In fact, today, at this stage, all the assets have not been yet -- all the tolling agreements have not yet been signed. So we will -- we are working on it.

So I think the full potential of trading around the EPH deal is more for the fourth quarter than immediately, to be honest. But of course, we are expecting from that some additional value. In fact, we have some objective, and we were discussing that, by the way, with our trading electricity team last week during our 5-year business plan. So we have some objective and we expect them to deliver. We are trading on 2 markets. There is the European market, one with which we are also trading in the U.S., which is a little more complex market, to be honest, because our position there is probably today is still limited.

So we will need to find ways to increase the position in the U.S. if we want to be, I would say, profitable trading electricity in the U.S. In Europe, we have quite a large portfolio today in different countries. So we have some project expectations. The U.S., I would say, it's still a work being in progress, I would say, on this one.

M&A market, yes, I mean, I didn't have the time to analyze the price which was paid by Vår Energi to acquire the BlueNord Energy. So I didn't -- maybe I will receive -- probably I will receive a memo, but I was occupied by matter the last few days. It seems for me the market today is more a seller's market than a buyer's market with the price of crude oil price, which we have today, if you make a deal, or unless you have a earn-out or schemes in which you will try to capture part of the potential upside. It's not a stable market.

So before this crisis, I think you could imagine that the deals we have done around to buy around $70 per barrel. Today, to sell at $70. On my side, to be honest, I would not be -- I'm not a seller today on these assets, on your assets because we would not like to lose some upside. So selling is probably better today than buying, yes, it's fine to come back to your deal. But again, I cannot comment the specific situation you mentioned. And maybe we have some preemption right. I don't know. I don't know the situation, obviously. So we'll look at it.

But it is our assets and we operate with -- by the way, I'm not surprised because BlueNord was a fund and bought by fund, and it was quite clear to me that I met, by the way, the owner of BlueNord when I was in Denmark a few months ago, and it was quite clear to me that they were willing to sell. For us, as TotalEnergies, we have already quite a big share, I would say, in the Danish underground assets. So it's quite mature assets, to be honest. So I think we are fine with what we have. But again, we'll look to this situation.

The next question is from Mark Wilson, Jefferies.

Regarding European projects, could I ask about the Cyprus project, Cronos Block 6 and what the expectations to move that one forward are, please? And then secondly, on gas trading, yes, I agree with others helpful comments, but you spoke to the European expectations for price moves there that didn't occur.

Should we consider your gas trading business to be more of a regional-focused business rather than global? Obviously, oil made material moves up and down and probably that enables that business. But should we think of your gas trading business as being a more European regional focused one?

No, still not quite clear. No -- I know we have a global gas trading. We are a big LNG, I would say, player. I just mentioned that there are different markets in the U.S., in Asia, of course. I just tried to, in my comment, to tell you where we made the miss and the miss was more on the European anticipation on the TTF, where I think we were around $15, $16 -- end of March, we were around $17. Our teams were thinking it could go up to $19, $20, like it is going, by the way, today and in July because they anticipated the impact on the market, both of the distraction from the Qatari production from the market and the, I would say, as well the fact that the inventory in Europe has to be rebuilt.

And in fact, what happened is that the market probably considered that it was too early to anticipate, to grow to have a higher price because expecting maybe the Qatari disruption to stop, which happened in June but came back in July and that there were time to have higher -- to grow the inventories. It's also true that the weather in Europe was quite, in fact, good in the second quarter. So it's just to try to give you the main, I would say, the main -- the major, the one on which we took a position, which appeared, which were, in fact, reversed, which were not the right ones. But it does not mean at all that we are not a global one. I would say on the other markets, I didn't see any specific -- we didn't see any, I would say, underperformance, I would say. We only see it on the European position. That's why I mentioned it. But don't take -- draw this to the conclusion.

Cronos, thank you for this question. On Cronos. We are working on many FIDs, in fact, in the end of July. It's -- and the good news, and I think I must pay tribute to Eni, the operator because we are 50%. We have a big share of 50% like the operator of Eni. We work jointly, by the way, in the last 6 months to go to the FID. And the good news is that we have -- I think we are working hard to, again, like on Venus to finalize the FID by the end of July. It's a matter of -- again, there is a lot Cronos for everybody is an interesting development where we produce gas in Cyprus. And then we maximize existing infrastructures in terms of CapEx because it's a subsea development.

It will go to Zohr installations in Egypt to make the gas treatment and then to Damietta LNG plant in Egypt. So you can imagine, there was a number of intergovernmental agreements and agreements with third parties to use all these existing installations. But we are -- it's being done, honestly. And I think as we discussed, will be able to [indiscernible] -- probably next -- end of next week to announce that. So -- and it's good. It's an interesting project because at the end, for TotalEnergies, we have access to 1.4 million tons of LNG in Egypt just in front of the European market. So you can imagine that it's an interesting project from gas to LNG. And for Cyprus as well, it's the first gas development in Cyprus. And maybe our scheme will open the door, we open the way to over valorization. So it has been a long journey, but I think we are there, and we'll be happy to invest capital in the Cronos projects.

The next question is from Matt Lofting at JPMorgan.

Two, if I could, please. I wanted to first ask you about full year operating cash flows. I think, Patrick, you said earlier understandably that you'd expect to be probably above the $32 billion for the full year that you mentioned in April. Obviously, the macro scenario is uncertain. So if we were to stick to the sort of the $80, $15 gas, and $7 refining that you used in April, where do you think full year cash flows at that price deck would outturn on an underlying basis versus the $32 billion that you saw 3 months ago?

And then secondly, I wanted to ask you about refining and security of supply of feedstock. Is the company able to access the appropriate feedstocks for the system as you look into the coming months? And is there a scenario where additional measures could be required from that perspective, particularly if conflict in the Middle East persists?

Okay. On the first question, it's quite easy to answer. The $32 billion, because of we know what has been the improvement in the second quarter would be raised to $34.5 billion. That's why I mentioned $35 billion, I think, in my answer to your colleague, the first question that I got. So $34 billion, $35 billion would be in such an environment. I would say you can get it as a guidance. Again, we see if we are at $80 since the beginning of the year, we were a little higher. We are more on an average, I think, around $90.7 -- so since the beginning. And the last 30 days, we were at $76. So that's quite a spread. So between $75 and $90, we'll see where we land. It's interesting. So in the assumptions, [ $40 billion, $34.5 billion ].

And the current forward curve is a moving target. It follows the spot one. So I don't have the figures. But I mentioned to you a range of $35 billion to $38 billion, $39 billion if we are remaining, I think -- if we were having a second half as the first half, you double it, you find $38 billion. So it's more -- it's a higher environment. It's not $80, it's $90. It's $90. It's a refining margin of $15. So it's $90, $15 and TTF at $15 as well, which was the average of the first half. If you replicate such an environment, you could imagine we should deliver around $38 billion instead of $35 billion. So you have a range to where we could land. But I don't know, maybe it will be lower at the end, but that's what I can tell you today.

The second question, no, we have no problem of supplying feedstock to our refining system, not at all. We are producing a lot of oil in Brazil, a lot of oil in Africa. And so in fact, our refinery, by the way, independently of Hormuz, in fact, in terms of crude supply, the Atlantic Basin or European refineries, which are on the Atlantic Basin are generally supplied by crude oil coming from the Atlantic Basin. It's true that we like to have some sour crude coming from the Middle East to make more diesel because it's the best crude to produce diesel.

There is a limited -- but generally, this Hormuz -- sorry, the sour crude from the Middle East is more going to Asian refineries, in fact, than to European ones. So we have no concern on our side to feed our refining system. The only concern I could have is more around SATORP in Saudi Arabia because first, it has been hit. So I hope it will not be hit again. And so we don't have the full capacity. Secondly, SATORP production is, of course, in the -- stranded in the Gulf. It has been quite well used by the Saudi system during the second quarter for domestic use because they had other refineries which were hit. So from this perspective, we are running it for the domestic market, but we'll see what could happen if it's strong. So that's the situation, but no security of supply for feedstock or system.

The next question is from Lucas Herrmann, BNP Paribas.

A little conceptual perhaps, but one of the things that I think most of us or many of us are struggling with medium term at the moment is the fragmentation of fracturing within OPEC. The UAE having departed, Iraq talking about an incremental quota or changing its quota. As you think forward about your own position, the potential for Iranian barrels to come back, more UAE to be available, Iraqi flows perhaps be larger, where does discipline sit with what remains of the rest of OPEC? How does that impact the way you think about allocation of capital to projects? Does it change anything in terms of how you feel about the robustness of oil markets, particularly at the bottom of the cycle?

And secondly, if I might, and maybe this is just one that I should leave or we should leave for the strategy day, simply to ask whether in light of the actions you've taken on Mopane around Mopane, the addition of EPH and the environment we're seeing in refining, in particular, at the moment, but may be sustained, whether that's changed and altered your target of $20 billion or so of free cash by 2030 in the $70 world?

Okay. The first question, it's a good question for the investor presentation outlook in September, Lucas, where we speak more about strategy. But the first one, honestly, in terms of capital discipline, because of all what you described very rightly, it's very good to stick to that discipline to test all our projects at $50 per barrel. Because the answer, yes, you can infer that today, we are in a world of high prices, but we could go in a way where everybody would like to produce more and maybe, by the way, Saudi Arabia like they've done in 2020 could do. Why not myself? I mean, if everybody wants to produce, so we could do it again. If you remember what happened in 2020 when Saudi Arabia decided to close the market, I think some few peeps around them are quick to come back to more discipline. So it's a matter of discipline.

For us, honestly, I continue to believe and we are -- but in the company, we are continuing to test the $50. We planned the business plan, the 5-year business plan, we plan it at $60. Yes, we test what happened at $80 or $70 like you mentioned. And -- but keeping the discipline and knowing that we are in a cyclical industry, I think it's just fundamental. So I don't -- all these events that you mentioned, I think are just confirming to me that -- we need to keep that discipline. That's what I would answer to you. And that means as well that you should not be surprised that when we will speak in end of September about, I would say, capital net investments, capital investments, you have figures which are more or less in line, which will be not more or less, which will be in line with what we told you last year.

There is no -- we do not suddenly increase our CapEx because we have on the short term, a higher environment. Does it change 2030? Not really, what you said because Mopane first, the production of Mopane beyond 2030. Venus should start in -- by end 2030. So I would say -- so Venus, Mopane for me is 2030, 2035. We are working on it. So there's no impact. EPH somewhere was part of already our long-term plan, 5-year business plan. We told you what we have just anticipated with the EPH some of the CapEx we were willing to allocate to M&A in integrated power. So it has been done, but it was -- in fact, it was modeled even if EPH was not, I would say, the deal which was, in fact, was modeled in our future cash flow by 2030.

And balance on refining, frankly, I will not take it as granted. So I'm still -- maybe because I managed that business during 3 years, I'm a little more cautious on it. Today, we have an incredible situation where both markets are positive in the same direction. That's true that on the product market, you have no products coming out of the Strait of Hormuz. So the Russian situations with, I would say, themselves, they stop exporting diesel and so you have a Russian disruption. So you have a lot of impacts, I would say, which are pushing up the product price. I'm not -- I don't think it will -- because if Strait of Hormuz remains on and off, as I read that some authorities said maybe it's a new normal.

If it is the case, then we'll not be in the $50 per barrel environment. We'll be elsewhere because there's no real cycle with an on and off Strait of Hormuz production. Of course, we will need to -- we are building and we are willing to -- we are discussing today to invest in some of the pipelines projects, which will allow to circumvent the Strait of Hormuz, but it will take a few years. So the balance on refining, I don't take it for granted for our planning by 2030. So we'll come back to your question more precisely. But for me, in fact, what we have worked since we met last year in September '25, we have confirmed, in fact, and it's more -- and we will come back to tell you fundamentally, all our targets are -- we can confirm even strongly.

And so yes, the increase of free cash generation that we announced, which was more than $10 billion, an increase of $10 billion, more than $10 billion will be confirmed, and I'm very -- so far -- this is one of the first messages in September will be the confirmation of that. The second one will be to give you more color on beyond 2030 because, in fact, we are working now beyond 2030. So the company has 2 objectives to deliver all the 2030 additional free cash, and we will do it. I can tell you because -- and we demonstrate why we are super confident and you have some of the projects you mentioned and then working as well to continue the story because the story of TotalEnergies' growth does not stop in 2030.

The next question is from Nash Cui, Barclays.

Two, please. The first one is on the Middle East. Patrick, we watch some of your recent interviews with French media. I think you talked a lot about the importance of building more export pipelines in the UAE as well as other countries. I wonder if you could elaborate your thinking around the Middle East situation and Total's longer-term strategy in that area, please?

And then the second question is on power, power segment. You have built a successful power business and you achieved one of the best quarters, as you mentioned earlier. Strategically, I wonder what's your next ambition for this business?

Okay. On the Middle East, it's quite obvious to me. We are very well positioned in Abu Dhabi, for example. And we just announced 2 very big projects, by the way, despite maybe despite this war, we have been quite active in Abu Dhabi to reinforce the whole partnership and position of TotalEnergies together with ADNOC or XRG or Masdar. We have announced a JV with Masdar in all these renewable business in Asia. We have announced the Bab Gas Cap concession, which was an old dream for many people in the company to have access to the Bab Gas Cap. So it's done with our partner.

By the way, it's interesting to know that when in 2015, we signed the Bab concession onshore, some people were skeptical. 10 years after, we delivered the additional value. And it's because we were in the place together with our partners that we managed to go along with ADNOC. And thank you, by the way, to the trust that the Emirati authorities have given into the existing consortium. And we have also announced the Umm Shaif Gas Cap. We have FID, I would say, yesterday, this week.

In fact, we have FID together with ADNOC and we have a 20% share of the Umm Shaif Gas Cap, which is also, by the way, not only gas, it's also liquids. And all the gas cap, by the way, are gas projects, of course, but there are also quite good condensate projects. So it's liquid. Then when you need liquids, you need to have outlets. And so it's clear to me and Abu Dhabi has been very active. ADNOC has been very active, very reacting and we need to double the pipeline to Fujairah in not only to accommodate future growth, but also to connect the offshore production.

I think the ADNOC is offering to partners to look at the projects, and we definitely will -- we are looking to that very seriously. So that's one part. The other part of interest for us is Iraq because we have some production in Iraq. Iraq today, we have only one way to export, Hormuz, not a one way, I'm exaggerating, but fundamentally, it's Basra, so it's in the Gulf. So being able to contribute and to see -- there are some projects which are being announced and being studied from Iraq to Syria and TotalEnergies is keen to join the projects if possible or to develop some.

So I think -- it's obvious to me that we cannot -- if we want tomorrow to come back to you and to say we want to continue to invest because it's cheap oil, which is true. And there is a lot of oil, we need to diversify our exit route. Otherwise, we will not do a proper business case. So that's why we are unclear. And I think, by the way, all the -- for the countries themselves. So I think it's -- and even I think if the conflicts were coming to an end quickly, we must absolutely keep that in mind and pursue the efforts to have alternative routes for this oil.

Integrated power, but the next ambition is to reach the 2030 target. It's not yet done. Today, this year, we will reach 60 terawatt hour. We will reach 100 -- more than 100 terawatt hour. I think the 100 terawatt hour is probably the low assumption for production by 2030. More importantly, we want to generate a net cash flow from this business. I would say next year, it will be net cash flow positive. This year, it might be, but I would like to do it in a normal CapEx environment. And we want to join not only more than 0, but I would say in our famous free cash flow, more than $10 billion free cash flow target by 2030. There was $2 billion coming from integrated power. So the target is to deliver this $2 billion.

And then beyond 2030, there are different options. But of course, we might see -- continue to grow the business. The question is at which pace, in fact, and that will depend as well to opportunities. But I think on this topic, the Board is very keen to really see the capacity of the company to deliver on our targets rather than planning being ambitions. And then it's not a matter, I would say, of growth. It's a matter of value as well for the Board. And I think for all our investors, you have been supportive, not always, but today more supportive than before, by the way, to us to invest.

I think we are right because one of the lessons of the crisis, as you can observe in many countries, the new world is electrification. It's not green, by the way, it's electricity, electrification, domestic resource. So we are -- and it's also supported, of course, by all the data centers and AI growth. And we are right to be and to continue to invest into this energy, which is a good complement to what we do, in particular on oil and gas, electricity and the gas to power connection is obvious. So that's the ambition to continue to develop it.

In some geographies, just to -- again, to frame completely, where we can develop the integrated model, where gas, renewables, customers, trading is possible. That means some few major European countries, the U.S., that will be the core, I would say, of our investments. If you add Brazil and India, I think you have the description. So we are, in fact, today, the next ambition to be stronger in some markets where we can deliver the integration and the profitability.

The next question is from Kim Fustier, HSBC.

I wanted to go back to the Middle East. The production impact came in below your original guidance, thanks to the surprisingly fast ramp-ups in the UAE in June and maybe in Iraq as well. Now with tensions rising again in the past couple of weeks, could that progress reverse? So in other words, if the situation doesn't change from here, how soon could we see production shut-ins once again across the UAE and Iraq?

And then just staying with Iraq for a bit, just on the GGIP project. I think that Ratawi Phase 1 was supposed to be starting up sometime this year. Could you give us an update on this project? And obviously, does the renewed regional escalation pose any risks to the timing of the oil ramp-up, but also the other parts of that project, including the associated gas and the seawater project?

Okay. Thank you. So I mentioned that I gave you some information in my opening comments to tell you that I would say, beginning of July, the production, I would say, was in July until July 8, in fact, until the blockade came back, the production was going up and the impact on our production was even around 5% only. That means the global production from the Middle East, if you consider that our base was around 650,000 barrels per day was by that time 550,000 barrels per day because there was an increase in many assets, in particular, of course, in the, I would say, Abu Dhabi assets were almost back to normal production, which demonstrate, by the way, that I remember the questions that I had during the month before the MoU.

Is it quick to go back to the normal level? Yes, it's very quick. It's -- the wells in the Middle East are very easy to reopen and to produce. So Abu Dhabi was back. I would say even Qatar was not fully back, in fact, on the LNG side because there was a sort of ramping up cautiousness on this one. And Iraq, even Ratawi was back to, I would say, half of the production. So Iraqi part was a little more, I would say. But -- so we were minimizing and we are ramping up quickly to come back to a normal level.

Since July 8, in fact, because of the situation, when I was looking the situation beginning of this week. Again, the impact is more around the 8% to 9%, I mentioned during my opening speech because, of course, we cannot maintain such production if we cannot offtake. It's not a matter of, it's a matter of offtake. And because, again, when you produce at maximum, your tanks are full and then your system. It's all the logistics, which are constraining the production. So I would say that's, of course. And again, by the way, of course, the LNG plant of Qatargas 2 in Qatar, which was ramping up has been shut down again.

So you have some impact. And today, as I told you, that's why to guess today, I would say, to be clear, the guidance I will give you, if we were like in -- we were in the second quarter, we could imagine the production could be with an impact of 10%, but the offtake could be unfortunately higher. And back to our initial guidance when we gave you 15%, it was, in fact, in terms of physical offtake, it has been 15% during the second quarter, third quarter could be the same.

But again, the lesson is -- the good news is that if the Strait of Hormuz is open back again, then we'll be able to ramp up quickly. And then, of course, it is a condition to bring tankers and to offtake the production. So all that is going together. That's what we face today. And we had some -- during the few weeks of opening, we managed to get all our tankers out. We managed to have some tankers in and out, by the way, in order to load. I think we managed to load 3 tankers during that period. But again, now we are back to nil because it's not possible. So let's observe.

The second question. Ratawi, I think there are different story. There the first phase that we are planning to start up, we were expecting the first half. Of course, we are delaying because there has been some impact. By the way, Ratawi cannot produce fully today, and it has been some impact because some equipment, et cetera, so forth. But -- so today, we are, I would say, targeting end of third quarter. So September will be possible, honestly, we don't have some events under control. And then the other projects are progressing. All the projects have been launched and all the contracts have been awarded. We have people on the ground for the seawater project, for the associated gas project, for the second phase of Ratawi.

By the way, we are working as well, and we have good news in terms of productivity of the wells, which we think will be good that we have than the first phase one day. But all that is just being impacted, I would say, in terms of execution because a lot of equipment. In fact, one of the -- because -- first of all everybody spoke about the crude oil transit and products refined product transit, but there are also impact on the equipment either one way or the other way. And we have transported a lot of equipment by road, but for the larger ones, it's not easy to do, and so even it's still not possible.

So that's the situation. So we are dedicated to the projects with some impact. And today, it's difficult to give you in terms of -- of course, I could just tell you it's postponed by 3 months, what I just said. Maybe we need to reassess the situation where we'll be back to a normal situation in the Gulf region.

The next question is from Henri Patricot, UBS. Mr. Patricot, we cannot hear you. Maybe line is on mute -- The next question is from Jason Gabelman, TD Cowen.

I wanted to ask the first one on the potential for windfall taxes. And given the recent backup in commodity prices, I'm wondering, Patrick, if your conversations with governments indicate any appetite to reinstitute windfall taxes?

Honestly, until now, in fact, most of the governments have taken some measures in -- between 2010 and 2015, which are still there in many of our countries. We had one impact, limited, an impact in Brazil, where we have stated an export tax for 4 months, and they are today -- rumors that they could extend it, which has been declared as not constitutional, but it seems to be -- there is a legal fight around the export tax in Brazil. The U.K. scheme has been increased recently, so they cannot take more. Norwegian is okay. And honestly, in most of our PSCs, the reality is that there are some mechanism, which you can observe when you look to the average tax rate of TotalEnergies between an environment at $60 or $50 where we are more or less an average of 40% and an environment at $90 or $80, we are more around 45%, 50%.

There are some mechanism within the PSC. In fact, when the price is going up, the governments are taking a bigger stake. And in fact, it's normal because, in fact, the way we negotiate ourselves, we try to protect the low cycle by giving up a little more on the high cycle. That's a balance that we try to institute to propose to the government. So this mechanism exists. And so we didn't face this type of conversation, to be honest, since the beginning of the crisis. So we are not there, and that's what I can tell you. So except Brazil, I don't have today in my head any other situation where we have some in discussion. But again, because the mechanism exists already in many of our PSC.

Great. And my follow-up is I wanted to go back to the Yamal project for a minute and just understand because you have kind of the interest in the liquefaction facility and then you're separately lifting volumes as well. And I'm trying to understand kind of what the cash flow split is between those 2 parts of the business. And also if you've been able to actually get cash distributions out of the Yamal facility itself over the past few years?

In fact, you are perfectly true. There are 2 different activities. One is the Russian activity, Russian and Russia, I would say the Yamal liquefaction plant, where we are a shareholder for 20%. The cash flows -- some cash flows has been distributed. It's not an easy way to -- because then we respect sanctions. So the question is it distributed in Russia and when does it flow to Europe because, again, the sanctions in Europe have limited the number of capacity to transfer from Russia to Europe.

Some cash has come back to TotalEnergies, not the full of that. So this part is not -- I can tell you, it's not -- in fact, in the way we plan, we don't consider that. We just are cautious. It's not coming on a regular basis. So in fact, it's some time to time, we have some opening, but that's not a regular basis. And not -- so some cash is somewhere, I would say, in Russia, we expect -- it's waiting for us. Then we have the other part, which is the lifting -- European lifting. Yes, this one's out of Russia. It's a business where it's our U.K. and Swiss entity or U.K. entity, I think, which is dealing with Russia -- with Russian contracts on which the cash is out. So this one, of course, we have directly access to the cash.

The magnitude of this business is around, I would say, an average of $400 million. But again, it's going up and down according to -- depending on the different because it's -- the contracts are linked to the Brent. So it depends on the assumptions that you will take on the Brent, let's say, $300 million, $400 million a year. That's the potential site. So it's a contract as part of the portfolio. It's not a major situation for TotalEnergies.

The next question is from Henri Patricot, UBS.

Just one question. Coming back to capital allocation. Last quarter, you mentioned that we're evaluating options to accelerate short-cycle investments in upstream. Where are you on these options? I mean it sounds like earlier that you might see CapEx unchanged. So are they just not being considered anymore?

No, no, we have, of course, different subsidiaries have worked on it. There have been some proposal. We have approved some few, I think, $200 million, $300 million this year. So the guidance of $15 billion, maybe it could be at the end, $15.2 billion, but I consider it's part of the global guidance. It's not -- that's not a real impact. And yes, this might have for next year, there is a little more because, of course, these type of actions are not only for immediate actions. I would say probably $500 million of capital allocation acceleration, which could come next year. But again, it does not -- it will not be -- the global guidance we gave you last year, which was, I think, around $15 billion to $17 billion per year of CapEx, then we said $14 billion, $16 billion will stay around in the $15 billion, $16 billion, I would say, range. So yes, we have taken some actions and that will impact a little more '27 than '26.

The next question is from Bertrand Hodee, Kepler Cheuvreux.

I wanted to come back and to try to quantify the underperformance of the LNG trading in Q2. Integrated LNG net income was down $500 million Q-on-Q, while at the same time, contribution from equity affiliates, which is my understanding, mainly liquefaction was up $300 million. That puts a Q-on-Q discrepancy at group level for integrated LNG, excluding affiliate at around $800 million. This is what we should understand as a swing in the trading performance?

You are very good, Bertrand. We can add nothing to you. We are very transparent. In fact, we mentioned to you that there was an overperformance last quarter of around $500 million, and your $800 million. So you have an underperformance reversed not only from $500 million to less than $300 million compared to a normal situation. So you merit a certain distinction.

And the second question, probably on the -- on your comment that those long positions that did not work out in Q2 was now being in positive territory. Is that a hint that we could be headed for an overperformance LNG trading in Q2 -- in Q3 by the same magnitude?

Exactly. But maybe we are only in July -- so maybe it could be larger. I don't know, okay, to be clear. Yes, it could be in the same magnitude, be clear. Because the markets, when they are volatile, they are volatile. When you take $5 per MMBtu in 20 or 30 days, 20 days, I can tell you, these types of positions are making. But then the question will be not only the results are not finished on July 22, but on September 30. So we'll come back, but it's possible, yes, but we might come back to you with the good news of the same magnitude.

I hope so.

Thank you for your support.

The next question is from Fergus Neve, Rothschild & Co Redburn.

Just on the LNG growth pipeline, it was positive to see the ECA LNG project start up earlier this month. Could you provide a quick update of where the FID for Papua LNG stands today? And also how the Mozambique project is progressing. And then secondly, just on the refining environment, I was wondering if you could comment at all on how your margin has looked so far in July?

In July, it looks very well. I can tell you, the average margin on the last 30 days were at $31 per barrel for July. So it looked very well. And I think July is probably around $35 per barrel. And it's reached a historic record for me, which were more than $40, $44. I've seen one day -- so today, it's a little backtracking because again, the crude oil is going up. In fact, I have one observation to make you since the last -- since the Strait of Hormuz was again blocked since July 9. When you make the sum of crude oil and refining margin, we are almost at $130 day after day. I mean, I don't know if there is a trick, but probably.

So that's what I mentioned that in my opening comments. So the second one. The first one, on Papua LNG, we are working all together very closely with ExxonMobil with Santos, with the government, of course. The government has just launched the last part of the procedures, the local hearings. The objective is clearly to sanction all that before year-end, November, I think, is the target. But we are aligning the interest of all the partner in the interest of the projects, and we are studying how we can maximize synergies today between Papua, PNG LNG in order to deliver the most efficient project to the government.

But again, in close cooperation with the government. So I'm happy to see that the different stakeholders are all the same objective today. And okay, we need to put together some few. It's not an easy one, but I'm optimistic we could reach this sanction, and we are all working for that, and we are very aligned on that. On Mozambique LNG project, okay, it has restarted, as you know, since January. And today, we are in fact, increasing the mobilization of people in the ground. I think we are at 7,000 or 8,000 people. So we are -- project is progressing, let's be clear.

We are facing some few difficulties because some of the equipments were, in fact, being built in Dubai and the different yards in the Middle East. So we had to face some tough times to exit all the equipment. I think it's done now. So it has some -- but the progress we are progressing on -- and in fact, today, when we compare to the progress, we are almost 45% of completion. But we have still a lot of things to build on the, I would say, there in Afungi and offshore. So that's on its way with the target being '29 for the first train, and we work on it.

The next question is from Jean-Luc Romain, CIC CIB.

It relates to refining and plan to introduce more green hydrogen in your system. Where are you with this? And are there regulations in Europe, which are not going fast enough to -- for you to progress on that?

Yes, the French one. No, but we are working on it. Where are we? In fact, we have done the -- no, we have nice offers. We could, as you know, the good news of the quarter is that the German parliament has adopted its own regulation. So today, we are very clear on the German part and positively part. So Leuna will be able to maximize the use of green hydrogen. So that's a good news.

There was a bad news on the Netherlands part, which has been adopted, but not in the maximum part. So I think the Zeeland Refinery will be able to take 30% more or less of what we are planning to take to offtake. If there is no fiscal support, we cannot do that. And then we are working today with the last 2 governments, which is a Belgian one, where the draft are not so positive. And the French ones where the drafts are positive, but the problem in the French system is that you need to go to the parliament and to make fiscal reforms in the French parliament is not an easy task for the government.

But we are working on it. And I think we'll have -- we'd like to have the definitive scheme and not an interim one, to be honest, because, of course, if we commit for long-term contracts of 10, 15 years, we need to have a scheme which will give us some, I would say, a certain level of comfort. But we have some -- it's a very technical matter. To be honest, it's one of the most complex topic I know because to explain to a political leader, the RED III and what it is to make green hydrogen in Europe, getting some support. It's -- this one is tough, to be honest. But we get some -- we have some momentum. So we are working on that.

And not only ourselves, by the way, in France, of course, we are working hand in hand with Air Liquide, which is also interested to get these regulations. So progressing, but still, again, for us to commit on long-term contracts, we need to have all these regulation being enacted. It's a beauty of Europe. You think you've done the work because there is a directive in Brussels and then you take 4 years to implement it in each country. And then, by the way, where I'm afraid that I just discovered that there is a new directive, which could again come back to the definition of green hydrogen, the RED IV based on consultation. So to be honest, when you read that, you begin to be afraid because it's probably is coming from regulation. So it could be difficult, okay?

And the last question is from Ben Salem, ODDO BHF.

In the light of the recent escalation in the Middle East, has your view on geopolitical risk changed? Which region do you see as offering the most attractive risk-adjusted investment opportunities of the coming years? And how might this influence your future capital allocation priorities? I know it's maybe for the CMD, but I think it's important.

Yes. Thank you, Ahmed. But we continue to consider the Middle East as an investable region. There is no doubt about it. It's a question, of course. And at the end of the day, it's a question of risk and reward. Maybe the reward will be to have a little higher. But when I saw my U.S. competitors rushing to Iraq during the last weekend, if I noticed the number of MoUs signed to develop thousands -- hundreds of thousands of barrels I don't know why the U.S. companies suddenly would like to see lower geopolitical risk and we ourselves, which have more, I would say, DNA in the region would consider it as a higher one. So we think it's a question of risk and reward. It's always policy.

Again, it's back also to my comments about having alternative routes to export the oil to go to the market. But having said that, it's clear as well that the policy and the strategy of TotalEnergies has been to diversify the portfolio, and that reinforced my strong belief diversification is of essence in this business. We have done it well in Brazil, in Africa, in new countries in Africa. Of course, the U.S. are also attractive to us, but we are building quite a big position in the U.S. in terms of capital allocation through LNG and through integrated power. So we are fine.

And so I understand the question. But at the end, when you make oil and gas, you go where you find it. And if we discover oil and gas in Suriname and in Namibia, we are happy. And that's true that there are -- we don't find oil and gas in Europe to answer to your questions. And by the way, we don't have the right to look for it. So that's where we are. So -- but for me, the answer to your question is fundamentally to maintain our strategy of diversification. And this is what we will present you in September.

I think the events that we have faced in the last 4 months have demonstrated that this is the right one, and we have been able, as I answered, to supply feedstock to pickers or to -- not to claim any force majeure for LNG customers, contrary to some competitors because we have diversification -- diversified source of supply of LNG and from this perspective, building a position in Mozambique. But look to the countries we are developing in the last 3 years, Suriname, Malaysia, Namibia. So we are continuing to diversify our stakes because that's the reality of our business. And it's not only in 2026 that we discovered that. It has been the case for companies 1 or 2 years old, and I think it has been the case for long. So that's what I would answer to your question.

Gentlemen, that was the last question. I turn the conference back to you for any closing remarks.

Yes. Thank you for your attendance today and for your support. I remind all of you that we have a Capital Market Day in New York City on the 28th of September. I think it is a Monday, if I remember right. So Monday, 28th of September, be all ready to attend the TotalEnergies Capital Market Day. With more news to come because we continue to work during summertime. So thank you for your attendance and happy holidays to all of you.

[Audio Gap]

[Interpreted]

Control officers are here with me, members of your Board of Directors and Executive Committee are also in attendance, and the executive committee are also here, and I thank them for that. This Annual General Meeting is a key occasion to express for the expression of shareholders [indiscernible] which our company is particularly committed. We hope that the meeting will proceed smoothly so that you can participate in the most important decisions affecting your company.

Since the auditorium has limited seating. Some of you are attending this meeting via a video link from an adjacent room where you will be able to watch the presentations, participate in the discussions. There are -- will be microphones circulating, and you can ask your questions in front. We're also like to welcome the many shareholders who are following this meeting live via the webcast on our website, totalenergys.com. They cannot vote in person they were able to cast their ballots in advance by mail or online and we thank them for that. I would also like to point out that court officers of journalists are present and attending the assembly.

I would, therefore, like to welcome all shareholders and interested parties who are following this meeting wherever they may be. I call the meeting open to order. We will now proceed to let the assembly Bureau, [indiscernible] France and frac ownership fund, represented by Mr. Christophe le and Amundi represented by Ms. [indiscernible] have agreed to serve scrutineers for this meeting. They both have according to the this sheet, the largest number of votes among the shareholders present in the group, and you can see them at the -- on the other table, and I now announce the period to be duly constituted.

I propose to appoint your Chief Financial Officer, Jean Pepe, who is standing next to me as secretary of the assembly. According to the provisional attendance 73,000, 3%. It's not SEK [ 100,700,000 ] actions for about 35,000 shareholders. This is a provisional because it's temporary. We will have the final count at the end of the assembly and sometimes it takes longer to count all the votes. The number, the shareholders present and represented their forecast votes the 73.42% that are duly represented for the opening of this ordinary and extraordinary general meeting. I hear about say that the quorum is 20% for the resolution of the ordinary meeting and 25 for that of the competence of the extraordinary meeting. I hereby declare the general meeting duly convened.

The documents, certifying that the general meeting was properly convened or necessary for its convening have been submitted to the euro. They were made available to shareholders prior to this meeting and were provided to those who requested them in accordance with the applicable regulations. I spare you the list of the documents. I remind that we are here to deliberate on the agenda present on Page 4 in your invitation that are submitted to -- it is in the invitation that was submitted to your disposal.

Under these conditions, let's not proceed to their reading. We are now going to present the different topics. We want to tackle here today. First, Jean-Pierre Sbraire, our Financial Director, represent the financial results of the company. For fiscal year 2025, your auditors will then present the different reports established for this assembly in session that was recorded and Jacques Aschenbroich, on my left, your Lead Director, will talk about the governance of the company, give account of the works made by the Board, its committees and present the renewal of mandates submitted to your approval and also will present his role and give account of this mission in 2025 as Lead Director.

Then Dierk Paskert, who is President of the Compensation Committee, will present the compensation elements of your Board members and your CEO, the CEO of the company, in a part that is also recorded. Then [indiscernible], your strategic and Sustainability Director will present that largest part of the progress report, 2025 for the ambition of the company in terms of sustainable development and energy transition. This presentation is an introduction to the points that your Board members have added to this agenda, which will open the session of Q&A.

Then finally, myself, I will pursue by taking a look at the implementation of the strategy and the outlook. So before starting, as you know, maybe you don't know, but I will confirm that since we have 2 traditions within our company, in the morning. The first meeting always starts with what we call a safety moment, dedicated to safety. And in the afternoon, we always start with a moment dedicated to sustainability. So someone gives a quick presentation of an example. Since it is the afternoon, we will start this general meeting with our practice, our usual practice, and we will present a video on actions led to reduce emissions, carbon emissions in Malaysia.

[Presentation]

[Interpreted]

Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure this afternoon to present the financial results of the company. And if you wish, before we start the figures, I'm going to take a few moments to come back to the highlights and the main events of the past year. As you know, we have a balanced strategy that is anchored on 2 pillars. The first pillar is hydrocarbons, oil and gas. The second one is integrated power and electricity.

Concerning the first pillar, we started the production of 2 major fields last year, one in the U.S., Ballymore, the other one in Brazil. [indiscernible]. Namibia is now a very promising region for TotalEnergies with the discovery of the venous field that we did a while back and on which working for FID investment decision, if possible, before the end of 2029. And our entry as operator into the license, making Namibia a major country for the future of the company in that region of the world.

With our approach, we've renewed our exploration portfolio. We've entered a new permits, new licenses. We only want to mention the most important offshore in the U.S., Nigeria and Malaysia, Indonesia as well. And this ensures a pipeline of future projects for the company. In the field of gas and LNG, we've taken the final investment decision on the fourth train of the LNG project in Rio Grande securing additional supply of 1.5 million tonnes of LNG per year, reinforcing our position as leaders and first exporters of U.S. LNG to European markets, mostly.

At the same time, we have continued our upstream integration in the U.S. by taking some participation in several gas fields in the United States. We have entered new gas discoveries in Malaysia. Malaysia will become a new hub of gas production, ideally positioned to supply the Asian markets. We have signed an agreement with Neonex in the United Kingdom to merge our assets with theirs and generate economies of scale. So as you can see, the results, the growth of production in 2025 was greater than what we anticipated. Our forecast was 3%, and we had a growth of more than 4% we continue to be the leader in cost per barrel. We've got a cost -- production cost per barrel, which is the lowest amongst our peers, 5$ per barrel and very important to prepare the future of the group. We've renewed our reserve. You can see the rate of replacement of our reserves hit 120% in 2025. We've got 12 years of production for proven reserves ahead of us, and this is how we're preparing the future of the company concerning this first pillar of oil and gas.

On the second pillar, integrated power, with electricity. We were very active in 2025 with a growth of 20% of our electricity production. It's an organic growth from our portfolio. We have a production of more than 8 gigawatts of additional gross capacity in production. We had a transaction with EPH at the end of last year. We finalized it at the end of April. It will make us a leader in the top 3 of the electricity production from flexible assets and it's going to increase our integration in the electricity gas chain in Europe. We've also signed several contracts with data centers for more than 6 terawatts per hour per year. we are really surfing on the wave of the data centers in the U.S. and Europe, and we're ideally positioned to answer profitable and efficient way to this increase in demand for power.

We've also implemented our model in this sector of integrated power by meeting our objectives of partial disbursement or renewable disclosure in the U.S. in Greece and Portugal and France, recycling $2 billion of capital and increasing the profitability of our integrated power sector. So this was for 2025. It was a busy year. Before we look at the results in detail, I just wanted to give you the main parameters of environment for 2025.

On average, for the year, Brent is the marker for the price of crude it is at $69 per barrel in 2025. It's a decrease of $11 compared to 2024. The gas prices remain at a very high level. The price of European gas has been around $12 per million BTUs, but with limited arbitration opportunities between the various consumption catchment areas between the European and Asian markets. The downstream environment has increased refining margin during the second half of sustained by the constraints linked to the perspective of additional sanctions by the U.S. towards the exports of products coming from Russia.

In this environment, as you can see TotalEnergy really used its integrated strategy with a strong growth of its production to once again generate very solid results last year. Let us go to the figure. You can see the cash flow from operations in 2025, this cash flow from operations was close to $28 billion, $27.8 billion to be precise. We had a net adjusted income of $15.6 billion and in IFRS, net income of $13.1 billion after taking into account the nonrecurring elements. You can see the profitability of the capital was 12.6% and the one of the equity of 13.6%. The left-hand side of the graph shows how this cash flow from operation were generated and the split in the various activity sectors.

So all of the sectors have significantly contributed to this cash flow. First of all, exploration production for $15.6 billion, which is 55% of the cash flow because of the -- because of the accretive growth of our production, 15% of this cash flow from operation, $4.7 billion was generated by the integrated LNG activities in spite of the decrease of the average price of LNG and a year with less volatility impacting the activities of gas trading.

Electricity integrated power generated $2.6 billion, which is about 10% of the cash flow from operation of the company. It is beyond the objective that we had for 2025, which was at 2.5% and the profitable ROCE was almost 10%. Almost 10% of the cash flow from operation was generated by the downstream demonstrate once again the value and the resilience of the integrated model of refining and chemicals and marketing and services, especially with a use rate of our refinery that was very high, around 85% over the year, and they were able to capture the margin markets margins fastly.

So the part in yellow on the right-hand side shows how this cash flow was allocated. We dedicated $17.1 billion to net investments. So these are organic investments plus the net between acquisitions and disbursement, and I'll come back to that later on. And you can see in the return to shareholder amounts significant amount dedicated to the dividend of $8.1 billion. It's a new growth of the dividend, plus 7.2% over 1 year and a $7.5 billion dedicated to our share buyback. So the return to the shareholder, dividend plus share buyback represented $15.6 billion which is a distribution that is close to 55% of distribution to the shareholders. from the cash flow generated in 2025. And

this performance was met while keeping a solid balance sheet because the debt ratio was below 15% at 14.7%. Let us look at the investments like the previous year, have continued in 2025, a rigorous and disciplined allocation of our capital. we had communicated at the beginning of the year that we would have a range of investment for CapEx between $17 billion and $17.5 billion, and we wrap up the year at $17.1 billion. So this does show our discipline in terms of allocating our capital. This diagram shows how this CapEx, how this investment was split business sector by business sector. It shows the implementation of our balanced growth strategy.

We have 1/3 of these CapEx that were allocated to new oil and gas projects are the projects that will contribute to the future growth of the company, around $3.5 billion were dedicated to the integrated power sector and more generally to the low carbon energy, mainly electricity. And lastly, a little bit more than 1/3 of this CapEx was dedicated to maintaining our oil and gas activities. This figure of JPY 17.1 billion covers what we call the organic investments, which are the investment to maintain and develop our existing portfolio, but it also takes into account [indiscernible] between the acquisition and the disvestment. This was very balanced in 2025, but we had a significant amount for acquisitions and one of divestment. So EUR 3.5 billion for acquisitions and EUR 3.6 billion for the disvestments. This means that we were very active in terms of M&A to improve our portfolio and to benefit and capture all of the opportunities that made it possible to be in line with our strategy. And once again, to improve our performance and portfolio.

So overall, when you add up all of these acquisitions and disvestments, it's $8 billion of assets that have been recycled in our portfolio in 2025 to only mention the main acquisitions still in this idea of the integration strategy on the value chain of gas electricity, that was the acquisition of one of the main renewable developers in Germany, VSP. We finalized it at the end of last year. in the gas upstream in the U.S., the acquisition of additional interest in gas. We've also entered new permits in Malaysia. And looking at the disposals, we have disvested from a marginal mature assets in Nigeria, Argentina or Congo to mention the main ones.

So it is my pleasure every year to present this slide. It is the comparison of total energies compared to our peers. From the U.S. side Exxon and Chevron in the European side, Shell and BP. We have illustrated this performance. We were better than our peers in 2025 on 4 key indicators. The first 1 was the [indiscernible] the profitability over the average capital employed to 2.6% in 2025 for the fourth consecutive year, TotalEnergys had the best rate amongst our peers. So this demonstrates that you can be the most profitable nature while being a leader energy transition. The second indicator is the total yield for the shareholders, we have overperformed our shareholders with 77%. This means that a shareholder who bought TotalEnergys share on of December 2025 and made a gain of 28% throughout the year of 2025.

So the lifetime of the proven reserve is above 12%. This is making us ahead of our peers with Exxon very, very far ahead of our other competitors, BP Shell and Chevron. It is an important indicator to guarantee the future growth of the company. And this indicator does show the depth and richness of our portfolio of assets. In terms of production cost at $5 per barrel, it is a competitive advantage that we have over our peers. It is the lowest amongst our competitors. For the past 10 years, we've had this competitive advantage. And of course, it is an advantage that we intend and reinforced throughout the year to be resilient when the prices are low and to be able to maximize the cash flow when the prices are high.

I think that these indicators do demonstrate the pertinence of our strategy and the efficiency of its execution. All these elements allow us to have an attractive return to the shareholder. Dividend is a key of this return to the shareholders. As you know, the Board proposes to this general assembly dividend of 2025 or EUR 3.40 per share, it is an increase of 5.6% compare to 2024. When we go back over the past 4 years, the dividend will have grown by more than 30%.

At the end of April, your Board has decided to increase of 5.9% first dividend payment, bringing it to -- from 85 to 90 teams share, and we will continue this in 2026, adjusting the pace to the price of energy. And we will continue our policy of share buyback. For the first quarter, we have bought $750 million. The Board has allowed us to go to $1.5 billion for the second quarter.

Mechanically, of course, these share buybacks contribute to increase the yield per share and associated to the growth of the company. We're growing on both pillars. These share buybacks sustain the future increase in dividends per share. For the whole of 2026, your Board has decided to confirm continuing an attractive distribution policy. With a return to the shareholder that was more than 40% of the generated cash flow via a policy of share buyback while keeping very solid balance sheet and a debt ratio that was below 15%.

On the eighth of December 2025, we have opened a new chapter of the history of the TotalEnergys shares in the United States, the ordinary share TotalEnergys is now listed on the New Year Stock Exchange in the United States, which is the largest market in the world. So this means that we have the same share that the one listed in Paris, listed on the New York Stock Exchange. So this allows us to have a share that is listed continuously on the market from 9:00 a.m. in Paris to 4:30 in New York when the U.S. markets wrap up for the day. The objective of this operation is quite simple. It was given an easier access to our share to our investors and broaden our shareholder base. This allows us specifically to have access to new investors in the United States especially those who only invest on shares that are directly listed on U.S. markets.

I think the curve speaks for itself. Since we've listed our ordinary share on the nice -- on the eighth of December 2025, so before the war in the Middle East, the TotalEnergys share has overperformed all of its peers I think that this is clearly the sign that the Board was right with this operation of listing on the NICE and with the side of the recognition of the market of our performance 2025 and their confidence in the company for the future.

To summarize, this favorable evolution of our share demonstrates our capacity to bring together the short-term growth of value and preparing the future. Thank you very much.

You very much Jean-Pierre. We're now going to give the floor to Mr. Yvon Salaun from E&Y, who will present to you on behalf of the Board of various reports prepared by our auditors. It is recorded.

[Interpreted]

Thank you Mr. Chairman and CEO, ladies and gentlemen, shareholders. Good afternoon. On behalf of the Statutory Auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers Audit and Ernst & Young on it. I would like to report on our regarding the financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2025, our reports for the 2025 financial year are among the documents that have been made available to you and are displays on screen. These reports on the annual and consolidated financial statements for the year special report on related party a transactions of sustainability and taxonomy certification report.

And finally, the reports on potential proposed capital transactions in accordance with the custom of this meeting. I propose to present the essential our results. First, regarding our reports on the annual and consolidated financial statements year, our audit approach and procedure took into account the specific characteristics of your company's business. bearing in mind that our work aims and accordance with our professional standards to provide assurance that these financial statements are free from material mistake, regarding Resolution 1 Concerning our report on your company's annual financial statements prepared in accordance with French accounting principles and presented on Page 614 to 617 of the universal registration document. We have issued an unqualified opinion on these financials on page 2 of our report concerning the basis for the opinion also refers to the impact of the initial application of an ANC regulation 2020 as set out in the note to the financial statements. In our report, we outlined the key audit findings concerning the valuation of equity and related receivables as well as the work performed in this regard.

Finally, we made no comments on the management report for the Board of Directors' report on corporate governance for resolution concerning our report on the consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with IFRS as adopted in the European Union and presented on Pages 448 to 452 of the universal registration document. We have issued an unqualified opinion on these financial. Our audit approach took into account the specific characteristics of your company's business activities with respect to operations, organization, accounting rules and internal control systems. The Audit Committee and the Board of Directors were regularly kept informed of the progress and results of our work.

In our report, we presented the following 3 key audit findings relating to the impact of climate change and the energy transition on the financial statements, the assessment of the impairment of noncurrent assets in the exploration and production activities of the exploration and production and integrated LNG sectors, the impact of the estimation of proven developed hydrocarbon reserves on the amortization of oil and gas assets production in the same exploration and production and integrated LNG centers. Furthermore, under the fifth resolution, our special report on regulated agreements is presented on Page 271 of the universal registration document specifies the absence of any new regulated agreements authorized and submitted to your approval. Furthermore, the agreement for the free provision of premises to the alliance of education, the United Way Association which had already been approved in previous fiscal years, continued into fiscal year 2025.

Our fourth report concerns sustainability information and taxonomy. It is presented on Pages 15 to 17 of the Universal detour limited assurance report covers compliance with ASRS and European regulations process implemented by your company to determine the disclosed information, the sustainability information included in the sustainability statement and information based on the procedures we have implemented, we have not identified any material risk permissions or inconsistencies regarding compliance with the SRS and European regulations. Finally, in connection with the resolutions 14 to 20 of your meeting have issued reports on the capital transactions. We have not made any comments on the terms and conditions and the information provided in the Board of Directors' report when exercising these various authorizations. We may be required to prepare, if necessary, supplementary reports to facilitate the completion of these capital transactions carried out by your Board of Directors.

There you are, have it, ladies and gentlemen, shareholders, a summary of your various reports concerning the 2025 financial year, thank you for your attention.

[Interpreted]

Thank you, your auditors for your work. I will now give the floor to Jacques Aschenbroich, your Lead Director, who will discuss the balance governance of your company.

[Interpreted]

Ladies and gentlemen, dear shareholders, hello. I am once again delighted to be able to address you today as Lead Independent Director of Total Energy's a role I've held on your Board of Directors for the past 3 years. In this capacity, I am pleased to present the governance of your company. The composition of the Board is activity and a description of the actions I have undertaken as lead independent director. In 2025, your Board of Directors and its 4 specialized committees, we're fully engaged in supporting total energies in the implementation of its strategy. Your Board of Directors met 9 times and the committees held 16 working sessions with Director attendance raise approaching 100%. And I would like to emphasize that this particularly high participation rate demonstrates the strong commitment of your directors to the company's work and its follow-up Moreover, your directors are here with you today.

As Patrick said, present today, demonstrating their continued support during key moments in your company's history. As we do every year, we also held a meeting of directors who do not hold executive or salary positions, which I chaired as Lead Independent Director. During this meeting, we discussed the work and operations of your Board of Directors -- on this occasion, the directors unanimously confirmed their support for the total energy transition strategy based on the development of its 2 pillars, oil and gas, on the 1 hand, and electricity on the other -- regarding integrated power, the directors noted very concrete progress in its growth model. This business, which your company continues to develop unlike its major competitors in the sector is improving its margin and net cash generation year after your which should over become positive in the near future and thus contribute to the dividend payment.

I now turn to the composition of your Board. TotalEnergys benefits from a Board of Directors with a wealth of complementary profiles and experience thanks to the diversity of its members. Following this Annual General Meeting and subject to approval of the resolutions adopted. Your Board will consist of 14 directors, including 6 international directors with a 50-50 gender balance. So 50% women, 50% men. Your Board will thus bring together a diversity of profiles and skills. This is the result of a company-wide approach over several years, enabling your Board to comprehensively address all the issues submitted for its review.

The Board of Directors on the recommendation of the Governance and Ethics Committee proposes that you renew the mandate for a 3-year period to Mary Christine Juan Roquette, analyst Lara and Dirk Paskert -- regarding the menu of Maritime, the Board considered that even though she can no longer be considered as independent director under the FMC due to her long tenure. Her experience is highly beneficial to her work and that of her committees. And the Board wishes to continue to benefit from her in-depth knowledge of the company's operations, its challenges and its teams. Furthermore, Mr. Mark Cutifani announced his decision not to seek renewal of his mandate, which was due to expire at the close of this Annual General Meeting and to step down from the Board of Directors as of March 16, 2026 for personal reasons the Board wishes to express its sincere gratitude to [indiscernible] for his active contribution to the ongoing work during his 9-year term.

The Board has therefore decided to propose to the Annual General Meeting and new, the appointment of a new independent director, Mr. Slawomir Kupafor a 3-year term. He will be able to bring to the board his experience in finance and markets and his international experience, namely in the United States. Mr. [indiscernible], who is in Copa is present in the room, we'll introduce himself in a video that will be shown in a few minutes. Finally, on the recommendation of the Governance and net Committee, which I chair, and after a review of the practices of 40 companies and international and the Board of Directors decided at its meeting of 18 March to submit for your approval, the revision of the statutory age limits applicable to the position of Chairman to raise it from 70 to 75 years and that of Chief Executive Officer to raise it from 67 to 70 years.

Let us now turn to the highlights of your Board's activities since the last AGM. First, the board again this year, devoted a significant portion of its work to the company's transition strategy and the associated business model. The Board notably voted on the approval of the acquisition of 50% of flexible power generation asset portfolio. In Europe, the Board contributed to discussions regarding the new wording of the climate ambition to comply to the new European legal framework while reaffirming the company's commitment to its transition strategy. It closely monitored the listing of TotalEnergys ordinary shares on the New York Stock Exchange, which took place on December 9, where recently, we have closely followed the main events that have shaped total energies news, including, of course, monitoring the crisis the Middle East and its impact on the market and on total energy activities. Then during its strategic seminar, the directors examined the resilience of Total Energy's portfolio in the face of geopolitical instability and its macroeconomic consequences.

They also reviewed the integrated power strategy differentiated according to the various target markets with a focus on the role of offshore wind in the company's energy mix.

Finally, in 2025, your directors visited several total energy sites in groups of 4 of accompanied by a member of the Executive Committee. There, they meet with employees, partners and local figures in the energy sector. I'm thinking, for example, of the visit of the Sigram project sites, the larger software wind farm in Scotland, the Anworrefinery in Belgium and the exploration and production assets in Nigeria. These visits make a very tangible contribution to the training of the directors. This year, again, further visits are being organized in Morocco, Germany, Angola and France. Now I would like to briefly reiterate my responsibilities as lead independent director. As you know, your Board of Directors pays particular attention to the balance of power within the company. As Lead Independent Director, my role is to ensure the proper functioning of governance within your board, -- in this capacity, I chair the Governance and Ethics Committee as well as at least 1 annual meeting of all directors external to the company -- as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks. I also lead the process for evaluating the Board's performance -- for the remarks I would like to remind you that the leading and director is a primary contact for directors regarding the prevention of conflicts of interest and may request a Board meeting at any time and as often as the company's interest required to convene the board.

Finally, I am involved in shareholder relations in the company, particularly on corporate governance matters. This will be the last point I will address in my presentation. Since the last Annual General Meeting, I have had several meetings with shareholders representing more than 20% of the share capital. This allowed me to answer their questions and gather their expect -- from these meetings, I have identified the main topics of interest to shareholders. The first concerns the Board itself, its composition, its operation and its evaluation. In this context, I discussed with our shareholders the nominations and reelections of directors presented at the Annual General Meeting, including the number of terms the candidates we serve the process for developing to some succession plans for corporate officers and the changes to the story limits, which are submitted for your approval today.

Climate and sustainability were also addressed during these discussions. In particular, the inclusion on the agenda of the general annual meeting of a formal item for discussion without a vote on the progress report on the implementation of our competitions regarding sustainable development and energy transition. The shareholders, I met with also I wanted to hear my perspective as lead independent director on the company's strategies, its investments and the management of associated risks. In this regard, we discussed, in particular projects that have generated some controversies such as those in Uganda and Mozambique. Dear shareholders, in conclusion, I would like to assure you that your Board remains fully committed to according the company in its transition strategy over the coming years within the framework of a balanced and effective governance. We now offer suggest to watch a video of Mr. [indiscernible] Thank you for your attention.

Hello, dear shareholders, ladies and gentlemen, I'm I am happy and honored to address you today to present my candidacy for the position of Director of the Board of Directors of TotalEnergys at its general meeting. If I am speaking before you at the proposal of the Board of Directors and in particular of its Chairman to whom I would like to express my sincere gratitude their confidence. Please allow me to say a few words about my background. I have been CEO of Societe Generale for 3 years now, a group I joined at the beginning of my career. Within this group, I have held various roles, sales and management positions in France and the United States to responsibilities that have allowed me to build relationships across numerous regions understand the financial markets from different perspectives and work particularly with companies energy -- it's a company I'm deeply attached to with its French and European routes as well as its ambitions and global presence.

We serve clients all over the world, supporting their projects their transformation and by providing them with ongoing advice and resources, as you can see, consider the points of convergence between Societe Generale and Total energies are large pioneering culture, a long history and a shared vocation to be an essential link in the economy by managing 2 rare resources indispensable for enabling economies to move forward. capital and energy. We see geopolitical upheavals that our society is currently undergoing are unprecedented and represent significant challenges for our business base.

In the situation, governance and diversity of experience are essential. It is in this spirit that I would like to join TotalEnergys Board of Directors if you grant me with your trust. I will offer my experience as a banker and business leader. I'm committed to preparing for the long term and successfully navigating these transitions. For you and your shareholders with your support, I place to contribute with conviction, a sense of responsibility and independence to the work and deliberations of the Board. Dear shareholders, thank you for listening. Thank you for your trust.

[Interpreted]

Thank you very much. I'm going to say a few words to tell you all to your shareholders that the Board has also been greater benefit of having a great senior administrator debt, we're very happy and he contributes to the quality of the work and make sure that consensus is done on all questions. So thank you, Jacques, for the great functioning of our Board, and I think I speak in the name of all of the Board when I say this. So yes, you can give them a round of applause. I'm now going to give the floor to at who is the President of the Compensation Committee ever since Mark Diane has left a concert. He was a member of the committee, and he stepped up as Chair. He will speak in English and for reasons of translation. He has recorded his sequence. He'll have the English version of the presentation, but you will also have the French translation for those who are in the room here. We're going to start the video.

Good day to all shareholders. My name is Dierk Paskert and since Mark Cutifani left our Board and the committee, I have the honor of sharing the Compensation Committee. Working alongside Jack Aseng, Lead Independent Director; and Ahuroa as the employee representative. Today, on behalf of the Board of Directors, I'm very pleased to present a summary of the implementation of company's compensation policies in 2025 and the proposed compensation policies for 2026 for your Board and your Chairman and CEO. As we wrote to all shareholders in a letter published in our universal registration document, the Compensation Committee met twice since the last Annual General Meeting to review market developments and the company's performance to ensure that current practices remain sufficiently competitive and are based on a clear alignment between compensation and performance.

And I can confirm that they are meeting such principles. And I think the reason why the main word that I will be using today will be unchanged. Regarding the compensation for your directors, 2 resolutions are submitted for your approval. The resolution #10 on the left-hand side of the screen, concerns the approval of the information relating to the 2025 compensation of directors. Based on the number of Board and committee meetings, held during fiscal year 2025. And based on the actual attendance of each director, the global amount of compensation to be paid was set at 1,911,458, an amount below the cap of 2,150,000 set by the shareholders meeting in 2025.

The resolution #11 on the right-hand side of the screen submits for your approval the 2026 compensation policy for the directors. After reviewing the benchmark conducted on CAC 40 companies with a compensation allocation structure among directors comparable to that of TotalEnergies. The Board of Directors decided to change the allocation rules of the compensation to directors as of fiscal year 2026.

However, the maximum annual global envelope applicable in 2026 remains unchanged at EUR 2,150,000. I will now present the 2025 compensation for your Chairman and CEO, which is composed of fixed compensation, the viable compensation and performance shares.

In 2025, the fixed compensation amounted to EUR 1,550,000 an unchanged amount since 2022. The variable compensation conditional on the approval of the resolution #12, amounted to 2,535,800 corresponding to 163.6% of the annual fixed compensation out of a maximum of 180% awarded after strict compliance of the results of the safety and greenhouse gas emissions of the financial parameters and after evaluation of the CEO's personnel contribution.

Finally, as approved previously by shareholders' meeting, 140,000 performance shares have been granted to the CEO subject to performance conditions. The final allocation of these shares will only take place in 2028. Based on the rate of achievement of performance conditions assessed over 3 year period. Now coming to the 2026 compensation policy for the Chairman and CEO which is set out in resolution #13, submitted for your approval as approved by the Annual General Meeting in 2024.

In connection with the Chairman and CEO's compensation policy the annual base salary as well as the structure and the amount of the annual variable portion applicable during the previous term of office remain unchanged for the duration of the current term of office from 2024 to 2026. The fixed compensation of the Chairman and CEO for 2026 will therefore be EUR 1,550,000 unchanged since the beginning of 2022. The annual variable portion for the 2026 therefore retains the same structure and the same amount up to 180% of the base salary as for 2024. Upon recommendation of the combination committee, the Board has raised some performance criteria, such as safety objectives as well as the Scope 1 and 2 objective for the year 2026.

Finally, the allocation of 140,000 performance shares for 2026 is in line with the Chairman and CEO's compensation policy set by the Board of Directors for the entire duration of the current term of office from 2024 to 2026. The same amount than in 2024 and in 2025. The final allocation of these shares will take place in 2029 based on the rate of achievement of performance conditions assessed over a 3-year period.

On behalf of the Compensation Committee, I would like to thank you for your feedback and support and for your time and attention.

[Interpreted]

Very well. We are now going to -- thank you, Dierk, for this impeccable presentation, maybe not German, but at least very clear. It's the reputation that the Germans have in France. I'm going to give the floor to [indiscernible] our strategy and sustainability director, and he's going to talk about the key elements of the sustainability and climate progress report which is something that will bring you to the question.

So [indiscernible] the floor is yours.

Ladies and gentlemen, your shareholders, it is my pleasure this year talk about the progress that we've done in 2025 and implementing the strategy of transition and reducing the green [indiscernible] gas of the company. First of all, a few words on the context in which our transition strategy is enshrined. This context is a context in which the collective transition of energy systems has begun. And we can see it with 2 aspects that you can see on the diagram that you can see on your screen. There is a growing decorrelation that has increased since the Paris agreement between the economic growth that is around 3% per year. And the demand for energy, which continues to grow, but with a pace of growth that is now disconnected from the pace of growth of the economy. This means that the economy has gains in efficiency and energy efficiency, and that's a good news. The second reading of this transition that has started, which is that demand for energy is faster, and especially since the Paris agreement the growth of the emissions. And it's quite striking. You can see it here. When you had between 2015, you had a one-on-one ratio between the growth of energies and the growth of greenhouse gases. This has been divided by 2, and it shows that the transition has started and energy is being progressively decarbonized. So electricity is the strongest growth over the period. Natural gas is constant at about 2.3% per year, and oil continues at the same rate as the global population are long-term trends that we can observe it.

Quite simply, this transition is not fast enough according to all of the experts to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement. DIA in its annual World Energy outlook said that the objective of 1.5 degrees was now out of reach, given the inertia of the energy system and the time necessary for [ Tristan ]. At the same time, half of humans don't have access to enough energy to have a satisfactory level of development. Why? Because we still need to do anything with this Trilemma with 3 aspects that aren't as important. We know and the Paris agreement has shown that energy needs to be cleaner and emit less and less CO2 and greenhouse gases, and that's the sustainability in the heart of sustainable development. But the geopolitical shocks since 2022 are a reminder that energy needs to be available energy security is at the front of the agenda now. It used to be taking a backdrop. And we know that in the current debate, the security of the states but also the electrical security of the consumers, and we see it with blackout is indispensable, and we can only provide energy that's reliable, 24/7. And the most important aspect for a transition is that energy needs to be affordable. We know it.

Today, many people are struggling to pay an additional price or don't want to for greener energy and transition can only be accelerated and successful if all of the players in the energy system, the producers and the consumers are able to give clients an affordable energy, and it is the context for our strategy. So what do we do in this context? -- reaffirm our strategy. As it's been said already, we have this year reformulated our ambition for the climate together with society to take into account regulatory constraints that were mentioned because the European reporting framework brings together the term net zero transition plan with an objective that should be of 1.5 degrees of warming, and we should show the compatibility of this for every company. And the scientists and experts tell us that this objective is out of reach. We felt that it was impossible to have such transition plan in the sense of the regulation. That's our first point. We've also clarified the interdependencies of our ambitions and that of other players. The -- an effective transition, we need public policies to support it. We need technological innovation that make it possible, and we need the consumers, and this goes back to the question of the price can choose less carbonated solutions. And here, we reaffirm our transition strategy, reaffirm all of our objectives by 2030, which are in terms of greenhouse gases shown on your screen, and I'll come back to them in detail. transition for your company is, first of all, a matter of energy. And in terms of energy, what best to meet this then to help both supply and demand evolve to a less carbon-intensive system.

We have a strategy that relies on 2 pillars with oil and gas on the 1 hand and integrated electricity on the other side and you can see it, your company is now more than 100 years old. It was built as an oil and gas company over this period of 100. But you can see that we were not an electricity producer or seller in 2015 when the Paris agreement was signed. And in less than 10 years, our company became this company that rebalance the part of oil and gas and became a significant seller of electricity because last year, the sales of electricity were 12% of our sales. Our objective is to continue the strategy and to make sure that the sell electricity represent 20% of the electricity of the energy that we're setting by 2030. It's a matter of energy. And for us, as industry list is also a question of emissions. And here, you have what we did and how we did it and where we want to go in terms of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions in our operations, what we call Scope 1 and 2, we can see that between 2015 and 2025, have reduced our operation. Our emissions by 28%, and it's notable because at the same time, and it's shown here, we have developed a new business, which is power composed of renewables and CCGTs which add greenhouse gases to our operations.

If we just look at our legacy oil and gas scope, the decrease is 38% over the period, which is an excellent performance, and we don't want to stop there. But you know that the way to get to our objective by 2030 is something we can do through several levers. And 1 of them is the management of the portfolio. Jean-Pierre has spoken about it. We have continued -- we have done and continue to select projects with no degree of greenhouse gas to get to a mix that will decrease our emissions for our oil and gas activities. Last year, the company was able to decrease the CO2 intensity by barrel of produced oil and gas equivalent to 6 kilos. It's twice as good as the average of the industry. And that's what we used to validate all new investment projects that will have threshold below the 1516 kilos. This is a very virtuous criteria. This is an industrial work. It's linked to our assets in the field for our various divisions to improve the efficiency of our activities to use to produce the same quantity of energy with less emissions. For instance, we can also use supplies and feedstocks that are with less carbon, and we're going to be using by 2030, low carbon hydrogen to replace the gray hydrogen that is being used today. All of these levers will allow us by 2030 to meet the objective we've set for ourselves, which is a net reduction of 40% of our greenhouse gas emissions in our operations compared to 2015, starting in 2030 and only starting in 2030 and that's in the last level, we will be using carbon credits linked to the portfolio that we are currently building of nature-based solution to absorb CO2.

Reducing methane emission is a priority for us. Why? Because methane is a green gas with a short life span, but that warms up more than CO2. It keeps up the atmosphere 80 times more than CO2. Methane is a priority for us because it has 3 main human sources, oil and gas industry, also the coal industry waste and agriculture and animal husbandry. We're part of the industries that emit methane, and it's a priority for the [indiscernible] Energy's to tackle with methane emissions. So you can see that we've already reduced these methane emissions by 65% in our operations in 2025 compared to 2020. The work had actually started before, and we did this through various levers, working on routine flaring. And our objective is to stop routine flaring by 2030, and we're on track to do so. We have worked on reducing venting, which is the gas released in the atmosphere, which is now recaptured and reinjected and we're working on reducing methane leaks, and we do it with technological progress.

You've seen it the sustainability moment at the beginning of this shareholders meeting, we're working with a drone that we have co-developed to do campaigns on our assets to measure the methane emissions. We're also pioneers in the industry because in 2025, that Energy is the first oil and gas company you saw in Malaysia to have been sold on all of its operated oil and gas sides, continuous detection equipment methane emissions with a center tracking this methane based in both to track and react to a methane leak. And it is this work that brings us to these results, and it puts us on the right track to meet our objective to reduce our our methane emissions for operating assets by 80% by 2030. And as I said, well, transition is a question of system and offers. We're working on our emissions and our offers but it's also a question of demand. And the same way we can contribute to this and to the way our clients use energy, we use the carbon intensity index for this. We act with our clients so that they can have less carbonized energy and reduce their emissions. This is what we can see here since 2015, the carbon intensity of the energy mix of products that we have available for our clients has been reduced by 19% in 2025 compared to and our aim is minus 25% by selling a low-carbon electricity to our customers, but it's also what we do on our own emission decreases the carbon emission in the life cycle of the energy product that we in the market. This is not a passive strategy. We don't wait for our clients to do the work by themselves. We work proactively with them, and we've set up an entity of 2 years ago called 1 B2B that supports or key accounts and our large industries to identify with them energy solutions that have a lesser degree of carbon.

So we have about 2 billion tons of emissions that we target, and it's admirable and its work with we do hand-in-hand with our clients. So how can I summarize everything that I've said -- and a few simple words, what must grow, we grow it must decrease, we decrease it. What must grow in an energy company or its energy and our production of electricity, oil and gas, electricity is growing. We want to get to a mix in which electricity will be 20% of the energy that we're producing by 2030. At the same time, we need to do this in a profitable way for our shareholders. you can see that the dividend has increased and the return to the shareholder is increasing best performance, as Jean-Pierre has reminded us earlier. But what decreases must decrease, debt was reduced over 10 years, the gearing went from 31% to 15%. And I've shown you the emissions that have decreased as well. The operated Scope 1 and 2 emissions, the methane emissions and the carbon intensity of the energy product that we make available for clients. Thank you for your attention and you are encouraged you to discover all of the other aspects of our sustainable policy concerning our environment, our employees and our environment in our sustainability and Climate 2026 progress report.

Thank you very much.

[Interpreted]

Thank you [indiscernible] its great to have a lawyer within the company. And those who believe roll those who don't believe go down. So that's something we could give -- thank you I'm coming back to now my own speech to look at the strategy. Many things have already been said and I'll come back to a few, but once again, dear shareholders. It is with a great pleasure that I welcome you back today to TotalEnergies headquarters, which is hosting this major event, the Annual General Meeting of our shareholders for the third year running. This is also likely the last time I hope we've been rating this for 2 or 3 years. That we will hold this meeting here within these walls. As you will probably know, we will be moving to our new headquarters, the link, just a few hundred meters away, we can see it from Paris, from a distance, it is built. Now we need the keys. We will have them early 2027. This will be an opportunity for all employees based in the defense to be brought together in one place in a modern building that will foster collaborative work and collective intelligence which are central to the company's success, and I'm very much looking forward to it.

First of all, I would like to thank all our shareholders who are present this afternoon your 500 to have had the courage despite the heat to join us here in [indiscernible] in these 2 rooms at your disposal to directly take part in our Annual General Meeting, a moment of -- for direct dialogue with our shareholders. We hope that access to the Kupol tower. We're as smooth as they were last year, and we will, as always, be listening to you after this general meeting to further improve the process. I would also like to greet those who are following us live today on our website. This year, again, we have -- we gave you the opportunity to share your expectations and questions ahead of the annual meeting by setting up a platform from on our website from May 7 to 22 where you could ask questions and share your comments.

Well, giving priority to questions in both rooms for people here, your meeting Secretary, Jean-Pierre will also relay certain questions from the platform. In any case, the Shareholder Relations team whose prepatory work this general meeting, I come in, we'll answer each question asked. I would also ask like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the nearly 2 million individual nonemployee shareholders that we have counted in at the end of 2025 in Europe the United States. Their number has increased significantly in 2025 by approximately 150,000 over the past year. They now hold 16.9% of total energy share capital. employee share ownership is also continuing its momentum with nearly 8% of the capital held by employees, and I will come back to that later. Total Energy is the first European company in terms of employee share ownership and amount invested. Globally, it's 25% of the capital of company detained by physical private individuals. This figure is progressing significantly year after year. And we know it's a proof it continuity for the future of our company. Our ambition is not to pursue the development of this individual shareholding to reach 30% in the near future. Dear shareholders, this general meeting is held, of course, in a context of geopolitical international crisis with exceptional consequences for the global energy systems and global markets and energy. And once again, set energy companies at the heart of the news and your total energies is one of them.

During the general meeting in 2025, a year ago, I used the word uncertainties to share the feeling the dominant feeling faced with evolving commercial policies and political ones, facing the American administration. The context that we have to face in May 26, 1 year later, is as unexpected since the beginning of the year, and we had anticipated the market oriented to a decrease per barrel. We had started launching a program to control our expenses in order to be resilient this low cycle of conflict in the Middle East, a key region in the global energy system birthplace of our company were in a rack 100 years ago. And the hosted situation in the Outright despite seeing any international rights and use of the in reality in the context of the energy transition that we know have almost no margin to maneuver since the only capacity for oil production nonused are located in some Gulf countries, blocked itself today. The consequences of this contact underline how much energy beyond economic considerations constitutes a major strategic strategy for states and societies, economies, but also companies, not only for total energy in this context and given our strong presence in the region, but also in agreement with our Cardinal values, which is at our main value.

Our first responsibility was to monitor well and make sure our teams were safe and to protect all of those who reside in the Gulf and under the TotalEnergy colors. This is why we wanted to evacuate families and our staff members in the EAU and Qatar, Saudi Arabia as well as in Jordan Lebanon. It's almost 1,300 people that were secured in a record time, and I'd like to thank all of those who were part of the organization of this operation for this aerial bridge to help make sure everyone was safe.

Security of our teams will always remain our main value and on circumstances. I also want to wish my full solidarity and my support to people in impacted countries are suffering from the consequences of the country. I want to reassert my long-term engagement for all of our partners in the Middle East, our subcontractors and clients. In this regard, we have made the choice to maintain a strong presence in our operational staff in all countries. It is a strong gesture. I know it's well appreciated by local partners. I also want to address a special thanks to all of our operational teams present in the region and who show great professionalism in this difficult context.

I myself went there and was able to measure their high level of mobilization face this event. Dear shareholders, this conflict has impacts and direct impacts on our operations, but it is also the opportunity to show our ability to be resilient. What I believe that the market has understood as is translated by the favorable share during the conflict, whereas we are the most exposed company in the Middle East. Since the very first day, we made the choice to be transparent in order to inform you in the most factual way of the consequences of the conflict on the activities in the region.

To date, the production is globally stopped in Qatar, Iraq and on assets producing offshore in the United are rates, about 15% of the total hydrocarbon production of the company representing barrels per day. Despite of this all, the company is proving its resilience of its business model under exceptional circumstances, the breakeven was per barrel during the last 10 years by deep work on our portfolio and the discipline of the expenses were when it was higher than $80 per barrel in 2015, the organic accretive growth of our production outside South Middle East helps us compensate the losses in the Middle East and the diversification in terms of geographies of our portfolio for LNG helps guarantee security supply to our clients. Without reforecasting the false measure declared by production in the Middle East, the integration of our stream model for refinery trading, distribution, oil products helped us at the same time to use the volatility of the markets, but also guarantee the security of supply to our French clients and offer a unique commercial policy to protect the purchasing power. Our investment finally in the electricity value chain it adds to the resilience of our business model.

After the crisis, it is clear that a number of states will turn to domestic energies, electrification, renewable energies that are -- and TotalEnergies will be there because we were able to position the company for on the energy of the 21st century electricity. Indeed, beyond our own activities, this conflict has obviously major consequences on global energy markets -- do we have some order apologies?

No, no, closing of the Hormuz of Strait represents a major disruption, touching about 20% of oil flows, refined products, LNG where, as I said, that the capacity production capacity is, excluding the Gulf or very limited Thus, we saw a high increase of oil prices between $115 per barrel in the context of exceptional volatility amongst the highest observed in 25 years.

Even if the war was to end quickly, which we hope very much for given the consequences of the conflict, especially on global oil stocks, the prices should maintain at very high levels, probably above $80 per barrel -- and it's the lowest for given the different scenarios that we have studied -- we need to take into account the necessary time to restart the facilities, but also logistics necessary for the oils attentions the tankers can reach the final markets, the loading in the Gulf, but then reach the end markets. So we need, for example, for a tanker to loading in Abu Dhabi, 25 days to reach its final destination in Japan or Korea. On the side, the global stocks are degrowing at a rhythm that is estimated between 10 million to 12 million barrels per day. The global production being 100 million almost 1 billion barrels have already been taken from the stocks, which means that the stock will be -- the inventories will be especially low after the crisis. In this very tense and volatile context.

TotalEnergies strategy shows once again its relevance by using our integrated model, but the diversification of our portfolio. And I would like to note this point now. Dear shareholders, mentioned in their speeches, the TotalEnergies strategy is anchored on 2 pillars of hydrocarbons. And petrol and gas total Energies has been able to prove in 2025 since the beginning of 2026. It's resilience, its agility, its ability to capture margins, thanks to certain levers that we are implementing through our strategy. The first one, we are a growing company. Growth of production and petrol gas and 25 were at 4% and we have shown quarter-after-quarter, our ability to increase it -- the first quarter, 2026 has also shown organic growth by 4%, compensating for the losses in production in the middle of the month of March, in line with the conflict in the Middle East.

The start-up in 2025 and the increase in power of 7 projects in Brazil, the United States, Argentina, Denmark, the start of 2026 of Mabruk in Libya, Mapa and Brazil, how best to benefit from this price increase and this production additional production is value creating and generates more cash flow per barrel than the average in our portfolio. Our current results are thus not the fruit of pure chance but choices of investments that have been assumed privileging hydrocarbon projects with a low breakeven and low emissions. The second advantage mentioned by Jean per is that we are maintaining our proven reserves around 12 years, and we can rely on the diversified portfolio of projects mainly feeding our growth in Uganda in Surana, Brazil, Mozambique, in Namibia and that recently will be complemented by new exploration licenses that we took in Nigeria, Algeria, United States, Malaysia, in Indonesia, in Liberia and the new prospects in Egypt, Turkey and Syria. If I mentioning these countries. It's not to remind you that our company has a global footprint translates the diversity of our portfolio and our reserves. And this is the answer we are providing to the geopolitical risk, maintaining a good level of reserves, such as a central parameter for gas and oil company, we have been able to make our activity sustainable for the long term, securing our future revenues with low cost projects and low emissions that we have been implementing since 2020 in the framework of the climate total energy ambitions. These reserves will feed our growth at 3% per year until the end of the decade and comforting this growth dynamic.

Your company has also continued in 2025, not only to launch new projects, but manage in an active way, portfolio, namely through the signing and the agreement of merger for mature assets in the British North Sea and the creation of Neo next society, of which TotalEnergies is the first shareholder and the disposal of some more marginal shares in projects in Nigeria and Brazil. Another major asset that I've underscored with all of these countries is diversification complementarity and the integration of our assets all along the value chain. We've produced oil and gas in 27 countries and LNG in 11 different countries.

Diversification gives us a unique advantage, which is optionality, and that made it possible for us right at the beginning of the conflict in the Middle East to guarantee the security of supply of all of our LNG clients, especially in Asia, having to call upon force majeure. I can ensure you, having visited them recently that our clients particularly appreciate the reliability and the value of the contractual commitment of TotalEnergies continue to supply natural gas to our clients, it's an imperative, not just from a contract perspective, but also to allow them to continue their energy transition and avoid them turning back to coal. Being fossil fuel natural gas does remain a good alternative to produce electricity in many countries because gas power plants emit half of the CO2 than a coal power plant. Gas power plant is also flexible means of producing electricity that does come as an addition to the intermittency of renewables, and that allows our clients to have a reliable supply of energy 24/7, even if there's no wind or sun.

Gas is the natural link between production and sale of electricity, which is the second pillar of our strategy. Dear shareholders, as you must have noted, contrarily to like many of our main competitors, decided to reduce their investment in low-carbon energies, and especially renewables. Total Energy is staying strong with the support of the Board as Jacques Aschenbroich reminded us and continues to invest to make sure that the second pillar, electricity represent 20% of our energy sales by 2030.

Here, I want to insist, implementing a transition strategy where we are is something we do over the long course, and we've decided to invest in this massively since 2020 for 3 main reasons, they're still valid today. The first one is the growth for the demand of electricity which exceeds 3% per year globally. It is the energy with the steepest growth with transport that is becoming electrified by industrial processes that are becoming electric by the increase of the the life conditions in emerging countries and by the rise of digital technologies, AI and data centers. So second reason is that the technologies for renewable energies and storage electricity.

So sun, wind and batteries have changed a lot. And we arrived in this market recently with almost nothing, but we were able to deploy competitive solutions without having to manage legacy assets that had a lesser performance and that were not profitable. The second aspect is the intermittency of renewables that need an addition of flexible production life for a global player of gas, we are the third player of gas globally. There is in this chain between gas and electricity, a continuity and a obvious opportunity of value creation. This path ask us to be coherent and constant and also to invest more than $20 billion over the past 5 years in power and low carbon activities and in 2025, $3.5 billion, as Jean-Pierre said, we aim to maintain this in 2026 and in the upcoming years between JPY 3 billion to JPY 4 billion per year to meet our objectives of 2030 with a net production of electricity of between 100 to 120 terawatts per hour and a profitability of our capital employed of 12% for integrated power. Since the beginning of the year, we have launched major projects in Kazakhstan with 1 gigawatt of project 500 gigawatts of Philippines in the U.S. also 1 gigawatt for the data -- for the data centers of Google. We are also reinforcing our presence in Europe with a major transaction to increase 50% to acquire 50% of the platform of elec-flexible electricity production of EPH in the U.K., Italy, the Netherlands and in France. This has led to creating the second European player in the production of flexible and electricity with a total capacity of 14 gigawatts installed or under construction and a production electricity that will be 3 terawatts per hour in 2025. This is the average annual consumption of a country like Denmark or Ireland.

In France, we were also selected in 2025 to operate the greatest project of renewable project ever developed, center launch, which is an offshore win. It's a project of JPY 4.5 billion and 1.5 gigawatt supplying electricity to more than 1 million households. All of these investments have already raised our portfolio at the level of the global players in the sector with more than 35 gigawatts of gross installed capacity the end of the first quarter of 2025 and a net production of 50 terawatts in 2025. We're halfway of our objectives, 2030. 5 years of having launched integrated power integrated power has a 10% profitability on capital employed and should generate a positive free cash flow and contribute to the dividend for our shareholders in 2027. There's the transition of our model to more electricity is not something that comes to the expense of profitability. Because as Jean-Pierre said, energies in 2025, TotalEnergies was the most profitable of the 5 majors with a return on capital employed close to 13%, why investing massively in transition, demonstrating the strength of our economic model and the pertinence of our strategy, more energy and less emissions. So we're looking at the future with serenity and an excellent visibility. I wanted to also underscore competitive advantage of our portfolio is that our teams are able to keep our production costs in spite of inflation to below $5 per barrel, which is the lowest cut production cost in our peers.

Beyond our financial performance, I think it's also useful to remind in the circumstances that we're experiencing with the conflict in the Middle East the direct contribution of TotalEnergies to the energy sovereignty of our continent in a France by combining security of supply, domestic production and energy transition. In all, the company ensures a significant part of imports and European production while securing access to refined products essential our 8 refineries and biorefineries present in the continent, including 5 in France and dense distribution network in our country. We also have a central role in the position of producers of gas in Denmark, the U.K. were the first importer of LNG on the continent.

Our methane vessels can allow Europe a flexibility and autonomy faced with the geopolitical tensions that we face since the war in Ukraine and the break of supply of Russian gas via the pipelines. But Southern is also preparing the future with renewables, batteries, CCGTs the assets of EPH and rechargeable points that come to support stability and sovereignty of European electrical systems, while supporting decarbonization conviction is clear there won't be any European sovereignty without energy actor capable of investing over a long duration. And this is what TotalEnergies doing, investing today to secure the energy of tomorrow and invest to contribute to the energy sovereignty Europe and France, while meeting the climate stakes.

Our portfolio project is growing in a profitable and diversified way, but it's also facing what is at stake with the climate teams in the field and their efforts reminded by Aurelia, and I want to recognize all of your commitment in terms of reductions bear fruit and the progress we've made in 2025 demonstrate our determination to meet our objective to reduce direct emission by 40% by 2030. Our Board have decided to have go for legal in formulating our climate ambition. We can't formulate a net zero objective along the terms of the European regulation because it should show that we have a plan that is compatible with a trajectory, climate warning at 1.5 degrees, while the expert feel that this objective can no longer be met. So it is the legal security of the company to do so. But this doesn't show that we're backing down or decreasing our ambition, our strategy and our objective by 2030 are resonantly the same. The will of the Board is to avoid any confusion and legal risk as some legal decisions in 2025 we showed, and we needed to draw the lessons of this by reducing our emissions by targeting the most efficient levers like reducing the methane leaks and we are currently the methane in the oil and gas industry for this by massively increasing and developing low carbon energy by supporting our clients to less carbon.

Our approach is ambition and pragmatic faithful to the mindset of the Paris agreement and anchored in the reality of the world. And this is what we do. We move towards carbon neutrality together with society without any [ verbal ] breakthrough. And always wanting to work for climate progress, security of supply and supplying an affordable energy. Ladies and gentlemen, you will have understood that TotalEnergy is a solid company with a clear strategy that demonstrates that it's possible to grow profitable way by contributing to energy transition by investing in the energies of tomorrow by decreasing the emissions, but also sharing the created value in a responsible way with all of our stakeholders our employees, our host states, our clients and, of course, you, dear shareholders. And this is the point that I wanted to talk about now the sharing of the added value of TotalEnergy. This value in 2025 was about $60 billion. Of course, it's a lot of money. And obviously, in the current context with the price increase linked to the conflict in the Middle East. Some can think that TotalEnergies is making too much money I'm sure that as shareholders, you don't think about that. And we need to absolutely be taxed and we are profit hearing from anything. This performance is the constant commitment of our 100,000 employees present in 120 countries. It's collective work demanding that we do daily and over several years. TotalEnergies should not apologize to being successful. We should be proud of it with your support. Being successful is the proof that the company is well managed solid and meets its commitments. This added value is fully shared. First of all, it's financing our investments, our projects for growth, our energy transition is translated by taxes that we pay in the countries where we operate by compensation paid to our employees, and it's redistributed to our clients and our shareholders. First of all, the share -- the first sharing that we do with 100,000 employees, because it's their professionalism. That means that our company is moving forward, innovating and delivering solid results in a demanding context. They are on the first line to secure the supply of our clients in service stations and crisis times like those we have right now. I want to thank them all your name for their essential contribution to the success and transition of Total Energy and we want to bring them on board with our results. From this perspective, our company is very dedicated to the development of employee shareholdership because it brings together our employees to the performance of the company to reinforce their feeling of belonging and to align their interest with yours as shareholders of the company. For these reasons, we have set up for the past 10 years of voluntary policy with the ambition to get to 10% of the company held by its employees. For a company that is $200 billion. It's a lot of saving an annual capital increase operations dedicated to the employees and our employees are massively participating in this an increase of capital dedicated to the employees who will take place in January -- sorry, June 2026 with a discount of 20% and a matching of [indiscernible] share for each share in the limit of 10. We're also granting performance shares annually, and we want to grow it because in 2026, it's more than 13500 employees that will receive them as opposed to 13,000 in 2025 and 12,000 in 2023. This policy continues to bear fruit because at the end of 2025, it's more than 70% of the employees of TotalEnergy who are shareholders of the company. I've said their participation to the capital of the company represents 8% at the end of 2025. So it's an increase of 60% in 10 years.

Our employee shareholders are amongst the first beneficiaries of the dividend hikes because they've received EUR 640 million of dividend, which is EUR 100 million more than in 2024. With this exceptional 2026 year, we won't forget to create the value created with our employees. We want to contribute a support on our 100,000 employees in the world, and we will pay them an exceptional bonus by the end of the year 2026. Second sharing the value, we share this value with the states by paying its share of taxes in the countries where we generate profit. In 2025, TotalEnergies has paid $19 billion of taxes that is a rate of core 1 position of 40% in '22, during the previous hike of the markets of energy, this average rate was more than 50%, 51% because in many producing countries, there are mechanisms to capture exceptional bonuses and windfalls. In France in 2025, we paid more than EUR 2 billion of taxes and employee contributions on the wages of our 35,000 French employees. It's a significant contribution to the budget of the country and it's the fifth country where we pay the most amount of tax in the world even if we don't produce oil and gas here. I just want to remind an essential aspect of the international law in terms of taxes on the profits of TotalEnergies on production of oil and gas are not done in France, but in producing country where they are naturally taxed and international taxes relies on a nondouble imposition of the same profit.

So we trust France country of law that respects the fiscal treaty that is assigned with more than 120 countries. We wanted to tax this a second time would call back into question. We shared this, of course, with our clients, our clients, we want to protect them in exceptional crisis as the ones that we've been going through since March. We are, and I want to repeat it, we're the only global player to have set up a policy to cap the gasoline in our country to protect the spending power of our clients. We have announced that we will maintain this policy across our 3,300 service stations across France, while the crisis in the Middle East continues. Today, we are at EUR 199 per liter for all of our service stations in France and some weekends diesel, which is normally at EUR 2.25, decreases to EUR 2.09 will take place this weekend, it for Mother's Day. Congratulations to all of the mothers in the room and for the Father's Day in June. So let's not make anyone calls in terms of diversity. And for our clients who have the advantage for fuel can have a diesel at EUR 1.99 per liter. So I encourage you to register for TotalEnergies because the electricity is cheaper, there's even a formula at minus 10%, but you can even buy diesel and gasoline at EUR 1.99 per liter.

Of course, sharing the value concerns you as shareholders. The company is doing well financially. There's solid balance sheet allows us to have an attractive policy of return to the shareholders. So carried by the results. Some say that are too good. I say that they're excellent. In the first quarter, the Board has decided to increase by 5.9%. The first payment of a dividend at EUR 0.90 per action. It is the strongest growth of dividend amongst the oil majors. The Board has also confirmed the objective to allocate more than 40% of the cash flow to the return to the shareholder in '26 like it did in '25, '24 and '23 and to authorize the continuation of share buybacks up to EUR 1.5 billion for the second quarter. The Board has said that we also focus on the strength of the balance sheet and decreasing the gearing from 15% to 10% is also strong.

Our French individual shareholders are 730,000. They've increased by 80,000 over more than 1 year. It's a concrete demonstration of the commitment of the French people to the company. We have an attractive compensation. Of course, the dividend has contributed a yield of more than 6% in 2025 and it's increased by 35% over the past 5 years.

Finally, I want to take advantage of this meeting talk about the listing of our ordinary shares on the NICE since the eighth of December 2025, I know that our -- we know that are listed now on the largest stock exchange in the world. This continuous listing between Paris and New York functions in a very smooth and efficient way without any negative impact for the people holding shares listed in Paris and by reinforcing the liquidity of the shares and its visibility with U.S. and international investors, it is a level of creation of value. And as Jean-Pierre has demonstrated, I can't prevent myself of making a direct link between being listed in the greatest stock exchange in the world and the over performance of our share compared to our peers. Since the eighth of December 2025. I also wanted to welcome our EPH partner, a major industrial partner in Europe for electricity, but they're also a shareholder because they now hold -- almost 4% of the capital of Total Energy becoming 1 of our leading shareholders. We are delighted to see an industrial investor from Europe over the long term anchored in the energy reality of our continent. In the context of deep recomposition of the global energy balance, the presence of European shareholders that are solid and committed reinforces our collective capacity to develop and energy strategy that is competitive and resilient. And it's a positive signal for our companies and all of our shareholders.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear shareholders, I want to wrap up what I've said in this day of a shareholder meeting simple message. This new crisis reminds us that energy is a precious good. It touches upon the security and the freedom of people, the stability of nations and the continuity of economic light Faced with this reality, our main responsibility is to provide more energy to the greatest number of people the most acceptable price possible by decreasing emissions as well. We are doing this with resolution and determination Words don't really matter what matters is actions and consistency. And if TotalEnergies can go through this period without steering, bearing off its heading. It's because of its integrated and diversified model, and it's good results. It allowed us to absorb shocks in '22 and '25 and allowed us to continue to invest us. We are proud of this, and we're proud of your support. Our strength relies in our Unity and the collective commitment of the 100,000 employees of the TotalEnergies in the world because of everybody's mobilization and your support, dear shareholders, are ready to meet the challenges ahead of us with confidence and determination. Thank you for your loyalty.

[Interpreted]

Let's now move on to the written questions that some shareholders have sent they had some written questions in accordance with the regulations. There's 1 from the responsible investment for Mr. Bernard Durr from the front of the earth, a group of shareholders, LBPAM, ABN AMRO, Investment Solutions, CNP insurances, Aras, the pension reserve funds in Briquet, PFA pension and Van Langan, Mr. Zeller. Before this general meeting, -- we have written answers to the questions provided by the Board of Directors that you will find available on our website, the totalenergies.com website under the Investors General Meeting section. I will not read all of the answers. Otherwise, I would spend too much time. But once again, these answers have been asked an answer to on the site before this general meeting. I'd like to mention that the people who sent questions outside of the regulatory framework that can be will receive despite of this, an answer written by a separator. We will now open the floor to discussion. And as last year, as part of the agenda items regarding the presentation of the sustainability and climate 2026 progress report. We will set aside approximately 20 minutes for discussion of the miss agenda item which is not subject of a resolution to be put to a vote by the shareholders. The hostesses are here to help guide you to the designated microphones climate.

So those who wish to ask a question. Please be here for microphone 1 on the next room. It's microphone 5 to organize the discussions. If you want to intervene during the first of the Q&A session, Microphone 5. Then we will resume our Q&A more general session. And as a reminder, if you take the floor during this session only reserve to shareholders, and I will ask you to limit yourself to 1 question only in order to enable more people to speak. I also want to thank all of the participants to the meeting to respect the discussions and let everyone take the floor without showing any disconnect an hour glass will appear, so you know how much time is accocated. We will now proceed -- the first time Microphone 1 that I see in front of me, and then I'll -- if there's someone on microphone 5, we will move on to the next room. I think there's 1 person yes. So let's start with microphone number one.

Questions. Hello, and thank you. Dear Chair, my name is Tarek [indiscernible] and I work for a follow 10. I would like, first of all, to the pursuit of the -- your investments in integrated power. You're showing the leadership of few majors can show in this energy transition. My question is on the future of oil majors when central majors of the anticipate a decrease that is sustainable and global demand for fossil fuels in the coming years. We would like to understand what will be for total energies strategy to create values with such scenarios in terms of CapEx, volumes and cash for this decade. I'd like to mention that we're not talking about stress tests or resilience for short term of the price of the oil, but a structural contraction that is irreversible of the oil and gas supply.

Mr.[Indiscernible] maybe you have a plan beyond 2030. Could you please share your strategy for value creation for shareholders in this context of the decline in demand for hydrocarbons.

Thank you. Well, this question is the purpose it was asked by the -- so I invite you to read the question on our website. you're talking about the scenario. There are many scenarios. For the moment, the scenario of degrowth of oil and gas demand by 2040 is not the scenario that is the most spread. Nevertheless, total energy strategy defined in 2020 is that if we are investing massively empower and thank you for your comments, we want the company to be able to answer to these risks. We do see an evolution -- we see it clearly in transportation, electric transportation -- of course, it's delayed in Europe. We don't know, but it's moving forward, and this is why we are going to electricity and power. So we haven't seen a decrease in oil demand and Rimel reminded us that we are at about 1% per year -- it's not much.

Once again, this is why we want to define growth elsewhere and for gas. They're announcing growth beyond 2040. This being said, I'm noting what you said. There are 2 answers to your question, what we're doing for power, and we're going to continue doing that. So I'm not well, the board hasn't decided I cannot set a goal for 2040. It's also a question we've received from a shareholder group, but it's like Sam Thomas. We have travel, the health of the journey, but we want to do it in a profitable manner because we have supply cash flow to feed dividends. And if we continue in the 5 next years, the temptation will be great to continue pursuing the strategy with power. I don't know if I'll still be there, but there will be a continuing to see what pace have. That's more complicated, even though I repeat growth in this field and everything that's happening around AI data centers comforts us with the purpose of our strategy. If certain shareholders, including on the American side had doubts on our investments, they have left out today because now that we've explained the source of AI and electricity, -- so I can clearly assert this. We'll keep our strategy I cannot tell you what pace we will move at, but we need to be pragmatic in the company as we are today. Our ambition, we have a real ambition, but we need to be able to adapt as was said, and I think that the formula that Rael said, we are keeping our strategy -- we must also adapt to the pace and rhythm at which our clients can follow. Clients is not just us, but I believe think that what's happening today, and I mentioned it in my speech, I'm convinced that this crisis because we already see this is how solar and wind started because when electricity is too expensive or we find other means, other solutions and pushes people to find solutions for households. So I think we will continue in midway to implement this strategy, which consists in having more energy, less emissions, more electricity and finding the right balance and adapting to the rhythm that our energy system will evolve -- we will -- our company will be well positioned to pursue on this trajectory. Thank you for the question. #5 now.

I think we have someone -- we cannot hear you. Let's open the microphone, please. The mic is not open yet. Yes. Now we can hear you. Go ahead. I have a question on ongoing crisis, we see that the cost of the energy crisis, climate crisis today, supported by households, especially the most various one's while dividends and profits are given back to the shareholders. Is that susceptible? Would it be more legitimate or more acceptable to tax profits more in order to finance the energy transition and protect vulnerable populations faced climate change. Well, the French are answering to this question. So this dilemma, you are mentioning discussed about this with several people. We offered a policy aiming at protect French people through the sharing of our profits because when we have a cap on the price of gas, diesel oil, it has it has an impact on the company. Maybe it's compensated, but the more we lose. In fact, what's happening in gas stations. And when the debate settled to see whether we had to tax total energies, what people -- French people ask in most surveys is that they prefer having a rebate or a discount at the gas station, and this is why the government changed its opinion on the question rather than having a tax that could feed in France, maybe not the energy transition but more if the protection of consumers and the deficit of the state rather.

Our budget is globalized in our democracies. So I hear what you're saying. We are providing an answer. I also said something important in my speech. The truth is that today, those who capture the greatest part of the profits are producing countries. Our tax rate will globally move from 40% to 50%. So when you do the math, moving from 40% to 50% in average means that the taxing of our additional profit is largely captured by the producing countries. They have the raw materials. And since these producing countries, are based in Africa in a lot of emerging countries. We are joining your objective to support populations in these emerging countries since Angola, Nigeria, Brazil, great countries will capture more profit and they may be -- will share it with the populations in these countries who are exposed to climate change and because more broadly because they are not -- don't have the same means to protect themselves. In your question, I think there's a way to reconcile and I'd like to bring together boats. Yes, we are more attacked in our producing countries in the south countries, those who need most to receive the revenue or the profits from oil and gas companies because they are more exposed to climate and their populations needed more than taxing total energies in the Western countries where the purchaser is higher.

[Interpreted] One question Question 1 for climate -- thank you I need to ask my question in English. You come from Denmark.

I am co-CIO with PFA, a pension fund and a long-time investor with Total. My question is about how you manage the transition strategy in a more uncertain and changing world. First of all, however, I would like to acknowledge and thank a very strong financial result for 2025, but also for the constructive dialogue we have had about human rights and in the energy transition. We appreciate that Total has remained more consistent with the transition strategy compared to your peers. And we highly appreciate that because we believe that the climate crisis is a fundamental risk to the value of our customers' pension savings.

My question is less about the current direction of the strategy, but more about how you think about potential geopolitical or market tracker points that would lead you to revisit or adjust the strategy. Thank you. it's a complex question. The gentleman asked about I'm translating at the same time because I don't think there is simultaneous -- the question is how do current events, geopolitical events, how can they influence the implementation of the energy transition and the strategy?

As I said, I think the -- and then alone. As I said, I think the what happens today will clearly lead countries, I'm sure, to revisit their own security of supply will lead to domestic energy get priority given to domestic energies. -- like in 73 because, again, we had a crisis in '22 and in '26. So it -- in fact, it will give a push. I'm sure, to any source of domestic energy. It could be nuclear. It could be, of course, renewables. And this is where I think for me, this crisis, of course, it will add some challenge in the Middle East for Total energies where we are very well implemented. So we'll need to think, of course, of the way that we can evacuate oil and gas from the Middle East. But it also encouraged, I think, and give momentum to electrification, as I said, our renewables, and we are very well positioned.

So from this perspective, I would say we are well positioned. Maybe, as I answered to your colleague before follows, we will -- it will accelerate the transition. If it is the case, we might adapt, adjust our investment scheme, but let's see exactly what will happen from this point [indiscernible]

[Interpreted]

My question to the gentleman is to say that what I really believe is that this crisis will be translated as in 1973 by a priority given to domestic energy supply will come back very high on countries agendas and domestic energy, whether biomass in Malaysia, in Indonesia or whether it's renewable energies, nuclear and others, they will be -- they will ramp up, and we are well positioned to follow the trends given the strategy that we have implemented and that we can follow. I will now take Question #5. Hello, Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, the high price of oil has a positive impact for the planning. What comes to consumption, but you explained that if the conflict in the Middle East would come to an end, the prices will still remain high. You said $80 to $90 per barrel I'm quite surprised that you come to this on because the stocks are low. But on the 1 side, you have Venezuela. On the other hand, OPEC countries that want to be free to produce more when Iran will have recovered or regained its freedom. They will produce oil again. And in the same way, consumption has a tendency to decrease whereas production is increasing strongly. I don't really understand how the barrel at the end of the year will still be at around EUR 9 per barrel.

I said it's 80% rather than 90%. But once again, I'll repeat why we're saying this Today, we are -- there are 10 million to 12 million barrels per day. So at the end of year, we thought we would be -- we would be able to overproduce 1 million per day compared to demand. And we see today, if we were to place 10,000 barrels because the temptation is strong, well, countries we want to rebuild their stock. Some countries that today has inventories will will increase them. Some absorb the crisis better, China because they have a long-lasting inventory. There will be the demand to rebuild the stocks or the inventories. And this means that the balances that we saw at the beginning of the year or less demand is reversed and this will be the case for 2027. This is what we're talking about, and it will take time. It's not because there's an agreement tomorrow that the whole system, as I will say, will be in the work solidly tomorrow. The question we need to ask and I talked about it with an oil company. Today, we have tankers blocked in the Gulf. We have of ours on there. They will exit. But before bringing them back to the Gulf to load oil, we will check to see whether piece is long-lasting. Maybe we'll not get satisfied by seeing a paper and piece has been signed. No, we will continue upon 10 million to 12 million barrels per day.

So we will start putting things in order, but it will take more time. And once again, I believe that some could say with the $80 per barrel, I'm quite pessimistic. Once again, this is not our aim. A company like TotalEnergies does not try are not in favor of having a high price, $80, $90 per barrel is perfectly good. It's a stable price. It can run as we had in other years, and consumers kind of find -- strike a balance at $120 per barrel. That's not a good balance because indeed, as you said, we are ramping up the disruption of demand I'll take a question last question on climate, and then we'll continue. I'll open up to general questions -- and I said last question for climate. I said I would dedicate 20 minutes to it, but you can say, I will take general questions. The lady -- hello Built week my organization produced a report TTP, the recent joint venture between Total Energies and EPH, the company of the billion Daniel Creta. This joint venture wants to use gas-fired power for flexible electricity and then just to reduce the dependency imports of LNG as well that have a high cost and that will lead to an energy dependency that are currently intermittent since strongly impacted by the blocking of the Hormuz Strait.

In our investigation, we noticed that more than 87% of production units of gas of the joint venture use technologies that are CCGTs. These are they have important limits to provide flexibility for short term and depend on sustainability and profitability by increasing their intensity of CO2 emissions. My question is how do you -- will you ensure the flexibility of the European with the seat since they are not made for this and who will pay the bill in countries where the joint venture is used. I'm sorry, but I am in full disagreement with your what you're saying that it's not a flexible technology. A CCGT starts in 15 to 30 minutes and starts in the same way in an extremely efficient way. This is why we say it's flexible asset. This is also why European countries are implementing mechanisms for capacity in order to have as a backup. And it's not base. No, it doesn't work in base, it works as it's a complement. And this additional CT in Europe work 30% of the time when they're called to do so when the electric system in Europe cannot provide after renewable energies after the nuclear in plant after hydroelectric, that is less costly and the electric system in Europe works in a rational way. They call upon production and electric means depending on the growing cost of production. And gas comes before coal -- and this is why there is a space for it. But afterwards, all of the other energies, and it has been framework that they can complement. When you have this intermittent energy, less wind in Germany. This is why the Germans will have a call for tender, developed 10 additional gigawatts for gas plants -- they see that when we want an electric Wix funded on a lot of renewables, we can develop batteries. This is what we're doing. But we also need additional elements that can supply no European consumer is ready to accept a system that wouldn't deliver electricity 24 hours per 207 days a week. None will accept it. So we have a duty and this is where these last plans can come into play and help us be flexible.

[Interpreted]

Thank you. I will now I see a gentleman who was complaining. So we will take this question. Now he's filing. I'm happy to see you smiling. So I'm trying to take a look at several screens at the time. That was the last question for this climate debate, and we move to general questions. The floor is yours.

[Interpreted]

Thank you very much for just feeling my patients, which Mr. Punes, we believe, the 1 in 2021 and was committing on minus 30% of Basel Pental by 2030 or someone who said that 7% in actual -- the universal registration document that you filled establish unless we don't have meeting that Total Energy is exiting the agreement. You have rightfully said that the 1.5 degrees was called into question. That is a reality. But carbon neutrality is something that is real and it requires the publishing of a transition plan you refused to publish today because you received a supposedly authorization of AMF that you'll even and it raises a real issue, which is that of being the bad people in the class. Like me, Mr. Piani, you were present last Wednesday Capgemini -- and as shareholders for the climate, we said that Capability had respected its transition plan for Scope 1, Scope 2, Scope 3. And it seems to me that, that is the issue of what Mr. Orelia Amel said. He spoke about the decrease of the carbon intensity of production. So my question is simple, couldn't we avoid buying 7.5 million shares to influence the price of the share to add on decarbonization, not Scope 1, Scope 2, because you're doing the work, but the essential is in Scope 3. Maybe I'm going to do it for you for the rent to be transferred.

You are a representative of [indiscernible] just a written question that you are repeating to which we have answers on our website. I have noted that you're working very well, but you have a strong capacity to play onwards. What we had said in 2021 that we would decrease our sales by 30% and not our production unlike what you're saying -- but productions and sales are different. You can laugh, but I'm certainly not laughing anymore because sales have decreased by 35%. And we have done what we have said -- so when you want to read a registration document, you need to read everything every word is precise. Cells have never meant production, and we have never said that we would decrease our production. The only oil producer who tried to set that in the world, we can't say that they're in great shape right now. we haven't followed them. Secondly, you're introducing a legal debate on the idea you want to argue over the fact that you have your own interpretation of the European directive on CSR -- we've also answered that in writing. CSRD gives a precise definition of what Net Zero is. It does not absolutely make mandatory to register a transition plan that is compatible with 1.5 degrees. That is not true. It explicitly states that if we don't have one, we must -- and this is where AMF has said. If you're not capable of registering a plan for 1.5 degrees, say it. We had the courage of doing what we said. AMF did not tell us not to do it. We took the decision because once again, legally, the Board of our company cannot sign a paper to say that the plan that we're implementing is compatible with a 1.5 degree. And the company since 2021, you can take all of the URD sense and all of the sustainability climate report has shown the trajectory has tried to quantify the trajectories that we're following. We're never in line on 1.5 degrees. They were more around -- so we are coherent with what we're doing. We're talking here about the legal protection of the company.

Of course, you would love us to file a plan at 1.5, so you can attack us. But we're not going to give you that pleasure, sir. I'm now going to move to the general discussion. I'm not a lawyer, but I have a great lawyer who is teaching me how to really efficiently defend the company.

But let's move to the general position. I'm going to switch to other microphones. I can see a person in front of me behind microphone #3.

Hello siren. First of all, I wanted to say that you have thanked all of your employees, but you did not think yourself, which is normal -- but I think that indeed the quality of teamwork does rest on good management -- so I really appreciate it. And this says that I completely support Resolution 21 because it concerns you, but it does have the inconvenient that there are 2 H limits at some point or the other, this will have an impact, and there will be governance that will be modified. So that's my first comment. My second comment is that need to have a 50 indicator concerning your competitor and it concerns the market in New York, it would be good to have an index to compare Exxon and TotalEnergies in the evolution of the price of the share. Third comment on the payment of the dividend I would appreciate to be able to pay the dividend in shares given that you have the possibility to avoid dilution to carry out share buybacks on the market. And lastly, I wanted to say that this controversy coming from the supermarkets in France saying that they cannot align on your tariffs that we should maybe give them tic for tac because you are being told you profit from all of your activities given that you don't only do distribution, but also exploration and refining, I believe that supermarkets do the exact same thing, under a normal time, they can give limited tariffs or even price at cost because they can do their profit on selling their other merchandise I have not heard this answer from TotalEnergies.

[Interpreted]

I just want to remind that everybody has 1 question. So you've got 5 questions, so it's going to be a little bit complicated. So you can recognize me on voted to further resolution for my compensation. I can't remember is I'm not going to answer the resolution suggested by the Board on statutory ages and the rationale of the Board. You can read my interview in the fig a few ideas that are shared in this. Well, first of all, thank you for your question. This initiative comes from the Board, given that we need flexibility. You're saying yourself that the duration is of a CEO and Chairman is limited given the age threshold. When we look at the companies of CAC 40, there is a net evolution towards the age that we've seen, which is 70 years for the CEO and 75 years for the Chairman. And we've considered as a Board that we needed to give ourselves greatest possible flexibility to manage the governance of the company in the best possible conditions. And at the same time, ask Patrick Pune to organize the succession. Because as late as possible according to what you're saying, there will be a succession. So there are 2 topics, give ourselves the most degree of flexibility as a Board and prepare the future because that's the responsibility of the Chairman and CEO and of the Board to prepare the future of the governance of the company. I wanted to add a comment. This company has found methods of functioning to do the transition that worked well.

At 1 point that the CEOs become chairs support a CEO who will become Chairman and CEO. And I think this way of doing the transition is something that was great for Christophe Marcario took over from Christoph Demare and myself when I took over from Christophe de Mar. And I think the Board had this in line be able to carry out those transitions so that I can support the next year and then everybody flies under their own steam. I want to make a comment. So I think the company from this perspective in terms of governance, we had 3 CEOs in 30, 35 years. And this way of working as good and the characteristic of our company is that the Chairman and CEO were always found internally within the company, and I think that's what I will transmit and it's very dear to me.

There was another question, the graph that Jean-Pierre has shown, ExxonMobil was on the graph -- and it was in dollars in New York. We take New York as a reference because everything -- everybody is in dollars. -- and it's easier. You've got the answer. I don't know what the last question was. I'm in charge of energy and service stations. So thank you for your arguments. Since I can ask for the store, in the service stations be supplied, and we can transform our shops in shops that are a little bit more how should I say, attractive for our clients where we can find things that are easy and cheaper.

So we're going to do cheap on the gasoline and cheaper on the product. So we're going to make them very angle. You give me a good idea and we've repositioned the company closer to the French people and fighting for suspending powers on both sides. We have some progress to do from the shop side, and we might be partners with them for that, and we will have the best of both wells on fuels on one side and on the shops on the other side. Moving to another question, #8 Don't worry, I'm changing between back and forth. Can you hear me -- my question has to do on the impact on the public at large. This means that with all of the information that is being provided, it's vis-a-vis the shareholders and the company, that's absolutely normal but I think that there's a gap there that exists between French people and the company. And my question is, how can you imagine chip bring to light the contributions of the company to society in general and also for other French companies. So it's a broader question. Well, the Board had dedicated a session on how to better communicate -- we could do better. I think that right now, what is happening brings us closer to the French people. What they understand is that total energies equals oil and equals gasoline and diesel. We're not making the multi-energy model grow.

Hence, the proposal to link the subscription for gas electricity and in protection on the price of gasoline and diesel. Atmosphere means that we're not heard. Now we've got 800,000 people who benefit from that new clients, we need to make them understand that we're their partners across all of energies and I understand your point.

The gentleman at #6 is a little bit impatient. He's been standing for a while. So I'm going to listen to you, sir, we'll take your question, then we'll come back to the auditorium.

Can you hear me? Hello, Mr. Luis Goran, have 6 shares. So I want to congratulate you for the 730,000 individual shareholders. And for your objective to get to 30% by 2030. And I have a question on that. How are you going to get to this level of individual shareholders. I think that it's not a company needs to belong to the individual shareholders. 2027 is going to have an end by having the greatest amount of individual shareholders, you're going to impact the leaders. You speak to all of the political leaders who are candidates and having dinner with them, and it reassures me on the perspective of the group. And I've created a FinTech.

[Interpreted]

Your question is how to improve individual shareholdership. I think the best way to do it, the French people understand. We took 80,000 new ones in 2024, 80,000 in 2025. We need to trust them. They see a company where the share is improving with 5% or 6% of yield every year. We need to continue our actions everywhere to make and understand that we can be shareholders of TotalEnergy. I think the company of relationship carries out many actions. There are clubs of shareholders. So you're young, so go and see young people to talk to them and attract them. And I agree with your belief a great way for companies to better make the rationale of companies in our country understood is to attract more and more people to individual shareholdership. We don't have any pension fund because it's -- it's sort of a taboo in France, but we need to make efforts along this line, and it's an objective that we've given ourselves. We need to communicate. We need to show them possibility and the benefit that they can grow. I hope that next year, when you come to see us, you want to have just 6 shares, but 8 shares. So I'll take the gentleman at #1 in the auditorium.

Hello, and member of the Consultative Committee of the shareholders. My question is simple. Major discoveries of oil were done in Guyana and [indiscernible] where TotalEnergies is going to develop an important reservoir. I remember that you made some promising discoveries in French Guan are you not developing these reservoirs? And my second question was just linked to that, what is the real potential of French Guan oil at a moment when we need to make do without 20% of global oil because of the closure of the Hormuz Strait.

Thank you, sir, for this question. I answer it regularly, but nobody believes me. I don't know if I'll be believed more today. I'm going to repeat. I now have a great map every time I go to the parliament to see a politician. I have my map to Sean. You've got a segmentary basin, which covers Guyana which is to the west and it's a hole. And then when you look at the maps, you've got a structural high, which means that we have a second basin, which is the basin of French it's independent from 1 another. There's no continuity. It's not because we found something in Guyana and Suriname that we can find in French Guyan. The basin of French Guyan, I'm speaking in front of -- any from Brazil, it's the same basin that continues to the Frosty Amazonas basin on the Brazil side, it's the geography. On this basin, we've made 1 discovery well that was called ZEBs in 2010, 2011, when well, just not extraordinary to be honest. We found hydrocarbons. But it encourages because at the time we drilled 5 appraisal wells that have all been negative. To be honest, it would not have been in France, we would have stopped way before that. In general, when we make this type of discovery, we do want to appraise a well if 2 are negative, we stop and we move on. from that. We've even -- because we're a little bit obstinate, and we're French. We went to take an appraisal well by getting closer to the border with Surinam, knowing that it's the last well that was drilled in France. For exploration and a well that had caused a lot of bra in 2017, 2018, and that well was also fully negative. So why did we find hydrocarbons once and it stopped? Well, that's the mystery of geology. The good news for you is that we can't do anything, and we have to wait because our Brazilian friends of Petrobras are currently right now, drilling a well on the other side of the border, but in the same basin, there are no results right now. We'll know if it's a discovery, I don't think they'll be hiding it if so. we'll see. But waiting for this information, objectively, we had TotalEnergies, we had looked on the Brazilian side as well. But given what we knew from the French Guyan side, we were not really enthusiastic to go invest with them. I'm very sorry about that. I know that nobody is going to believe me, but when the Chairman and CEO of a French oil company says, we can be mistaken. Geology is a difficult art, you are allowed to be wrong. When I say that we don't see any potential, that's what I'm saying. -- every time somebody raises the question, I send a request back to my geologies. And again, they reexplained this with maps, what I've just explained. So I'm sorry, there's no conspiracy against French Guiana from our part. I would be delighted to be able to find and develop oil in France, even if there's a law that prohibits this. But objectively, I think our chances for success are very low, and we don't insist on this. I think that this is a lesson -- it's because when there's a prohibition to search, people want to believe that we're prohibited from searching. If there wasn't a prohibition, somebody would drill, but not us because we've spent a lot of money 6 appraisal wells that all cost a lot, each well was more closer to EUR 50 million, EUR 70 million -- we invested a lot of money in Guyana to not being able to confirm the first discovery. I'm sorry, it was a little bit long. I'm going to go to the second room. There's a lot of people. I have no question #7 yet. Sorry, ma'am, I'm trying to just go around. So nerve Hello, I wanted to talk about the trading operations with in total because the question linked to the profit of the trading activity was in the press, the financial times said that your trading activities have generated $1 billion since the beginning of the war with Iran.

Unfortunately, this information cannot be checked because most of the countries that have your trading activities don't appear in your tax transparency report. They are in the category rest of world, which does wait for 25% of the results of the group and only 8.5% of the taxes paid. Can you indicate why neither Switzerland or Singapore appear in your tax transparency report, what were their respective results and the taxes paid in the country. And I have a small point of clarification. Earlier, you said we didn't need to mix sales and production, but I understood that Mr. Amar said that you had an objective of production of electricity of 20% of all of your global production of energy and you took this objective by talking about 20% of sales. So I was a little bit lost. Well, that's easy. You just need to listen to the French. I'm sorry to say, both are compatible. I answered 1 question on the decrease of the sales of oil and not the production of oils and in oil -- in terms of oil, TotalEnergies was selling more than what we produced or refined. That was the situation in 2020. So we decided to have a policy to decide to get ourselves to the level of what we're producing or refining. So we've decreased our sales, but we've not decreased our production.

In terms of electricity, the situation is the reverse. In terms of electricity, we're starting from 0 in both sales and production. So from that perspective, we're saying in the energy mix of the sales, the sales are involving by themselves because again, I can sell energy products that I'm buying from others. I'm just not producing what I'm selling, so I can have sales that are more significant volumes than what I'm producing in other energies, we're saying that the mix of sales will be 20% of electricity. And there's another objective, which is quite coherent, which is to grow the production of electricity to 100, 120 terawatts per hour. When you convert that in barrels per day, getting roughly to 20% of production. So -- but these are 2 approaches that are not the same. To come back to your question on taxes, Listen, we're producing a tax transparency report I'm going to go in front of the National Assembly soon, there are going to be plenty of questions like yours. We're not forced to do it. The European requirements in terms of tax reporting are starting next year. We've been doing this for 4 years now. We've taken a whole host of countries all of the countries that the directive -- European directive makes us disclosed all those that are not considered as not enough transparent from a tax perspective. And all of the oil countries in terms of the commitment of the extractive industry. So it's a lot of countries, it's 90 countries. It's more than any requirements. None of the tech that I mentioned, mentioned, Singapore Switzerland is shady countries, and there are not countries where we produce oil and gas. So there is a written question to which we answer and you have the answer to your question concerning the oil trading in the universal registration document. Because in Chapter 10, there's a table where you find the figure that you're looking for on the results of the trading of oil in Switzerland. We're transparent. We're being asked so many questions and so much information.

There's 600 pages. So too much information kills information. So oil trading is about EUR 2 billion per year. It's 10%. I'm answering that in the interview that I gave this morning to Figaro. It's 10% of the results and the cash flow of the company. and it's tax in Switzerland at 15%, which is the global rate imposed by OECD. So we are taxed in Switzerland and Singapore at 15%. It was lower before, and it went up. So before we've done that, so the countries in question felt that they were not going to be the one that we're going to capture that. So a level of taxes of 15% is highest, then the current tax rate in Ireland, Hungary and Bulgaria to be completely comprehensive.

So to tell that Total is doing tax optimization. We do 0 tax optimization. While we are in Switzerland, most of the trading of commodities are in Switzerland. This is where we find our traders. This is where we can recruit them. We've been in Switzerland for years and years, we have a real activity there with more than 1,000 employees who are working in Switzerland on trading activities.

Last comment on your question I explained this again in the interview to the Figaro. So traders are looking at what is happening they take some risk because for an operation that make money. Some have lost money. What had they observed, they had observed at the end of February that the U.S. Navy was massing near the Gulf. So they took a position that wasn't an easy one to take which was to buy oil that when markets were saying that oil was going to go down. The risk was more important than what they thought because they had not integrated the fact that the Strait of Hormuz could close in 3 days. So when you take this type of position. If you can't access the physical oil, you can take a heavy loss.

It wasn't the case because the company is integrated. We're also producers in Abu Dhabi. We also have logistics installations in [ Fulgera ] outside of the Strait. But once again, don't believe that trading sometimes does exceptional operations. And every time that the results of the trading is exceptional. It's mentioned in our quarterly results releases. We mentioned it by saying this quarter, and it's not every quarter, but here it was a reality. It wasn't the case during 2025 because in 2025, the volatility of the market is low when the volatility is low, it's hard to do results. So if they take the market reversely, they can have results.

But generally, ours don't get mistaken too much. It's not because they're based in Geneva. It's because they're good.

Very well. I'm going to take the gentleman at number two, and then I'll take number 4, but I'll take #2 before.

[Interpreted] Hello, Atena [indiscernible], individual shareholder. You've mentioned batteries in your speech. Do you have projects for batteries for electric vehicles because it seems to become a new El Dorado with significant profits.

[Interpreted] Well, Chinese El Dorado so far. I want to remind you that we've got a project where shareholders of the better the company, ACC. [ Saft ] is a shareholder of them. batteries for electric vehicles. We hesitated for a while before doing this. We did this because we're a European company.

Objectively, it's not easy. We're seeing ACC struggling to have an industrial plan to manufacture battery. [ Saft ] is an excellent technological battery. Saft is more working on added value batteries for satellite for submarines. They're very good on that.

For vehicles, we knew that going from a production -- small production that was highly technological or being a manufacturer in France where we can be competitive and to move to a large production like batteries for electrical vehicle to decrease the cost. Well, the manufacturing context in France is not the best. And I'm speaking in front of an expert, [ Jaeson ] [indiscernible]. Everybody knows the difficulties that we have to do that. We're investing in that. Honestly, it's very difficult. We've realized that we needed to bring a little bit of Chinese know how to set up these factories, and we're doing this with the other shareholders.

We are sharing ACC with Stellantis and Mercedes. So we're committed to that. Being more committed than that. I don't want to go there. We recently went with the executive committee, we spent 3 days in China to go and see everything that is happening over there. And objectively, it's quite surprising. China is becoming a technological country. It's no longer a low-cost country. It's a technological country now. And honestly, it's a little bit like solar panels.

For solar panels, we had the same story to fight on the mass low-cost technologies is not easy. ACC is positioned on a more added value than the LMC battery, which is more for the high range of Mercedes and Stellantis. I think there, we might have a fight to -- a battle to fight. But so far, we just want to see if we can get ACC out of the rut before we move forward with this.

And speaking about Saft, if we entered the world of batteries, for us, it wasn't to do batteries for electric vehicles. It was to do a stationary electricity storage with batteries combined solar farms or renewable farms. And Saft is doing good from that aspect. Good success. They're growing, and we're very happy. So we're going to focus more, and we already have in Germany, a company that is developing energy storage called [ Kion ], where building the 3 gigawatts of batteries in Germany. So our own strategy is to be around electricity in terms of producing electricity, combination, renewables, batteries, grid, so that's the core of our work and our investment. And this is where the teams from [ Stefal Michel ] and integrated power are going to work more than the batteries for electrical vehicle, which is quite a different business. I'm going to take question #4. The gentleman has been waiting for a while now.

[Interpreted] Michel [indiscernible], French institutional, I'm retired. I had authored you, I think, a few years ago by suggesting to come more often on BFM business to express yourself. And I have the great pleasure this year -- for those who want to listen to this show again, it was on April 20 yet that was broadcast from a 7:00 to 8:45, and it was a show with lexical leaders you explained how you have been led to make your choices the most relevant ones for your company.

You also explained of the inconvenience that exist in France compared to neighboring countries because politicians or foreign politicians have better adapted to the reality of the current world, we also see that our people in politics -- well, there are borders whereas when you're globalized, the borders do no longer exist. And above you, of course, the major shareholder who is there, most of the time to influence the long-term decisions. And what I'd like to know is depending on the contracts you have with these foreign institutions, how do they see or how do they wish to see the evolution of TotalEnergies. If you have indirect information and how have you interpreted them? And finally, still on the same topic, what do you fear if the wrong decisions remain? Thank you for your answers.

[Interpreted] Yes, I do go to business BFM sometimes, and I will be there soon again. But I share my presence between different media. Well, your question -- well, how does the company work, a listed companies such as TotalEnergies. The most important is the strategy. The strategy is done by the Board of Directors that is essential. Jean-Pierre Sbraire and all of the colleagues in the front row the position. Well, of course, the CEO suggests the strategy. And this is what is the heart of the functioning of a company. When we meet with our shareholders, where they are, whoever they are, funds, French and foreign.

What we explained is our strategy. And you know shareholders listen to you can challenge you. When you suggest -- we suggested in 2020, a strategy to diversify ourselves in electricity or power. They said what will be the profitability they didn't understand in the beginning. So it's more to explain when there are some figures to show the reality of things and show the direction we are taking. But in the end, when they look at the end of the day, just like you, what are the results? What are the dividends? And it's quite simple. This is why I always insist on the fact that we are buying our freedom to implement our strategy because we have high performance.

This is what the Board of Directors look at first and foremost, that the company is working. If we have a conviction, a clear strategy and that is consistent. Because one thing that our shareholders dislike is to see ups and downs or zig zagging if you they're told to do one thing, then we do the other, they are asking questions. This is the backbone. So we need to keep the core hold the course. So I've never had -- well, sometimes people tell me, we don't like what we are doing in renewable energies. But today, more people are telling me they like it than the opposite.

I think that things are not really happening the way you're -- what we do is we discuss. We test and the market reask in a good way or a bad way if the share price go down, they don't like it as much. And then there are [indiscernible] factors. Today, the strategy is working, but there is the fact that in this crisis, the context of crisis, the oil was considered oil and gas were considered as a risky sector. In fact, today, they are at the heart of the energy security and they're becoming a strong value globally. So I think there's an evolution in the big investors' minds. And this is a good news for you all as shareholders. I will move to the next room. Let's take #5.

My name is Simon Taylor. I represent an organization called [ Hotmov ] my question is to do with your divestments from the Niger Delta. Last year, the regulator in Nigeria and UPLC withdrew consent for your offloading of -- sorry, your divestment to a company called [ Chapal ]. We understand that was because [ Chapal ] couldn't find the funds to pay for the deal. Now we understand there's a deal being prepared or has been prepared with various Resources, a joint venture company, and that's still waiting for approval. So my question is really about the suitability of this company. and the potential risk of -- since we've talked about the United States of what the Americans would call blow back.

And the reason I'm asking that is, as you well know, the legacy of pollution, particularly centered around the operations of what used to be called the SPDC joint venture, which Total had 10% of are quite notorious in Nigeria, lots of mess, not a lot of good cleanup. There's all sorts of examples I could go into.

So my questions are, does [ varus ] have the money to conclude the deal? And when will it be approved? And if it does get approved, does [ varus ] also have the money to ensure that the former SPDC joint venture infrastructure some 4,000 kilometers of pipeline alongside, obviously, now Renascent, does [ varus ] have sufficient funds to put into making sure that infrastructure doesn't continually routinely leak because there are large numbers of pipe systems that are way past their sell by date.

And secondly, and the most important bit, I think, is does [ varus ] have funds to contribute to a proper cleanup of the delta, which by many estimates, could run to many tens of billions of dollars? And if not, how is this divestment, just like that of shells, anything other than a cut and run and what amounts by any credible analysis to being really a dumping of divest your pollution liabilities onto the victims, the people, the hundreds of thousands of pollution victims across the delta. Thank you.

[Interpreted] I'm going to answer in France because I know there's a translation in English. You confirm. Yes, I will answer in French.

The question -- is it simultaneously translated for everyone. The question is relative to is in relation with the joint venture called SPDC operated by Shell in the past in the Niger -- in Nigeria, along the Niger River. And we had a share of 10%, shell had 30%. Shells sold its share to a Nigerian company called [ Renascent ] we said that we wanted to dispose this to [ Varus ]. Another the Nigerian company, what led Shells and us to leave. Of course, this activity generated, as the gentleman said, a lot of pollution.

Unfortunately, pollution didn't come from the operations of Shell that was applying the same standards as we do. But because in this later delta, regularly, there are sabotages of different pipes. And there's a national sport that consists in making holes in the pipes to collect the oil. It's just the far west there and illegal activities take place there. And when we realize this, when [ Nicolas ] [indiscernible] send me a picture to my office, I said there's -- we just need to leave because we're not able and realize that Shell was the operator and it supports everything they did.

We played our part as participant, but they objective couldn't control the security of the operations in this Niger delta. So they realize that the best thing to do was to sell the activity to [ Renaissance ]. And by the way, there is less sabotaging and the production increased. So we decided to follow in Nigeria. Most of our activities are offshore. We have a gas production that we will pursue. We will maintain for gas, we were able to educate populations in the Delta region to help them understand there were green pipes and red pipes and some, they shouldn't touch because if you make a hole in a gas pipe, it's a really bad idea. So we better manage things even if it's not easy, we better manage this activity, and we decided to exit to leave the country.

Objectively, there are no international investors who are ready to buy these participations, but the government supports localization for all of this business. For security reasons as well, everybody is convinced a first buyer was identified called [ Chapal ]. By the way, have this agreement, we need the Nigerian authorities also to agree. [ Chapal ] had financial scheme that wasn't convincing to us. They wanted to renegotiate the transaction with us, whereas we had a signed agreement. So I said, no, we have to stop at all. Afterwards, the authorities withdrawn their agreement with [ Chapal ], we told them that we wouldn't follow. So to the energy said they didn't want to sign with [ Chapal ] and then the authorities who had given their agreement said we are withdrawing since total energies doesn't agree any longer.

I hope we were more -- well, I know we were more careful because part -- a significant part of this transaction has already been paid. And [ Nicolas ] [indiscernible] are actively working on it. We talked with the authorities. They will give their agreement as well concerning the point you underline for the treatment of pollution. Do these companies have the capacity to face these pollutions in the Niger delta. There will be two cases, pollutions that were appeared before and those appearing later they will become responsible for.

TotalEnergies doesn't disappear fully from the joint venture because what we are doing is we are working on the oil production, better sources of production. We are keeping everything that is rights to gas production since gas feed the LNG plants that we have in Nigeria. We will still be there, part of the landscape.

Once again, given what is happening currently for the JV, the increase of production since we have no longer international player. I think the companies will have the means to finance the deep pollution. And there will be less sabotage. And these pollution issues will disappear. This is what I can answer.

What else. Gentleman with question #8.

[Interpreted] Technical part before I ask my question. We came into the room and we have to leave our cell phones. But for those who have an emergency and responsibilities on the outside, maybe that's not so responsible to do such a thing.

I'm talking about flaring. I'm a shareholder of another oil French company. There are not many French oil companies. There is illicit. So you imagine which one it is.

In 2023, they have gained -- they had reached maximum in terms of emissions further flaring, where do we stand? What is the situation for us here at TotalEnergies? And what are the next steps? Then two questions, short questions. This morning, I was at the general meeting for enactor in power? Are you working together? And the final question is we have report that is longer than in the past. Did you work with AI to check whether there's not things we could cut out? The state and its recommendations, are they not responsible for the heaviness of this document?

[Interpreted] Yes, of course, the answer you found it by yourself. We answer to regulations that follow upon us there's more and sometimes there's things that are repeated. It's very difficult for us because there are sometimes we have 2 pages with different words and words being important. It's a risk for us. I can only encourage everyone, well, can AI reduce it? It could copy. That's what I see year after year. Some of my colleagues said, you can use AI to read quickly the report. You can find keywords.

But I support your demand and your approach, which is in the things to do. If we could stop obliging us to fill out these hundreds of pages to use them. I don't know if some of you try to read it the ESR and SRD, I do not understand much at all.

Last year, I spend some time on it, experts are doing the work for you, investors, I'm not sure that all of this is done in a format that really helps you to understand the progress and effort made. It's so coded with very biggest language. So unfortunately, a trend we've seen in the last years and for each theme, we want transparency, and we're adding reports, reports, reports again and again, too much information kills information, and our reports are not easy to read.

For flaring, there's a real objective which is to stop continuous flaring by 2030. In the trajectory where we want to decrease CO2 and methane emissions on both sides, the decrease in the flaring in operations for [ explo ] production has a major contribution. This has been starting for quite a while.

To give you a figure in 2015, we were at 2.3 cubic meters per -- today, we're at 0.7. So when -- I remember when I started working in export production in 2002, it was -- well, we divide by 30% flaring. It's a permanent action flaring is continuing, but what is it? It's gas, it's a natural resource. And we develop more. If we sell more gas everywhere, they're well, former facilities or ancient facilities, but we're continuing. While we stopped in Nigeria in 2025 -- 2024, 2025. So we don't want to stop the continuous flaring by 2030 and to be honest, if we don't manage it, the asset won't remain within TotalEnergies. Our aim is not to sell flaring, but resolve solve the problem on our own.

It's a direct contribution for the minus 60% methane. The decrease in flaring contributes to half of what we're doing. So it's direct. And the stopping the venting is also another part. Thank you for the question. Now number three.

[Interpreted] Mr. Pouyanne, First, I'd like to congratulate you because you proved that you were able to make the continuity with Mr. [ Demaree ] who we met.

Now I move to my question, which is no longer a -- since you're talking about [ Christophe Margee ], I'd like to honor his mother and sister because I'd like to thank them for their fitness to our company, their loyalty.

My question will be short since you've answered partially it concerns Saft for me. Saft batteries -- [indiscernible] storage batteries that help made an intermediate storage for wind to give it back to the main grid. You talked about activities, batteries for cars by that the -- it was a busy market already. And for us, what you committed was there were really interesting. So for me, I'd like to back to Saft batteries to store. Thank you for your answer.

[Interpreted] You have understood it perfectly well. So it's all good. That's exactly what they're positioned on first. There's not many industrial list for batteries in Europe. They're mostly Asian, Korean, Japanese, Chinese. And so when we ask the question to have a champion for batteries in Europe, we were solicited.

Stellantis at the time was doing it, Mercedes. We provided technology. We know what NMC is, at Saft knows. We also were clear with people saying that stuff didn't have the industrial capacity to do it on a large scale. We were very clear on the limits of the model. Your comment, well, you already gave the answer, and I confirm you understood it perfectly well. Question #2.

[Interpreted] Yes, hello Mr. [indiscernible], individual shareholder. Thank you to the petrol champion with excellent results and especially higher performance compared to your American peers. This needs to be underlying. It's excellent for Francis image. Everybody should love TotalEnergies. My question is, what is the secret of Patrick Pouyanne in order to do better than others when it comes to different ratios, that you presented during the beginning of the meeting and on production costs? $5, that seems very low. My question is, I know there were a number of decisions made for you was the best decision? And could you give us an example to better understand how we can reach this such a low level?

[Interpreted] It's not Patrick Pouyanne secret, it's Mr. [ Terashi ] teams who are everywhere the world. We had very clear choices. The very clear choice we've made since 2015 is to face these cycles. It was $100 per barrel. It collapsed. The only thing we can master in our industry are our cost or breakeven with our operational costs and amortizing. I do not master the price of barrels. That was a great lesson, and we need to position ourselves on assets that are at a low price, and there was a will on our side, well, roughly, the portfolio is to compare the production portfolio in 2025 compared to 2015, it changed by 50%. We deliberately sold assets that had high production costs. We repositioned ourselves on assets with low production costs. There's a reason in the world where they are lower than elsewhere. It's the Middle East. This is why we have a #1 in the Middle East for production of oil, among other international companies. Many it represents a certain laws today, but it was deliberate.

The other strong choice natural liquefied gas. And then there's a permanent work that is done and sometimes people surprise me because sometimes with inflation, we maintain the price of the barrel. And I ask the execute. They have the dice. I don't. So we manage. But I believe it's a great advantage.

By the way, in the company, it wasn't easy, but there's a real awareness, a collective awareness that mastering our cost was the core our battles. And this is where we were going to be up. Today, when the ball is at $100, and you have breakeven, well, the price of barrel that means I make money.

When you're at 25 year agreement of 60 well, with taxes, et cetera, it's only benefit profit. So it's higher between 60, 80 than 25, of course, but I must say that the teams are proud and they can be as the result accomplished and these were deliberate choices for projects. That means that when we invest in oil, that must be whether technical cost, CapEx plus minus $20 per barrel. The OpEx can be far from 5 or 6, otherwise, the project won't be on the right tracks. The climate policy, you must make sure that our assets don't fail it's a whole -- this is the policies we follow. And I hope I will announce $6 a barrel in a year, but I'm counting on my teams and put things in the right order. The lady #1 has been waiting for a while, your turn.

I'm speaking on behalf of Deka Investment, one of the largest asset managers in Germany.

Well, the Mozambique projects and also Uganda posed some significant reputational risks for us as institutional investors and raise human rights concerns. Following past reports of abuses by security forces, we still expect TotalEnergies to commission an independent third-party investigation into these allegations.

Looking forward, what specific due diligence processes are in place to monitor the conduct of random muslim [indiscernible] security forces around the project and as well as the subcontractors operating on the ground? What contingency plans do you have if and on forces should withdraw as they are now subject to U.S. sanctions? Or if one enforces demand financial compensation to offset declining EU funding?

[Interpreted] So we're talking about Mozambique and the question of the management in terms of human rights of the security intervention that protect the area of [indiscernible]. I want to remind you of the scheme in Mozambique. This is a [ Pungi ] area that is granted to us. We have the responsibility of the security inside of this area. But outside of this, it is the government of Mozambique through the police and the army that ensures the security for us like for all of the inhabitants of [ Cabo Delgado ], they have the support of international forces. There were international courses and the forces from Rwanda.

The question is how do we make sure that all of this is done while respecting human rights and how do we make sure that we respect the voluntary principles for human safety rights at the DPHSR. So this is work that is being carried out on a daily basis in the field. you ask me if there had been some audits of independent third parties carried out, there were several on the topics. We had ourselves commissioned a report from Mr. Jean-Claude [indiscernible], who is a human right specialist, he went in the field. He looked at things. He looked at them from the societal and the security prison. He made some recommendations that we implemented. He had asked to nominate a coordinator who was specifically in charge of this question following the behaviors of these security forces. He did it. We've encouraged a grievance mechanism to make sure that if there are incidents that put face-to-face security forces and civilians, they have a capacity to warn us and we are carrying out investigations. If that is the case.

We haven't had any a while to be clear. There have been some. So there are mechanisms which means that in case of non-observation of the fundamentals that we want to implement fundamentals of the respective human rights we can keep in mind the payment that we make to the security forces what we've already done in the past. So there's a whole host of processes that were set up.

And in Uganda, it's the same thing we've published a new report of a third party. So there are regular reports that are done and they are done because I want to remind you that the two projects, the [ Jaco ] project in Uganda and the Mozambique projects are funded by third parties. So the lenders are very demanding in terms of observation of human rights of environmental standards. They're probably more demanding. Well, there is demanding as we are, but they're very demanding. For instance, in case of the financing of Mozambique LNG, we have done some new reports to support the consortium that is finalizing all of the documentation so that the conditions in which lifting the force majeure took place and the conditions that we felt the conditions to lift the force majeure were conditions linked to security.

And I encourage you this month on the side of Mozambique LNG that was a report published established by all of the partners within the case of the transparency of what we had with the representative of PFA Danish pension fund to say that, yes, the consortium, because it's not us. the consortium of Mozambique LNG would publish the reason why it was considered that the conditions were met to lift the force majeure, there were six to seven conditions linked to this and the way in which they carried out their assessment to come to this conclusion. So this report is a public report, and you'll have more elements in this report on how this was done.

So we do keep in mind, and I can tell you it's at the heart of the dialogue that we have concerning security with the authorities in Mozambique. The Mozambique authorities also want to ensure the security of the hole by themselves. And it's legitimate coming from a sovereign state. Right now, they are coordinating and the coordination is efficient with the Rwanda forces. And on this let's be clear, it's not our decision. What we're doing is that we're evaluating the security concept that is suggested outside of the zone, and we're concerned about what's happening inside of the area.

Today, since the operation were reconducted in January, we can't really flag any incident that would have triggered our concern. I'm very conscious of the utility of all of that. But I'm also well aware that for the authorities, it's a major project for Mozambique. It's not just for TotalEnergies or for the Total LNG project. It's also for the populations of [ Capo Delgado ], and we need to stabilize this region, and we're contributing to that by making sure that there's a lot of local employment. There's more that 900 people of the village that is near Mozambique leg come work for us every day. It's the village of [ Ktonda ].

And security is also an allied strategy. It's not just a strength strategy. It's to make sure that the neighboring populations feel that there is a share of prosperity and there'll be winners of this and that they defend project itself and not something you do to strength. You need to bring in the development of social economic aspect because the troubles in [ Cabo Delgado ] are in poverty, the Jihadis are able to convince the young people because there's extreme powering. So we need to create employment.

We've also established a foundation the Mozambique LNG foundation that was established by the consortium. I encourage you to read the report on the side of the foundation to see everything that is done. The foundation that has a significant budget of $200 million for 5 or 6 years has created a lot of little activities that represent about 8,000 employments. So here, the project is trying to create a positive dynamic. And this is how we ensure security.

In any case, I want to ensure the gap that is a shareholder, and I meet your -- the investors of your phone you're an investor that we really respect, we take this topic very seriously and it's at the top of our concerns.

So who am I going to go to right now, I need to move to the other room. I can see the gentleman at 6 and then the lady at 7, .6 first.

[Interpreted] Hello. I am a high schoolers, I'm 16 and from outside of France. And it's not the case of many high schoolers to look at finance and shareholdership and especially for an oil company. So I just wanted to know if you, as a business leader, you had an idea or some action plans I don't know, maybe in collaboration with the Ministry of Education to reform the program to better educate the young generation to entrepreneurship?

[Interpreted] Well, thank you very much for the question. I encourage you. We have a lot of actions with the government if TotalEnergies wants to get involved with education. I don't know whether that will be successful. I'm going to continue to support energy. But I support your idea, I think that the teaching of economics in France should be more generally reinforced. And it's one of the explanations of the discrepancy. It's already 5:10. So I've been expecting the hour and 10 minutes that we had allocated ourselves. So please, nobody take the floor anymore because I can't take anybody anymore. I'm going to take the lady at 7 and the lady at 5.

Didn't I see you earlier -- you have asked a question. So you're not allowed to ask any more questions. So 7 and 5, and then I'll come the gentleman for 4. So 7, 5 and then 4.

[Interpreted] In France, since the beginning of the war in the Middle East, you've set up a capping of the prices for gasoline and diesel in the service stations. You mentioned an increase of 30% of the sales during the promotion weekends in your service station. But more globally, what evolution do you see with the volumes of fuel sold and the sales figure in your service stations since that time since you've kept this last year.

[Interpreted] The consumption is decreasing. The consumption decreases. 30% has to do with the volume of last year. But overall, the consumption has decreased by about 13% over the course of April. So French people are reacting to the spending power. So there's a form of energy efficiency of demand destruction that is happening and it's regards to a market that is decreasing strongly.

So 13% less and moreover, our service stations, well, are being rushed, especially on the motorway because at EUR 1.99 when the other service stations are EUR 2.30, French people come to see us instead of. So the idea of the [ vice ] of energy is profoundly fundamental. So I said 7 and then 5. The gentleman.

[Interpreted] Hello, sir, I want to ask you a very short question. Do you think that in 2027, you will make this general assembly, more inclusive for people who are deaf and hard of hearing. And I'm sorry, I lose my balance if I had not stood up. I would have never been able to ask the question.

[Interpreted] Thank you, sir, for having stood. I'm taking the point. I don't know if today in AI are translating in sign language maybe. I'm taking the point I'm making sure that maybe our teams could do something. I like your suggestion. I'm taking it. We've got policies. I want to make sure that we include a disability it is something that is very strong within the company. Thank you for the question. I'm taking into account and we'll see how we better ask the question next year. I'm going to take it. I took #4, the gentleman before the vote.

[Interpreted] Hello, individual shareholder. I wanted you to talk about the patrimonial future of the company of [ Yamal ]. And there's a question that I asked you 2 years ago at the beginning of these events, on the side of [ RT ] in France, we were using about 3,000 megawatts of gas to produce electricity while exploring 10,000. And then lastly, I'd like to suggest to the assembly of shareholders to and services on drier that we propose your name as grand core of [indiscernible] officer will be enough?

[Interpreted] On the question of Yamal the patrimonial future of Yamal on the first of January 2027 -- yes, lady #5, you had left the gentleman. I'll take your question. I'll come back to you. Don't worry. You're right to say now. Yes, I'm sorry, I'm doing two things at the same time leading two screens. So for Yamal, on the first of January 2027, Europe doesn't want to receive any Russian LNG. It won't come anymore, but we remain shareholders of Yamal because that's not prohibited. Will TotalEnergies continue to sell the gasoline in Yamal outside of Europe? Well, it's not legally clear there's several interpretation of European regulation. We'll see what happens between now and then that's what I can tell you on Yamal and TotalEnergies. And TotalEnergies, shareholder of Yamal will see what we can do, but the best would be for this Russian Ukraine cons conflict to come to an end.

The lady and #5 because you were very patient.

[Interpreted] Francois [indiscernible] nominated and I'm also in a shareholders' club. I'm coming back to the [ NIC ] listing for the past 6 months. So as a preliminary, congratulations to all of Total in this context that is geopolitical and in the media that is quite delicate to always have some great financial results. You are #1 amongst your peers.

So including our American friends, you have a great breakeven you have a multi-energy strategy that your peers are starting to really broadly recognize and that allows you to have carbon footprint that is decreasing from year-to-year, so very well.

But in the U.S., you've had your price that has grown by 38%, whereas the #2 Exon has increased by 28%. This means that there was a difference of 10 points. Will the decrease that you had with ADS? Why is it quashed?

[Interpreted] I don't know. No, there's still some room to grow -- what is your upcoming strategy? Well, the ambition is to continue to convince more shareholders to buy our shares. It's quite simple at the multiples the ADR was a vehicle that wasn't really very popular with the U.S. investors we can see it, and it's clear today Jean-Pierre Sbraire, [indiscernible] and myself are meeting investors who are generally funds. There's a lot of money in wealth management funds that don't buy ADR shares or in Europe. It's in the U.S. There's still a difference of multiples between us and our colleagues. So there's still room for growth. We need to continue to convince them.

For the share to grow, we need to also continue need to convince more European shareholders to buy TotalEnergies shares because what happened for several years is that the shares suffered a lot because we had sales in Europe and purchases in the U.S.

Now we have a little bit more purchases themselves, but we need to reconquer the heart of European shareholders. And from that perspective, there are current regulations that are important for us, which are complicated regulations on the various funds and the qualification of the various funds on the European level.

This morning, one of my colleagues said it's incredible that this you would just let themselves are being done when we see that our energies are essential for the security of the continent.

A few years ago, I said that all of the weapons were excluded from the funds because they were not ethical and now they're ethical again. All of a sudden, so maybe energy will become ethical again. So we need to continue to do our advocacy and our strategy in the U.S., but also convince again Europeans to reinvest in European shares like those of TotalEnergies. So thank you, ma'am. We're going to stop there. I'm not exhausted, but I think we've exhausted the questions for sure. We're going to switch to the vote of the resolutions. I'm about 10 minutes late with regards to the time.

According to the latest attendance sheet finalized by the assemblies recording a shareholders represented having cases by May hold shares with voting rights. The number of shares represent a quorum that is still greater by 1/4 of voting rights, allowing us to proceed with the vote. The exact number will be published on our website tonight. So we will move on with the vote of the resolution.

Voting will be conducted using the electronic tablet provided to you when you signed in. The following video shows you how to use it. It's very simple. Hospices are available to assist you if needed.

[Presentation]

[Interpreted] I'm going to give the floor to jobs Jean-Pierre, who will present the resolutions to you before we put them to a vote.

[Interpreted] The first resolution is the approval of the company's financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, with a benefit of EUR 13.7 billion. Voting is open.

[Voting]

[Interpreted] Voting is closed. The resolution is adopted. 99.1%.

Second [indiscernible] the approval of the consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, with a net benefit TotalEnergies, attributable total leverage of $13.1 billion. Voting is open.

[Voting]

[Interpreted] Voting is closed. Now the [indiscernible] is adopted with the same percentage, 99.1%.

The third resolution appropriation of earnings and the determination of the dividend in fiscal year. The distribution of the dividend per share of EUR 3.40 per share for 2025 fiscal year, taking into account the interim dividend payments of EUR 0.85 already distributed. The remaining dividend of the 2025 fiscal amounts at EUR 0.85 per share. It will be listed on Euronext on July 2, 2026, and be nice on the 22nd July of 2026. Voting is open.

[Voting]

[Interpreted] The voting is closed. It is closed. The resolution is adopted. You all love dividends. That's great.

Moving to the fourth resolution. The purpose is to authorize our Board of Directors to repurchase or sell shares of the company in accordance with applicable legal provisions and the terms and conditions explained on the screen. This authorization will be granted for a period of 18 months from the date of this meeting. Voting is open.

[Voting]

[Interpreted] Voting has closed. The resolution is adopted. You also love purchasing buybacks of shares.

Renewal of directors for agreements referred to an article F2 25-38 of the commercial code which does not mention any new agreements. The voting is open.

[Voting]

[Interpreted] The vote has closed. The resolution is adopted. Resolution #6, renewal of Ms. [ Mari Christine ] [indiscernible] locate a Director for 3 years. Voting is open.

[Voting]

[Interpreted] The voting is closed. Resolution is adopted. Thank you. [ Mari Christine ] for continuing the inventor with us. .

Seventh resolution. The purpose is the renewal of Mrs. Anelise Lara as a Director for a period of 3 years. Voting is open.

[Voting]

[Interpreted] Congratulations Anelise.

Eighth resolution, the purpose is to renew Mr. Dick Basket as Director for a 3-year period. Voting is open.

[Voting]

[Interpreted] Voting is closed. The resolution is adopted. Congratulations, Dirk, and thank you for the presence of the Compensation Committee. The ninth resolution purposes to appoint Mr. [indiscernible] as a Director for a term of 3 years. Voting is open.

[Voting]

[Interpreted] Voting is closed. Well, the election, I'm glad somebody as tall and as big as me will be sitting around the table, we will be too to share the same values. Congratulations, [indiscernible]. Thank you for joining us.

Tenth resolution purpose is to improve -- approve information regarding the compensation of corporate officers referred to in Section 1 of Article 10 of the Commercial Code presented in the corporate governance report included in the company's 2025 universal registration document Chapter 4 3.12 and 21. Thank you. Voting is open.

[Voting]

[Interpreted] Voting is closed. The resolution is adopted.

11th resolution. The purpose of the labor resolution is to approve the compensation policy applicable to the directors in the corporate and is set forth in the corporate government report included in the company's Universal Registration 31 Voting is open.

[Voting]

[Interpreted] Voting is closed. The resolution is adopted. 12th resolution approval at the variable and special components comprising the total compensation and benefits of any kind paid during fiscal year 2025 or awarded for the fiscal year to Mr. Patrick Pouyanne, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The purpose of the 12 resolutions. So it's in the -- it is included in the company's 2025 universal registration document. Voting is open.

[Voting]

[Interpreted] Voting is closed. The resolution is adopted. I thank you. 13th resolution approval of the compensation policy for the Chief Executive Officer; as presented in the report of the [indiscernible] governance report included in the company's 2025 Universal Registration Chapter 3.4322. Voting is open.

[Voting]

[Interpreted] Voting is closed. The resolution is adopted. Resolution 14 aims to grant the Board of Directors the authority to increase the company's capital through the issuance of common stock and/or securities conferring on had interest in the company with the incorporation of premiums, reserves, profits and other items with the exclusion of the shareholders' preemptive subscription rights. The voting is open.

[Voting]

[Interpreted] The voting is closed. The resolution is adopted. Resolution 15 grants the Board of Directors of the authority to increase the company's capital as part of a public offering through the assurance of canned stock and/or securities conferring ownership interest in the company with the exclusion of shareholders' preemptive subscription rights. Voting is open.

[Voting]

[Interpreted] Voting has now closed. Resolution is adopted. Resolution 16 is delegate authority to the Board of Directors to issue through an offering address to smaller investors or qualified common shares or securities given access to the company's capital resulting with the exclusion of the shareholders' preemptive subscription rights. Voting is now open.

[Voting]

[Interpreted] Voting is now closed. The resolution is adopted. The purpose of the 17th resolution is to grant the Board of Direction the authority to increase the number of shares to be issued in the event of a capital increase with the cancellation of the shareholders' preemptive subscription rights. Voting is now open.

[Voting]

[Interpreted] The voting is now closed. Resolution is adopted. The purpose of the 18th resolution is to grant the Board of Directors the authority to increase the company's capital by ensuring common stock in exchange for contribution of security in the event of a public exchange offer initiated by the company with the exclusion of shareholders' preemptive subscription rights. Voting is open.

[Voting]

[Interpreted] The voting is now closed. Resolution is adopted. The purpose of the 19th resolution is to grant the Board of Directors the authority to increase the company's capital by ensuring common stocks and/or securities conferring ownership interest and company in consideration for contributions in kind made to the company with exclusion of the shareholders' preemptive subscription rights. Voting is now open.

[Voting]

[Interpreted] Voting is closed. Resolution is adopted. The purpose of the 20th resolution is to authorize the Board of Directors to carry out capital increases reserved for employees and participants in a company or group savings plan. Voting is now open.

[Voting]

[Interpreted] Voting is closed. Resolution is adopted. Thank you for allowing us to continue this policy, that is granting an increase of capital that [indiscernible]. To all of the employees listening to me. The Resolution 21 is to amend your company's article of incorporation on the one hand, to revise the age limits for the position of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Articles 12 and 15 of the Articles of Incorporation. Secondly, to update the articles of incorporation in accordance with the legal and regulatory provision transposing directive EU20222381, known as the women on board directive regarding the director represent employee shareholders, Article 11 of the Articles of Association. Voting is now open.

[Voting]

[Interpreted] Voting is closed. Resolution is adopted.

And now that all of the solutions have been put to a vote. Thank you for them. Please return your tablet and your headsets as you leave the room, hospices are available to assist you if you needed.

The final results of the vote will be available on the website under General Meetings section. To help us continue to improve your meetings ask you to please return the evaluation forms that were added at registration as you leave the room. The dates of our upcoming events are displayed on the screen. I would like to remind you that our next general meeting is scheduled on May 21, 2027 since the resolutions have been voted, and the [ Xcenda ] has been exhausted. I hereby adjourn the meeting.

Thank you for participating.

[Portions of this transcript that are marked [Interpreted] were spoken by an interpreter present on the live call.]

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to TotalEnergies' First Quarter 2026 Results Conference Call.

I now hand over to Patrick Pouyanne, Chairman and CEO; and Jean-Pierre Sbraire, CFO, who will lead you through this call.

Sir, please go ahead.

Good afternoon or good morning, everyone. I'm pleased to be with you again today. So before Jean-Pierre will go through the details of this first quarter financials, I would like first to make some few opening remarks, in particular, on the conflict in the Middle East and its consequences. As you know, this region, Middle East holds, of course, a very special place for TotalEnergies. It's deeply rooted in our DNA, in our history, in our identity because it is where the company was born in 1924 in Iraq.

And more importantly, this is a region where we have established along the years, a prime position, which differentiates ourselves. Since the very first day of the conflict on February 28, our priority has been first the security of our teams and their families. And we have decided just 2 days after to organize the evacuation of employee families and as well as some nonessential employees out of the UAE, Qatar, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, German and Lebanon.

Thanks to the strong mobilization in all our affiliates in the regions, but also around the globe and also at the quarters, more than 1,300 people have returned safely from the countries concerned by the conflict. And I want to thank all the teams who participated to that strong effort. Safety of our staff will remain our utmost priority, but I want also to reiterate here our full solidarity and support for the population of these countries, which suffers a consequence of the conflict. And we -- I want to reaffirm TotalEnerg's commitment to all our local partners, contractors and customers.

From this point of view, I want to underline that we kept a presence in all the countries aside our partners. For example, in Abu Dhabi, all our secondaries working for the ADNOC JVs, are maintained underground. It's the same situation in Qatar. We have also, by the way, sent some experts to assist Qatar Energy in evaluating the damage and repair necessary to the 2 trains which were damaged during the conflict.

We have maintained a team in Iraq in Basra of 20 TotalEnergies staff, which are supervising the progress of the [ DGH ] projects on the ground with around 5,000 workers there. And also in Saudi Arabia, we have, of course, maintained on most of our secondies in order to supervise the ARL projects, which mobilized today 22,000 workers. So my message on this first is to thank all our teams, which are, again, working hard in the region facing the situation. I went myself last week to visit them.

And I can tell you that I feel I had a strong feeling of a high mobilization of everybody facing these adverse events. And also, I met, of course, our partners and authorities to reaffirm our commitment to the region. Of course, we will have to draw some lessons from what happened, in particular, to envisage some alternative evacuation routes for the production of oil in the region, but that will come after the conflict. This conflict immediately has some impact on TotalEnergies operations. And we have been, by the way, very transparent, I would say, since day 1 to disclose all the impact on our activities. So at this stage, production is shut down in Qatar, Iraq and UAE offshore, which represents approximately 15% of the total oil and gas production of the company, more precisely, 360,000 barrels per day because we continue to produce onshore UAE production -- oil production, 210,000 barrels per day TotalEnergies sales, which is evacuated for terminal out of the strait of Om. And we also continue to produce the Dolphin gas between Qatar and UAE because it's, I would say, a domestic production. While this is a significant portion of our production upstream, the Middle Eastern assets contributes less to our cash flow per barrel than the rest of our portfolio due to higher taxation in the regions and this 15% of volumes, a little less 360,000 barrels per day impact account -- only account for roughly 10% of our upstream cash flow at $60 per barrel.

The company's cash accretive growth expected for 2026 is largely outside the Middle East, and you've seen that through the results of the first quarter, meaning that the higher oil price observed since the start of the crisis more than offset, of course, the loss of production in the Middle East and equivalent of $8 per barrel increase in the Brent, is enough to offset the expected 2026 CSO [indiscernible] from the shut-in production. And we are, of course, today of more of $100 per barrel, I think, even $115 per barrel this morning, which represents which in terms of our sensitivities to price represents substantial additional cash flows.

The impact on the LNG production shutdowns in Qatar or in Abu Dhabi on our energy trading activities are, in fact, very limited as our exposure to our marketing portfolio is limited to 1.5 million tonnes for the remainder of 2026. I remind you that most of the LNG produced by our JVs in Qatar are, in fact, marketed by Qatar Energy itself and not by TotalEnergies. Finally, on our refining activities in the region, the set of site which is owned jointly by Aramco and TotalEnergies was impacted by [indiscernible] that occurred during the night of April 7 through April 8, causing damage to 3 units. No casualties were reported. As a safety precaution, the units were immediately shut down. A partial restart occurred on April 14, allowing to resume production at 50% capacity, 230,000 barrels per day. And the repair work on the first one of the unit, BDU units are well underway, and we expect to restart and to increase the production to more than 300,000 barrels per day from beginning of early days of May, May.

So that's the situation for our assets. But discount, of course, has consequences beyond the only perimeter of TotalEnergies and now will impact the course of 2026 very significantly in terms of markets. Also the damage to upstream assets has been limited so far. The closure of the state of almost constitute a major disruption to the world energy system as it affects around 20% of worldwide oil crude oil, refined products and of course, LNG exports. And there is very limited spare capacity of production outside the Gulf in reality. So the immediate consequence of the surge in oil prices, which are now around $100, $115 per barrel, which have been extremely volatile with major swings in the past weeks.

Some days have been the highest days. I think we experienced 8 of the 10 highest volatile days in the last 25 years during the month of March and April. So given the time required to restart facilities, but also and more importantly, to reach the market because the oil tanker, which will be loaded in Abu Dhabi or in Saudi Arabia will take 25 days of shipping to reach its customers in Asia, Korea, Japan. And so there is a time lag.

Even if the war to end quickly, prices are expected to remain at high levels. And in all the scenarios, I can read and I agree with the scenarios I'm reading either from the IMF or from some banks, at least $80 per barrel is expected for 2026. In fact, the reality is that the 2026 surplus scenario that was anticipated by the market and by ourselves, by the way, at the beginning of the year is now over.

It's behind us with global hydrocarbon inventories being materially drawn to balance the market. already at a pace of 10 million to 13 million barrels of oil per day. We have already consumed, I would say, 500 million barrels out of the inventories. And with the phenomenon I described to restart and to the market, it's probably more 1 billion barrels, which will at least be consumed from the inventories. And we would exit even if the conflict, and I hope so, will end in the month of May, we would exit the conflict with clearly some very low inventories.

So this conflict also has some impact on the LNG markets and prices. We have seen that the European gas price have established today at around $15 per million BTU. But again, we are facing now by this summertime, the peak season for LNG because it's only the warm summer season in Asia, which will grow and which will call for more LNG demand. But also it will be a season where Europe will have to replenish its storage.

And as you know, at the end of the winter season, we were at the lowest point of the last 5 years in terms of European gas storage around 25%. And we anticipate as well, and I was in Qatar that Qatar LNG, we wait for a real stabilization of the straight of ours before to restart the liquefaction plant. We cannot turn off this plant easily. So it will also impact -- I would say, the time it will take to reach the market. So that's on LNG. And I would not be surprised to see some support from higher prices by summer season considering this time lag that Qatar LNG could go back to the market and Qatar LNG almost 20% of the world market.

So in this context, the strategy of TotalEnergies demonstrates once again the ability of the company to capture price upside, thanks to major strategic strengths on the company. And also, I must say, I complement the team because of the strong operational performance, which, of course, is of essence in such markets during the first quarter. First, of course, we are integrated along the value chains of oil, gas, LNG, electricity and allows us to capture margins and prices all along the value chains and provide us with a unique combination of activities in oil, gas, electricity, being a low-cost producer, transforming them into added value products, which can then be traded on the market and sold to our B2B, B2C customers.

Secondly, we are a growing company and a strong organic growth. And then we are demonstrating quarter after quarter our ability to strongly grow our production with -- as you've seen a 4% year-on-year organic production growth for the oil and gas business and also, of course, our electricity business. 4% for oil and gas was above our annual guidance of 3% and which, of course, helps to offset, if not completely during the first -- it was completed during the first quarter will be partially during the second quarter, the impact of Middle East conflict.

But more importantly, it allows us to capture the upside of the high prices because the incremental production, new production that we put on stream is more attractive and generates more cash flows per barrel than the average of the portfolio. Third, we are diversified. And I think this is, again, a strong lesson of this crisis, strong diversification, our rich and diversified portfolio allow us to compensate again the impact of the crisis in the Middle East for our geographically diversified portfolio of oil and LNG outside of the region. notably allow us to activate the flexibility of our LNG portfolio to ensure the security of supply of all our customers.

And the diversity of the LNG portfolio, we are producing in 11 different countries allow us to serve our customers in Asia, rerouting some noncontracted volumes that we have in our portfolio to them and not to declare any force majeure in our contracts. I can ensure you because I visited some customers in Asia, but they appreciate very much the value of the contract commitment at TotalEnergies. We have also, I would say, and it's another example of the optionality of our diversified portfolio.

I would say that more than ever, the decision to restart the Mozambique LNG construction in January is -- could be fully appreciated because it's a way a diversification, which will be good for our portfolio by 2029. It was an article recently in the journal that the Mozambique will be the [indiscernible] of Africa, and we are proud to be -- to build these projects in Mozambique, and it will help us to diversify. And I would say as well as we are working hard, these events are giving a good momentum to sanction Papua LNG before year-end.

So in this context, of course, and compared to the beginning of the year where we were all cautious, there are no reason not to fulfill all our commitments for strong returns to shareholders. And I think the Board has taken decisions yesterday that I'm happy to report to you and considering, of course, the strength of the balance sheet, but also the environment and taking into account the ability to demonstrate our growth. priority was again given to what I call the [indiscernible] dividend by continuing to -- it's our strong track record of dividend growth, and we have decided to increase the first interim dividend by 5.9%, above probably market expectation to EUR 0.9 per share compared to last year interim dividend, which was EUR 0.85. So we confirm once again the leadership of TotalEnergies, not only in terms of dividend resiliency, but also more important, dividend growth among the oil and gas majors.

Secondly, in view, and we are, I would say, very pragmatic and consistent once again, in view of the current projections of the evolution of the prices, not only the second quarter, but as I said, along the year 2026, the Board of Directors gave us the authorization to continue, of course, the share buyback program up to the high end of the range that we gave last February, which was $750 million to $1.5 billion per quarter. So we'll target the high end of this range up to $1.5 billion per quarter.

The Board also reiterate the objective to achieve a cash payout ratio above 40% for the full year 2026, and we will monitor buybacks accordingly along the year. Keep as well in mind that in terms of capital allocation, Board attached great importance to deleverage the balance sheet, and we would be happy to see gearing in the low 10 by the end of '26 if the barrel price or the crude oil price was remaining above $100 per barrel.

On that note, and I will now turn now the call to Jean-Pierre, who will go through the details of the first quarter financials.

Thank you, Patrick. So I will start by commenting on the price environment in the first quarter versus the first quarter '25. Brent averaged $81 per barrel during the first quarter versus nearly $64 per barrel in the first quarter, up more than 25% and average liquid price was up by $12.4 per barrel due to the time lag effect in particular in the [indiscernible] [indiscernible] averaged $13.7 per MMBtu versus $10.3 per MMBTu during the first -- during the fourth quarter of '25.

And our average LNG price stayed at $8.5 per MMBtu, oil price increase impacting LNG prices with 1 or 2 months of lag time according to LNG pricing formulas. Finally, the European refining margins remained at $11.4 per barrel on average over the quarter with exceptional margin in March and poor margins in January and February. In this price environment, the company reported very strong financial results with first quarter '26 cash flow of $8.6 billion, increasing by 20% compared to the first quarter and adjusted net income increasing by more than 14 -- 40% to $5.4 billion.

These results, as already highlighted by Patrick, were possible because of the strong operational performance of all businesses, which demonstrated the company's ability to fully capture the environment upside. Upstream delivered a 4% upstream underlying attractive production growth, offsetting the production loss due to the crisis in the Middle East stream a very good operational performance of our refinery utilization rate on average over the quarter above 90% that allow us to capture high refining margins in March.

And trading was also able to take benefits from the high market volatility in March and delivered a high performance on crude petroleum products, but also LNG. TotalEnergies has delivered a strong profitability this quarter with return on equity at 14.4% and ROCE at 12.7%. Now moving to the business segments and starting with Hydrocarbons. On a year-on-year basis, excluding the impact of the Middle East conflict, first quarter oil and gas production exceeded expectation and increased by more than 4% above the guidance provided of 3% for '26. As communicated by the company from the very beginning, the production was impacted by COVID in the Middle East with an impact of around 100,000 barrels per day on average for the quarter, which corresponds on average to around 25 days of disruption during the month of March.

E&P, exploration and production. So turning to quarterly results and starting with E&P division. The segment generated an adjusted net operating income of $2.6 million this quarter, up by more than 40% quarter-to-quarter, fully capturing the increase in average liquid price of $12.4 per barrel over the quarter and demonstrating the attractiveness of the new projects. This quarter, [indiscernible] Southwest in Brazil, in Libya started up and we each once ramped up, bring an additional production capacity of 25,000 barrels oil per day. Similarly, cash flow reached for E&P $4.6 billion, up 26% quarter-to-quarter.

On the cost side, once again, we maintained our leadership with an average OpEx per barrel of oil equivalent below $5 in the first quarter '26. On integrated LNG on the production side, LNG production, it has grown by 12% quarter-to-quarter, mainly supported by growth in Australia with [indiscernible] back to full capacity during the quarter, the United States and Malaysia. First quarter LNG sales reached 12.4 million tonnes, supported by strong spot activity, giving us a strong start compared to our yearly guidance of more than $44 million. [indiscernible] growth and strong trading activity capturing market volatility, the adjusted net operating income of integrated LNG went [indiscernible] category quarter-on-quarter to $1.3 billion and cash flow to $1.8 billion.

Given the evolution of the oil and gas prices in recent months and the lag effect on pricing formulas I already mentioned, the company anticipates an average LNG selling price of around $10 per MMBtu for the second quarter of '26. As we execute our consistent strategy in LNG, the main milestone of the quarter was the full restart of construction activity at our Mozambique LNG projects with more than 6,000 people already on site as we speak. This project was more than [indiscernible] specification with the LNG supply [indiscernible] crisis of goods, [indiscernible]

Turning to integrating power now. So net production -- net power production increased year-on-year up to 11.7 terawatt hour with a 20% growth of power generation from renewables offsetting the lower utilization of gas [indiscernible] capacities [ in the context of lower winter demand in Europe and in the United States. TotalEnergre has increased renewable capacity by nearly 8 gigawatts, 12 [indiscernible] to reach [indiscernible] of 42 gigawatt installed capacity at the end of the year. Cash flow from operation was $0.6 billion as [indiscernible] comes down [indiscernible] of '26 in the fourth quarter of '25.

This quarter again, we provide more granularity in integrated Power financial performance with a split in cash flow between production assets on one side, renewables and gas-fired plants and sales activity on the other side, B2B, B2C and trading. The former contributed 35% of the cash flow and the latter for 65%, in line with the first quarter of '25 due to the seasonal nature of the marketing business with more consumption, obviously, during the winter the closing of deals that we announced this morning, TotalEnergies reaches now at 50% interest in a portfolio of [indiscernible] power generation assets in Europe and integrated power should then benefit in '26 from 10 terawatt hour of net production -- net power production in line with the 15 terawatt [indiscernible] given for the full year and more than $500 million contribution to available cash flow in relation with EPHE.

Moving to downstream. And during the first quarter, Refining & Chemicals was able to capture the exceptional margins in March, thanks again to the high availability of the refineries, which recovered their full operational performance, was particularly the case in dollar in the U.S. and [indiscernible]. Utilization reached 92% in the absence of planned turnarounds and trading activities were also very strong for prudent products taking benefits of the market volatility. Overall for ARC, adjusted net operating income was up nearly $600 million quarter-to-quarter up to 1.6 billion and cash flow reached $1.7 billion.

In Marketing Services, results remain consistently strong and reflects the seasonality of the business with higher margin activities offsetting lower volumes linked to the disposal of some assets in Brazil and in Africa. Moving to corporate company level and starting with working cap. So working cap increased by $5.1 billion during the first quarter, out of which $2.5 billion is related to [indiscernible] business seasonalities and $2.6 billion that reflects the impact of higher hydrocarbon prices at the end of the quarter, notably on inventories.

While the context remains quite volatile, we deploy our investment program with discipline with net investments that amounted to $4.5 billion in the first quarter with a neutral balance between acquisitions and disposal in line with our quarterly budget. And we, therefore, reiterate full year '26 net investment guidance of $15 billion. As a result, the gearing lands at 15.5% at the end of the quarter with cash flow growth driven by higher energy prices, partially offsetting in particular, the impact of high prices on the working capital.

Looking forward now, we expect to maintain strong momentum with hydrocarbon production, excluding Middle East impact in the second quarter expected to grow around 4% compared to the second quarter of '25, in line with first growth registered during the first quarter. As we speak, as mentioned by Patrick, production shutdown in the Middle East still represent around 15% of the company's total production, and we anticipate refining utilization in the range of 80% to 85% in the second quarter, which accounts for a 2 month scheduled maintenance at [indiscernible] and the impact of the capacity reduction of the [indiscernible] commented by Patrick.

As I mentioned, the company confirmed it expects its yearly net investment to be at $15 million for the full year, in line with annual guidance. Therefore, this investment should trend downwards in the second quarter. Meanwhile, the company is evaluating options to accelerate short-cycle investment to capture current hydrocarbon price environment. To conclude, the set of growing earnings clearly demonstrate in our view, the strength of our integrated model in oil, gas and power, which enable us to see price updates upside in the first quarter and put us in a strong position for the second quarter and the rest of the year.

With that, I think with Patrick, we are now available to answer your questions. So you can open up the line for questions, please.

[Operator Instructions] the first question is from Michele Della Vigna, Goldman Sachs.

Congratulations on the strong results. I wanted to ask 2 questions on LNG. The first one is about whether with all of this crisis, you're starting to see a resurgence of demand for oil-linked long-term contracts and if that can unlock more LNG projects for you like, for instance, PNG. But longer term, I was also wondering if this crisis may actually be a bit more concerning and reduce some of the dependence on hydrocarbons from Asia, for instance, turn some of those countries more towards coal, solar and energy storage as an alternative. And if that could actually make perhaps what already looks like probably an oversupplied LNG market from 2028 last well into the next decade.

Okay. I will take the second one first, [indiscernible]. It's quite clear for our customers in Asia, the crisis in '22, another one in '26. reliability, I would say, from an affordability point of view of the LNG will be questioned. And that's why, by the way, we think we will -- we have to promote to them the idea of long-term contracts, not only related to spot price, that's very clear. That's what the Europeans because the whole are not benefiting from. I think it should influence -- put them more on this type of long-term contract. You are right.

But the way the whole planet not only in Asia. I think the government will look again to like we were in the '70s domestic production first, I would say, domestic energy first, whatever it is coming from coal when you have coal coming from biofuels. By the way, Malaysia, Indonesia are beginning to raise their biodiesel content very logically. But coming to renewables, of course, as well. And from this position of company, TotalEnergies could benefit from it because we are also investing in electricity, I would say. So that will be -- and I would say electrification will be also a global answer because it will be -- you can produce electricity from various needs and not only from hydrocarbon.

So that will be the other big trend, I think we will see because security of supply because, again, affordability of energy is of essence. So it's not a very good news, I agree for the LNG markets. As you said, probably the result of this crisis as well is that we pushed back some of the, I would say, the famous wave. I think because there will be some delays in some projects because we are -- by the way, we don't know today how long the war will last, we have no idea. But I see -- I was -- I always said that '26 will remain a good price. I think '27 will be optimistic then what you said, the oversupply LNG market will come from 2028. But I would say, by the way, that it's not bad for customers to have an oversupplied market.

One of the observations I've done when I observe what happened today with the crisis, and it's quite remarkable. I know only 2 markets today where there will be no impact on the crisis on the energy price. One was the U.S. domestic gas price still remain at even lower at $3 instead of $4 before of $3.5. Why? Because there was -- there is an oversupply. There is overcapacity, the Permian gas now it's connected through pipelines. And the other market they observed is French electricity market, no impact at all because also overcapacities of nuclear and renewables, by the way, both. So we produce too much.

And so that means that it is a way to secure the affordability. So from this perspective, because of what you said and the fear which could be generated to our customer -- energy customers, the fact that we will enter at a certain point when probably more summer '28 than before or winter '28 to, I would say, a lower cycle will be good to convince them to come to us. It's -- I make a link with your first question. Honestly, today, I think we were happy and lucky to have signed a lot of oil link contracts because in this context, we are very sort of bullish price of oil. We have always quite be bullish, but I think this context, the crisis will also impact, I would say, this oil market because there will be now something which was completely even, which, in fact, was only putting in the cartography, which was closing of the state of almost became a real possibility to materialize this spread is materialized.

And you have in the Gulf, more than 20% of -- 25% to 20% of the oil resource, oil and gas resource. So clearly, I think this will have an impact on the way that the markets I would say, take this threat into even if we go to a stabilized situation for straight of will have an impact on the market -- on the Middle East market, I would say. So today, I think we are happy to see that. We see appetite from Asian buyers for Papua LNG, not only because of the contract, because of the geographical position, I would say. Of course, Papua LNG is perfectly located, not far from them outside. So any diversity is good. And -- but on our side as well, we think that we are -- by the way because of this geography, we'll see if we sign long-term contract for Papua LNG or if we keep some LNG for our own portfolio because we like this LNG as well for our own portfolio.

So we'll be -- but again, no problem from this perspective to to sign. And we might be, I would say, in this context, a little tougher in the negotiation. What I've observed in the last week, some Asian buyers come back to [indiscernible] because they just observe what happens and the stable, I would say, an affordable gas marker is the [indiscernible]. I think so there will be quite a lot of new popularity for the [indiscernible] if some LNG offtakers want to sell their LNG there. But definitely, this crisis has an impact on all the global LNG market. Having said that, you've seen our results during the first quarter. While you have a strong diversified portfolio, you can do good results when you have volatility. And I think we demonstrated that with our teams during the first quarter. I think we will continue for the next quarter as well.

The next question is from Biraj Borkhataria, RBC.

Thank you for the comprehensive overview of your operations. The first one was just on the comment in the release around accelerating short-cycle investments. Could you just unpack that a little bit more? What opportunities are you looking at? And secondly, kind of what are you looking to see macro-wise or otherwise to put that capital to work? And then secondly, just a follow-up on Papua New Guinea. Could you just talk about the steps from here to FID? Are the fiscal terms all now agreed and tendered and so on? Just any uncertainties there ahead of FID.

Okay. First question. I mean you would have been surprised that we did not mention that I'm sure I would have a question. So it's quite natural from the CEO of the company that I've asked to my E&P teams, okay, is there anything to accelerate on the short cycle to benefit from a higher price deck because again on '26, I'm quite -- I mean, be confident it's difficult in this world.

But to see at least $80 per barrel, I don't think it's -- I would put quite a lot of my money on it for the rest of the year. So by the way, there are -- it's just -- it's an exercise which is moving on. I know there are a few countries like Angola, for example, where they have some ideas. So if we need to dedicate a few hundred million dollars to that, I would do it. It will be -- maybe I will tell you at the end of the day, but it's not $15 billion, $15 billion to $15.5 billion, but it will -- you will accept it if it is profitable on the short term.

I think honestly, I'm not sure it's so big because, in fact, when we built the budget, we did not arbitrate a lot of short-term cycles. In fact, we had a list of what we could cancel in case the price of oil was going down to $50 per barrel. So we prepared in case of, I would say, adverse market. But we have asked the questions. And I know that because I visited some countries that they have some few ideas. So I'm quite -- I can be flexible on keeping the discipline.

But again, if we can generate some good free cash flow in the short term, everybody will appreciate it. So it's not probably as big as I just mentioned, it's probably some hundred million to hundred million dollars that we are -- we could mobilize subject to capacity to have the rigs, et cetera. So we are working on it with some countries. On PNG LNG, I think it's big projects, good many partners.

Many -- we have in parallel some, I would say, at least 4 workflows. So the CapEx side, I would say, and the EPC are progressing very well. We have made some recommendations to our partners. We are waiting for the approval from one of them. So I hope we will get it soon so that we can move forward with these tenders. In parallel to that, we have, I would say, the financing of the project because there is a project financing. Both are it, by the way, because as you know, selection of the nationality of some contractors have an impact of the involvement of export credit agencies. So we need to do -- it's not -- there is a little sequence there.

So we need to have decided the contractors so that we can definitely confirm to the different credit export agencies. So that's also -- I think there is some appetite clearly from Asian credit export agencies, but also we discussed with the U.S. ones about it. And so we are moving on the financing of it as well. So it's a second workflow. The third workflow, as you said, is a discussion with the government. They are progress, I would say. I could almost say finalized, but I didn't see the ink on the paper. But between the government and ourselves, there is a good understanding on the agreement. So I can say that. Of course, it will have to be again approved by the partners.

So we are in the, I would say, now in the process to final to close the loop, I would say, between partners, governments on this and terms the idea there is somewhere to protect the projects the CapEx will be around $14.5 billion. So it's quite -- it's not too cheap. It's much better than the $18 billion, but it's still cheap. So the idea is to protect the projects when the price of oil are low and to give back some when the prices are high above $90, I would say.

So there is a sort of trade-off, which is good for the -- which would be good. And the fourth one is the marketing on the marketing. So on the marketing, there is some progress, quite a lot of progress. But again, on our side, the more we look to Papua LNG, the more we have appetite for the LNG located in that region and diversifying our portfolio. So it's possible that we could market because we market not only LNG, but the one of [indiscernible] as well, we could market maybe 1 million tonnes in the long term and keep the other 1.5 to 2 for our own portfolio.

So we are looking to different options. So all that is progressing. I would say the target is to sanction the project for sure before the end of the validity of the offers, which is, I think, around November. So because in this market, I don't want to have to -- we don't want to reopen and to negotiate to extend offers. We could face some inflation there. So -- but I think we are aligned, I think, with the partners on moving to the FID second half of the year. the government for sure. There is a last point to clarify if I want to be exhaustive. We need to be sure of the way that the financing, there is a back in, and we need to know exactly what is the back to be exercised. So all this work through, we try to -- we are working on them in parallel to the FID.

The next question is from Lydia Rainforth from Barclays.

Two questions, please. Could you just touch on the early closing of the EPH transaction and what options that now gives you? And then secondly, could I come back to the cash return side? I just want to be clear about what sort of the message is around where we see cash returns going through here because obviously, you're at the top end of the guidance that you've given, but that was at $60 to $70. And I'm just trying to work out whether you're prepared to -- whether you would go beyond that or whether the priority then is the debt side coming down. I just want to be clear on the messaging around cash returns for the rest of the year.

So first point, EPH first, I mean we have been -- the teams have been very efficient. By the way, the antitrust also have been super efficient because even in Europe, we course to get the approval on these transactions, which allow us to close early -- end of April instead of end of June. So that means that we are now entering into this new company, TTEP at the time, which, by the way, is not too bad because as gas price are higher in Europe and the electricity price in a country like Italy, we have a big exposure now to Italy.

Italy is facing some increase of electricity price. And so this gas will have a little higher margin. In fact, some EUR 2 per megawatt are beyond, I would say, the normal average margin. So it's positive. the second good news, recently, the EH team managed to get very attractive new capacity contracts for some plants in Ireland around 200,000 -- GBP 200 [indiscernible] per kilowatt hour. So we come with time where it's good news. So first, I'm happy to join to make it earlier. And it gave us, of course, options, as you know. Now we will have access to 50% of the electrons of all the [indiscernible] fleet. And so this will allow our teams to increase our trading business, but also to go to customers to sell them power with combining gas and electrons coming from the gas-fired power plant, flexible electrons with the renewable electrons.

So that's exactly the pace. So we are -- we will move forward. We gave you some indications, I think, in the press release that the impact because it's from 1st of May. So I think we evaluate the impact on the production around 10 terawatt hour, and we told you that the cash flow should be at least 2/3 of an annual cash flow, which means at least $500 million of impact, maybe a little more. We see less enter in the venture.

So I would say, give a push to the integrated power business, and you should see next quarter and third and fourth quarter, I would say, in the results and the cash step compared to where we are today. Cash return. I mean, be clear we are going -- step by step. We gave you -- yes, you're perfectly right on the buyback. We gave you at the beginning of the year, $750 million to $1.5 billion between $60 and $70. So we told you immediately on the second quarter, we'll monitor that quarter-after-quarter, to be clear. We grew to high end of the range to $1.5 billion for this quarter.

And then I have added in my comments that we are guided by another objective, which is 40% of payout. So if you make the math, you will see that if we are at $90 per barrel, for example, as an average, as an example, need to go beyond 1.5 for the second and third quarter. But I think the idea is to monitor it progressively because again, there is -- I don't know if we will be at 80, 90, 100. But we reiterate this commitment and the Board reiterates the commitment in the press release to give you the guidance at least more than 40%. I have added to you that because more than 40% could be 40%, 45%.

I just added to you another guidance to tell you that if we were in a scenario of $90 or $100 per barrel, there is some cash priority will be also to deleverage the company. And if we are able to combine low [indiscernible] of gearing and higher buybacks, we will do it. So I hope I'm clear. I cannot -- I will not give you a precise scale what happens at 75, 80, 85, 90, 95 is mathematical formula. I'm not a perfect engineer. So I prefer you to guess now.

Next question is from Martijn Rats of Morgan Stanley.

I've got two, if I may. I wanted to ask you about the 2 to 3 months sort of restart time that you mentioned in the release. And I was hoping you could elaborate a bit on what really happens in that period? What are the steps that are on the critical path that make this longer or shorter? Is it tankers back into the Persian Gulf? Is it well intervention? Are there critical components in some of the LNG facilities. I mean can you please make that sort of operational logistical sort of what really drives that? And secondly, I wanted to ask you about Mozambique, where we are now with the total budget for the project and the start the time line? I remember $15 billion, but I also heard a $20 billion. Can you just give an update on where we are now?

On the second question, $20 billion has been consistent for the last 2 years. $15 billion, it was a long time ago. We have told you that there was some interim cost because of force majeure. We have updated. We have been obliged to renegotiate some of the EPC, I would say, contracts because 4 years after, of course, there is inflation. So I repeated $20 billion in all my speech for the last 2 years. So I repeat $20 billion today, and this is the budget on which we are and which we put the financing, by the way, on the basis of $20 billion. So the rest is rumors, but this is the point. So this one is the time line. We have started in January.

So we have 6,000 or more people on the ground today. So they are -- I mean I've been there with the President of Mozambique, and they are already -- construction has begun on the train on the first train and jetty. So time line is that the objective and the timing is to produce first LNG by 2029, the first train. So that's where we -- we are sticking to that time line. And the mobilization is on its way to reach this target today. And on these projects, we have, in fact, we spent some money not only to save good equipment, et cetera during 4 years, but also to progress all the engineering and the procurement. So all that has been done is very advanced compared to, I would say, traditional projects. We have a progress at the end of March of the project.

If I see the global progress of the project at the end of March is 42%, in fact. So it's not -- we are not starting from cash. We have progressed on these projects. And so it's a matter to be able to construct. By the way, since January, the security situation in [indiscernible] quiet, I would say, and is well under control, thanks to the support of both Mozambican forces, but also forces which are committed to remain in the area on the first time. So I mean, probably there is -- I was reading the press release at the same time because, in fact, to restart facilities, it does not take 2 to 3 months.

The 2 to 3 months is covering first today, there is no -- it's covering the whole cycle that I described in my introduction speech. It's also the fact between the way you will restart oil production, you will bring tankers. You need to -- because the tankers, which are today in the Gulf are all full. So you have, I think, something like several hundred of tankers that you need to exit. You need to bring some empty tanker back. Then you need to ship a new oil to, I would say, some destination in Asia, like I said, it's 20-25-day shipping. It's longer if you need to go to Europe. So it's more -- it's a matter of the delay, is not only -- because restarting the wells, it's not very complex. In the Middle East, production is generally quite easy production.

So we don't expect difficulties from restarting the wells. It's more restarting the world system to stabilize it to come back to the through where before the war, you had [indiscernible] every day 50 oil tankers moving in, moving out the Gulf, et cetera, and charging and loading oil or loading products. So that's this cycle where we estimate 2 to 3 months to have -- so it's not exactly what the world is restarting production facility is restarting or coming back to, I would say, a normal mode, which would have been -- should have been more correct in our statement.

What I said on the LNG side, I spent some time in Qatar, is on Qatar side, it's clearly, of course, we cannot afford to -- I mean, start on again [indiscernible] plants and start off again if the prices come back. So I think it's very wisely wants to observe, I would say, some certain stability in the situation before to be able to restart. So that might take a little more time, knowing that LNG tankers, the fleet is not as strong. I mean, as big as oil tankers. So we need to move the LNG tankers. And then we don't use the Red Sea. We don't use the Red Sea, for example, with LNG tankers. So the tour to the voyage to come from Middle East from Qatar to Europe is longer around Africa. So this is again an estimation more of the time that it will take to come back to, I would say, a normal situation just to come back.

The next question is from Doug Leggate of Wolfe Research.

I wonder if I could also squeeze in Patrick and Jean-Pierre.

Maybe first maybe for Jean-Pierre for whichever wants to answer this. You're getting an opportunity with these windfall oil prices, obviously, to address your capital structure perhaps. Obviously, working capital bumped up your net debt, but you also, I guess, added another hybrid bond pending the redemption later this year. I'm just wondering, where would you like to see the capital structure? And in this environment, why hold any hybrid bonds given those were something of an emergency issue during COVID? That's my first question. My follow-up is just very quickly, Patrick, I wonder if this environment as it relates to refining margin specifically, has changed your view on Port Arthur as a core asset?

[indiscernible] So we do not increase -- the intent is not to increase the hybrid bond portfolio. We are opportunistic at TotalEnergies. The hybrid market was very good in January and February. By the way, it was before the crisis, so before the $100 per barrel price. So we decided to do liability management. So just to anticipate, in fact, the bond that will mature end of this year by replacing it at good condition. So it was $1.5 billion. So that's all. So it's not -- our intention is not to increase this portfolio. So just benefiting from good markets at the beginning of the year to, in fact, to anticipate the reduction of the bond.

And what about the capital structure generally, Jean-Pierre? I mean, why not take the opportunity to lower the net debt?

I said that. I think I told you that I just told you that the objective, if I want to reach a gearing of low 10s, that means lowering the net debt fundamentally. So that's the way to look to reach low 10. So I told you that one of the objectives -- primary objective and that will be if we are at $90, $100 per barrel environment, the Board and I convey to you the message of the Board in the arbitration, we have on one side, the 40% of payout to shareholders that will stick on.

But if some of you ask me to go to 50%, I might answer to you, no, 40% -- more than 40% is our commitment. And the other the extra cash we prefer to deleverage and to lower the net debt going down to gearing of 10%, and maybe lower in fact. So for me, that's part of the -- that's clearly the trend that we -- I would say, the direction we want to give you today.

So we share your view. On Port Arthur, you have a buyer for Port Arthur, you have an idea in the No. I mean, honestly, Port Arthur is a very good asset. It's, by the way, today, making good results. I can tell you. It's a very positive asset in this environment. It has a value for trading teams because it's the only asset. Trading is not only -- not in our company. We, in fact, optimizing, I would say, our assets and molecules and there are flows around of assets. The optimize molecules around of assets. So it's the anchor point for [indiscernible] and we have a strong trading arm in the U.S. and Port Arthur is, I would say, an anchor point is a tool for them. So it's on one side for the refiners, profitable assets where we have also, I remind you, integrated a lot of petrochemical assets with BTP and crackers. So it's an integrated platform. And today, we benefit from good margins. For example, today, we have engaged and we are on the verge to sign some trading contract with Venezuela with [indiscernible]. And part of the destination of PDVSR heavy crude oil will be Port Arthur and our traders are developing a trading scheme around flows from Venezuela to the U.S. Gulf Coast. So I think that's the idea on Port Arthur. So yes, it's a good asset delivering and contributing to the strong downstream results that we have experienced.

The next question is from Lucas Herrmann, BNP Paribas Exane.

Patrick, I wondered if I could ask you about the UAE news overnight and the decision to exit OPEC, what your personal thoughts are, how it leaves you thinking perhaps about the future and the robustness or otherwise of oil prices, just general comments. And secondly, if I can be greedy, any observations on Namibia over the last 3 months or how your sentiment towards that opportunity may or may not have changed as you continue to look at the data?

UAE decision, not difficult for a sovereign decision by the state, which we are involved. We knew for some -- not today, but for some years that the UAE are not specifically happy with the quota, which was allocated to them. I think it's quite public by the OPEC because UAE has made and we are contributed to contributing to it. We are one of the most exposed company to the UAE onshore and offshore. We are -- they have involved they have a program to raise the capacity from close to 4 million and then to 5 million variable per day where we have -- by the way, there was a test in January. an official test for the OPEC, by the way, when we reached during a week 5 million barrel of oil per day. So by the way, it's contributed before the war to the good production which was, I mean, delivered by TotalEnergies in the first quarter. So this is that decision.

On our side, as the CEO of an oil and gas company, we always supported the OPEC role in the market, but I've seen that OPEC or OPEC+, I think that Russia will continue with OPEC Saudi Arabia in OPEC+. And I think the UAE has also said that they will coordinate with the OPEC on the market. So I think clearly, the statement -- when you read the statement of the UAE, they are investing for growth, and they want to benefit for the growth, I would say, that's the way I'm reading the statement. future for oil prices, honestly, Lucas, what happens today, you can see that the oil prices are not only relying on supply and demand and a pure logic.

So I think it's -- we have -- after 11 years of CEO, I have seen more period of, I would say, external events to the market than really the market itself. So we'll see what will -- the way that the different countries and the role that each country will want to play in that context. On Namibia, I would say good news for me in Namibia. We have engaged in January with the authorities, the level. I went myself Chairwoman of together -- for sure, I would say, this combination of [indiscernible] has been very welcomed locally, very welcome because it will help everything. First, the sanction of Venus then on Venus, we have an agenda with the government, which is to make our best on both sides to sanction the project by, I would say, end of July because we have again some offers by end of July, tenders. So why is it positive? Because they see our company as being the operator of choice, and we can discuss with them not only on one project, but they see not only our commitment to one, but to at least 2 projects, if not more, with [indiscernible] behind [indiscernible] behind Venus.

So the plan is clear, we want to sanction Venus this year. There is a discussion with the government to [indiscernible] this is a very old oil and gas rule, in fact, from the beginning of the 2000, which has never been really used in Namibia. In fact, we are the first, in fact, to be -- I would say, to develop a very large project and ultra-deepwater projects. And that's the point on which I think the authorities understand that the ultra-deepwater projects require some, I would say, some amendments to the standard terms. So this is on what we work today with them. And again, there is a good dynamic because we are both sides in a win-win situation.

And both we see the perspective of the second project. So on the second project, propane, our plan and again, it will be approved soon. The plan is to, in fact, to make an appraisal program with 3 wells. We want to drill the first one. But it's an appraisal program and be clear, not to check if there is a development. There is a development. The question for us, do we have 800 million barrels to develop or do have 1.2. It's a question of [indiscernible]. And we need to appraise not to miss some resources by rushing to a first development, which will be not optimal for getting -- if there is more than 1 billion barrels, we might adapt geographically when you look to the map.

It's linked to the last well, which was drilled by [indiscernible], by the way, which opened some doors. But we want also to drill some seismic, [indiscernible] seismic to be sure that there is some resource resources, the rock on [indiscernible] is better. I would say the permeability is much better. So we are more on a standard development, which will not require some [indiscernible] discussions, I would say. We could do that with the terms it's more plastic. So this one, I would say, the idea and the plan, which is approved with [indiscernible] is to drill '26, '27, finish the appraisal and then to move to sanction by '28.

So one sanction in mid-'26, one in '28 and maybe more because on these licenses, there are also still to explore. So there is -- for me, Namibia will become for us a new anchor country, I would say. And by the way, it's a good I know that I will have some questions about the Middle East, but it's a good diversification, again. So to have options and to develop the options is a big lesson of what is happening. And we'll -- on Namibia, we are on a good momentum. I hope I will be able to report to you by end of July that we have really materialized the first project.

Is that still the completion date, Patrick, for the transaction?

The transaction should be completed at the same time or a little before, in fact, a little before. It's more on the transaction, it's more paperwork to be honest, because the partners have lifted their preemption rights. So we are more on the paperwork with the Namibia government in order to move forward and that's it.

The next question is from Alastair Syme, Citi.

Can I get you to talk to the profitability of chemicals in the current environment? I mean oil and gas looks pretty clear, but I'm not sure how to think exactly about your chemicals business. And then my other question, and this might be a very, very short answer. But what is your trading business doing with tankers in the straight moves? I mean, do you have any traffic moving? Or do you see any arrangements where traffic can move?

[indiscernible] for the second one. We had 10 tankers before the last weekend stuck in the Gulf? No, we have 9 because one of the tanker has moved out of during the weekend. when Friday evening, I think both parties announced that there will be reopened. We gave instruction immediately to traders try to get out. There were 2 tankers which were in the queue. The first one exactly. The second one, unfortunately, was just after the Indian tankers, which was attacked.

So in fact, all that was governed by the way, by the insurance companies because, because in fact, we get on the Friday evening, the insurance -- we are insured to go through the straight on the Friday evening. And when there was an attack in the Sunday afternoon on the Indian tankers, then the insurance company told us there is no more insurance. So we went back to the Gulf. So this is the situation.

Honestly, we are following on this one. Of course, if we can exit the best, but we are following the news and we depend completely on the discussions between the different parties to the conflict, that's the situation for us. So this is where we are. We have done -- we try to do. We have done a small business within the Gulf. We managed to offload one of the -- because we had some refined product tanker, which was sold.

So we managed to offload it in one country and then to load it with some other crude oil. So we try to do what we can inside the Gulf, trading inside the Gulf with the tankers, which is limited -- on Chemicals, obviously, in fact, there are 2 different impacts. First one, that naphtha is more expensive because it's rare. So and so because it's scarce. So we've seen that the cracker margin went down in March. But the good news is that at the same time, there is a scarcity globally of naphtha on Asia. And as you have a scarcity of Asia, you have some people in Asia with crackers looking for [indiscernible]. Then the price of the polymers have increased. And in April, for the first time for long, I've seen a positive results coming from my polymer business. So I would say, by the way, I've observed in April, but on all our business, including biofuels everywhere, in fact, the beginning of the scarcity implied by the crisis is pushing all our products in the green, I would say we are benefiting from that. And that's the beauty of the integration we have.

But I see that on the end product. So there are on the chemicals, some downside on the cracker, but the polymers are much better. So let's -- and in particular, and in the U.S. as well, by the way, because when you are -- and that's the advantage to be on the petrochemicals, not only on naphtha, but part of our chemicals in the U.S. and is on gas. And then when you have polymer price going up and you or ethane in the U.S. is stable, the margin is much better. So I see some, I would say, some good signals on the chemical business, which are completely the consequence of this crisis. So net-net positive earnings in chemicals.

The next question is from Mark Wilson, Jefferies.

I think one area we haven't covered yet is refining. You're probably only company that breaks out your refining very clearly in the annual report. Intel has grown to just under 1.5 million barrels a day. And jet fuel, aviation fuel is about 10% of that, just over. Could you give us the dynamics between the different main products? Do you have the ability or desire to move the amount, for instance, of aviation fuel that is produced versus diesel and others? And do you see cost headwinds as well as margin as we move through the year and into 2Q has been mentioned by other companies?

Clearly, I mean, clear all our refineries today have been -- there was an instruction with the limit of a refinery, unfortunately, you distillate and you distillate, you have a slate of products, but the ways to optimize. So all of them in Europe, the instruction is max jet first and then max diesel and then the result in gasoline. So we try to maximize the 2 cracks. And in particular, these days, which are the better jet fuel even is better than the paper jet fuel is really high. So maximizing jet and then maximizing diesel in particular because in France, we are a big consumer of diesel and diesel crack was quite high.

And then gasoline, we know that we have enough European refineries are producing a lot of gasoline. So there is less incentive to do it. So that we do at the max. It's not -- we don't go from 10% to 20%. It's a matter of adding 2% to 3%, but of course, is good for the global refining margin. So that is clear. And we do it -- we have done it immediately and systematically in order to be able -- because these are the critical,

I would say, products, jet fuel and diesel, which we are more relying on imports for the European continent. So of course, the margin is better. So it's very logic we've done that. I'm not sure to have understood the question of the cost headwinds, what it is related to [indiscernible]

Well, there's obviously been a lot of talk about the availability of feedstock and competition for crudes and certain grades of crude. So is that any impact?

Yes. Okay. In fact, today, yes, I understand. Some feedstock are, I would say, are scarce and so they are more expensive. But again, yes, it's an impact. We see some by the way there is -- the refining margin were exceptionally high in March, around $25 per barrel. So I would say the -- I think Jean-Pierre told you that, but it was very poor in January, February and the 11.4% margin was a result of very nonlinear, I would say, margin. But in April, there was some volatility in the margins linked partly to more volatile linked partially to the feedstock, which are coming in the refinery.

So that's true. That's true. But again, on this one, clearly, I will tell you, there is a very strong connection between refining in the company and trading. And all that is optimized between both of them. And in fact, they are completely -- they are -- by the way, the suppliers of refinery are exactly on the same to the traders. And we interface between both of them in order to have to optimize the slate which will go to refineries and what we should sell among all of crude oil that the traders have access to on the market. And we make it as an optimization for the company.

So it may be not optimal for the trading itself, but if it's optimized, if it's an optimum on the refining and trading as a combination, then we will take the feedstock to the refinery. So this is one of the advantage, I would say, to have this strong integration and to think, in particular, in this type of period. I know some people were thinking that we might have a lack of crude, we will never have a lack of crude. And so we optimize the type of feedstock we need to our refineries according to the access to many flows that our trading can generate.

The next question is from Kim Fustier, HSBC.

Firstly, on Qatar, how are you managing the force majeure situation in Qatar as it relates to your LNG portfolio and your commitments to customers? Just noting that one of your IOC peers is also partner in Qatar LNG had to declare force majeure. And related to that, what is your view on the time line of the Qatar LNG expansion project? I also wanted to ask about Satorp. What's the repair time line for the damaged units? And again, linked to that, what is the potential impact on the time line of the Amiral project?

Okay. I mean, again, it's -- I repeat why people do not believe us. Qatar LNG has declared force majeure to its customers. That means that in Qatar, we have some JVs with Qatar LNG and the marketing of this JV is done by Qatar Energy. So our JV which are reported in the upstream part, which are, I would say, like the rest, but are not producing today. So there is no production, no revenue and very logically and very professionally, I would say, Qatar Energy has immediately declared measure to its customers. That's one point. From this perspective, TotalEnergies is a customer for Qatar Energy only for our own offtake.

The difference between our competitor and ourselves is that because we are very exposed and we know that to Qatar, we have some limited contracts with Qatar as for our own offtake for our own portfolio. And so the amount is around 1.5 million tons per year. So we had this 1.5 million tonnes per year. We received the fourth measure from Qatar because we are a customer for them. But then we decided that we will not transfer it because, by the way, we don't -- in the way we work with our LNG portfolio, when we sign a contract with a Korean or Japanese buyer, we don't sign, we don't tell them it is coming from Qatar because we are a portfolio company. So we took on our. And by the way, we told them we are a portfolio company. We produce in 11 countries. So we secure the supply.

So we decided, yes, we received the force majeure, but we will take it for us, and we will not -- we could have done it probably, but we decided that it was in terms of commercial, in terms of what we advocate every day for their customers, the best position because probably 1.5 million ton is absorbable in the portfolio of 40 million ton we will deliver. We will not transfer the force majeure to any of our customers. That's what we've done. I know that our competitor is more exposed because if I read correctly in the press, it's more 6 million or 7 million tonnes than 1 million ton, 1.2 million or 1.2 million. So probably with 7 million tonnes, it was for them more logic.

To be honest, my energy traders were ready to exercise the force majeure, but the management said be careful what we do. And so we've done it like that. So no problem. Time line on scatter expansion, I think I can -- I think the themselves, they have said that today, the impact is evaluated to 2 months or something like that on the -- I would say, on the expansion on NFE per strain because NFE on the ground, Technip and the teams are continuing to to work, in fact, onshore.

The offshore works have been stopped. So I think it was planned for Q3 2026. So probably today, we are more on Q4 of 2026. And again, there is a difference in all this wording between when you put the gas in and when you offtake the first LNG. So if you want my bet in my plants, I would say first LNG offloaded from NFE is probably right on the beginning end '26, beginning '27, if I'm taking a bet on that.

But that's where we are. And again, this is completely linked to the -- how long will this war will last because as long as we don't cannot restart works offshore, of course, it might impact the time line. So there are 3 units. One I told you the first unit will be repaired very quickly, the VG. So that means that SOP is able to produce some VGO from -- in 10 days. We could produce full, in fact, full capacity VGOs, but then you need to find somebody who buys VGO.

And as we cannot expose VGO because the is closed, we will be limited to something like 300,000, 330,000 barrels per day during the -- and then we need to recover the 2 other units, the 2 other units are the conversion units, which allow us to transform the VGO, I would say, diesel global products. This one, honestly, today, it's -- we don't know. We have sent some experts, and we are working together with Aramco.

There have been some damage to these units. So it's a matter of at least 6 months, maybe more. We don't know. We are working on it. And when we will have -- as we have been very transparent since the beginning of the conflict, when we'll have better news on it, but I would say not news, we will report to you. At this stage, the teams of Aramco and TotalEnergies are working to evaluate really the dam and more to evaluate the repair that we need to do. TotalEnergies, we have an insurance on this type of war events, which we will -- we might activate if the damage are higher than $150 million.

So this is own limit, I would say, threshold for sales. Impact of Air, Air, there are 22,000 people working in Air today on the ground. That's why we have also again Aramco. I went in Real. We discussed a lot about Air. We have the full support of the authorities for [indiscernible]. So [indiscernible], again, is progressing. And the progress of [indiscernible] is today at 70% this project. The start-up is planned by end of '27, I would say, beginning '28. But again, it's -- of course, the context might -- what I just tell you today is the conflict was worsening, which I don't could change. So this is just an update today with validity, but this is the situation for [indiscernible]

The next question is from Matt Lofting at JPMorgan.

Congratulations on the performance of the integrated model in what's clearly been exceptional times. I wanted to ask you, you guys engage extensively with host governments globally. It's early days, but are you seeing any change in the tone of conversations as a result of recent events towards greater urgency, let's say, from some countries to develop domestic production and better secure energy supply?

And then second, sort of more specific to the financials, price and timing lags are an inherent part of several parts of TotalEnergies business. I wondered if you could just talk a bit about how that impacted Q1, given the sort of surge in commodity prices more kicked in, in March and how that then sort of plays out as we look forward to the coming quarters?

Okay. On the second question, the obvious case is the LNG because most of the contracts on LNG are based on have a time lag of 1 even 2 months. So obviously, we don't see -- by the way, we end the average price of the quarter was $8.5 per million BTU, exactly what we planned in February in the trading statement. And on the guidance that we gave in February. So that means that there was no impact on the March oil prices or gas prices.

So we expect to see the impact of the March high price clearly will be in the second quarter. That's why we gave you a guidance, by the way, of $10 per MMBtu, which again is reflecting price of March an assumption for other months of $80 per barrel and the TTF around $40, $50 per MMBtu. So again, if it was -- if the crude oil was higher and remain higher, that could impact positively the $10 per MMBtu. So this is the obvious case. On the crude oil, we have some few things. We have one country where by the way -- which where we have a formula, which is with 1 or 2 months delay is the UAE, which creates, by the way, some difficulties and we are trying to solve them because when you have a 2 months delay, that means that we could face a day that it will reopen and the price could go down, you could have to pay with 2 months delay, but not a good situation.

We are discussing on that. But honestly, these are the main 2. There are also some impacts on polymers and things like that in plastic world, generally, it's also -- we have also some delays in all the formula. So for example, answering, I should have commented that in March, we suffered the naphtha that we bought on market. But the polymers and all the pricing do not reflect immediately the increase of the NAFTA. So that was negative from the NAFTA, and this will be recouped in the second quarter.

But beyond 1 to 2 months, we don't have many time lines longer than that, might be exceptional situation with 6 months, but it's very fair in fact, in the portfolio, okay? -- government, I think I answered in my first answer to -- that was more the same question. Yes, I said to Michele, look, it's quite clear that today, you begin to see for sure. Again, the governments are looking to what could we develop our domestic production? Could we -- that's obvious, securing energy supply I said [indiscernible] I say more [indiscernible] for countries who have coal, will the coal. That's sure [indiscernible] is more coal renewables as well. So that's positive for renewables. I think in many countries, including in Europe. Nuclear will be, again, I would not be surprised to see there was already a good momentum, but to see a country like India again, China is already there, but with nuclear products.

So like some European countries. So we have been new France after 73, we are French and Japan, we will see new country coming to us. So that's obvious to me, which is, as I said to, for sure, a challenge for the gas because it's a [indiscernible] electricity. So gas to [indiscernible] is not only used for electricity, also used for heating, by the way. But it will be for sure a challenge. The other governments where I see a change of tone, I told you that I visited, of course, our friends in the Middle East. It's clear that on the agenda today, you have the question of can we get around the straight of almost.

So we are discussing again on projects to build some pipeline to double the pipeline to [indiscernible] double pipeline through Saudi Arabia. Iraq, obviously, is in a situation where we need to revive some old pipelines, which are stuck today, the pipeline [indiscernible]. You have the pipeline through Turkey. So it's for me, these countries for sure, today, the question of their own security of supply security of delivering and of evacuating and commercializing will become high on the agenda of all these countries. So yes, and again, because it's not only an isolated one, we have '22, now we have '26. So you have this question of security of supply and affordability, which is linked to that. And again, for me, it [indiscernible] how do we remunerate more capacities. We need to invest more in all these energy capacities will be high on the agenda and in many countries around the world.

The next question is from Jason Gabelman, TD Cowen.

Gabelman line got disconnected.

So the next question is from Christopher Kuplent, Bank of America.

Just two more questions remaining. When we think back to February and you gave us your outlook for cash flow during the year, you were referencing a EUR 60 Brent range, refining margins at 5, et cetera. We're now in a different world. You've talked yourself about 80 as a good starting point for the year. What can you tell us how should we adapt your sensitivities that you've published, which I believe were meant for a 60 to 70 world rather than for an 80 to 100 world. So where would you like to make some adjustments or give us some warnings other than the volumes, of course, that you're not able to sell right now in terms of the validity of these sensitivities? And then maybe as a quick second question, considering you haven't been active in the farm-down market, maybe I can ask you my favorite question, Patrick. What do you think is the current state of M&A? I know it's not one market. power is very different from oil, from gas. But where would you rather be right now a buyer or seller?

For first question, Chris, I invite you to read Page 13 of the press release, I think, and you have the stable the sensitivity. And fundamentally, they are between 60 and 80, you can extend 60-70 to 60-80. So I have no doubt about it. The only point is that as we have lost as we can -- if we remain in a situation of today, which without the Middle East production, then of course, we must correct it.

That's why we gave you a sensitivity of 10% on the Middle East production. But I've made the math if we were just for you, just to give you, if we were in an environment around $80 per barrel, $15 per refining margin without the Middle East will be around $32 billion of cash flow, $2 billion. But again, if the situation remains the same and if my scenario is not good, the because if it remains the same, we will not be at $80 during the whole year. So if we lose really the production of the Middle East during the next 9 months, I think you can correct $80 to $100 or $110. So again, you can take around $3 billion for $2.8 billion officially, but $3 billion for -- and it's a little more, you're right, because, in fact, when we go high at $100, the Middle East impact the production.

The loss of the 15% is no more 10%, it will go down to 6%, 7%, which means that the higher we go, the more the sensitivity will rely on the barrels outside of the Middle East. So your question is good, but we need to make the math correctly at $100. We will do it, and I think Renault and his team will give you the -- we might publish it if you want because this information is important. We might publish it on our Internet site.

So there is less impact from the production of the Middle East at $100 that we have on the -- at $60, that's true as well. So that's what I can comment. So all that is, to be honest, any high scenario is a good news for integrated companies like TotaEnergies.

No, it's okay. I mean it's not so complex. [indiscernible] is not able to make the math, but the budget guy is able. So don't worry. You just need to correct it. what I said he should be able to do it. Just a joke. Okay. M&A M&A on [indiscernible], honestly, today is difficult because where is the right price deck for the oil assets in the next 3 years. And there was a sort of consensus until the crisis, I think oil was more or less assets are more or less exchange around $70 per barrel, I would say, in the market. It was more or less the market and some few could debate, but it's more or less the average assumption. today. And of course, to put $70 for the next -- for '26, '27, '28, I would agree if my teams are proposing me to sell at $70.

I would say -- and it's very difficult because there is no certainty at all about where we'll establish the market. So you could say it's $80, it's $75, you could say also maybe it's $100. So I think M&A on oil today is not an easy game to play. And I'm sure neither from the -- of course, the buyer would love to buy $70, but I think the seller will be a little more difficult to convince. So that's where I see that. On the gas, different. We are looking on our side to U.S. gas business on the other side, the U.S. gas market has been stable.

So I think that means that -- by the way, when you look to the assets on this side, we didn't move a lot valuation. So that's more easier for on this side. Power, they are all crazy in the U.S. with gas-fired power plants. So it's not a good market to buy gas-fired power plant. They are more reasonable in Europe because we don't -- we are not in Europe with gas in Europe. So it's good to continue to buy M&A to make M&A on gas plants in Europe. And we are looking to some opportunities to complement the portfolio an obvious country for us to look at is Germany in Europe from a power point of view. So that is the situation. And then if I continue M&A on renewables, by the way, have a good news for all of you didn't ask me the question, but we got the money from the U.S. government on our account yesterday. So we have the famous $28 million. By the way, the share for TotalEnergies out of the $928 million because we had some one of the concession is $550 million. So we'll have this cash in coming -- is already. It already came. So on renewables, the market is influenced by higher interest rates. So it's not -- but it's -- the multiples in that field are quite high compared to oil and gas. But I see a sort of impact on raising interest rate on the valuation of these assets.

The next question is from [indiscernible]

Just one quick question left for me. Coming back to the trading, great performance in the first quarter in both oil and gas. I was wondering if you have any comments on the second quarter. Should we be expecting a strong performance given we've seen already 1 month with significant volatility and maybe a full quarter of significant volatility in both markets?

I cannot answer that question. We just know that we have no idea. Trading is not a matter of running a plant and taking the production multiplying by price -- an assumption on the price minus the cost. It doesn't work like that. So I can only comment that there is a very volatile market.

The traders generally are quite happy when they see volatile market. up to a point it's too volatile, there are some danger and the volatility is not related to supply and demand, but to the tweets of some authorities in the world, it's even more dangerous because you could go -- you could face suddenly a reverse situation. So we are not betting on price. There is no -- the trading of TotalEnergies is an asset-backed trading and it's fundamentally not -- we are not betting on the oil price. We don't make -- we are not exposed to flat price in the trading.

So -- no, it's impossible. I wish I will reiterate a strong performance. What we've done is some -- when we say in press release that there is an exceptional performance, a strong performance to qualify it compared to the normal run rate. The normal run rate of trading is quite good, by the way. Again, we'll -- I have no information. Their book, by the way, there was a lot of comments in newspaper on one specific position, which was taken by all crude oil traders. But when they take a position on one side, they had some other position on the other side.

They are -- so it's not one sided. Yes, they made a position which was long in the girth at the beginning of the war, that's true, but there are other positions which were not as positive. And by the way, our product team, our product trading team it was quite good. To benefit from the fact that in Asia, there was a scarcity of products and so to be able to supply Asia with products. So we have a strong performance there. So it's different, I would say, different markets, different flows. We'll see, and we'll see. By the way, when I -- just to confirm to you, I don't know when I mentioned a figure to Chris, I think I said $32 billion of cash flows. I have normalized the trading to a normal run rate delivery and not an exceptional one.

So if there was repeating quarter after quarter same performance, then my $32 is a little short of the reality, okay? So I cannot answer to you more than that, Henry. And a book of trading is plenty of trades and we'll see the results at the end. But what I can confirm is that the trading division of TotalEnergies is quite successful. And I never see them underperforming the market, either they are, I would say, on the average or they make strong performance.

The next question is from Fergus Neve, Rothschild & Co Redburn.

Just one from me. I just hope you might be able to provide us with a bit of an update on some of the key projects which are due to come online this year. And perhaps if you could comment on Ratawi Phase 1, which I imagine is affected by the current situation in the Middle East. And then maybe also Telenga due to come online later this year. That would be really helpful.

Ratawi, we have -- I said that we have 5,000 people working on the ground, but there is no way to expose the crude oil. So it was -- we were planning to start up in Q2. I would say, logically, what I can answer to you today, it's not Q2 more Q3 than Q2. The question will be not only to build the plant and the plant is almost done. In fact, it was a question of 1.5 months on [indiscernible].

But it's more a question to be able to produce the oil and to export it, which is today, I would say, the limit to start up Ratawi. So as quick as we can, obviously, and no problem, the wells are drilled, easy to produce. So restarting Ratawi, it's a matter of a few days, and we have teams on the ground, so it's easy. By the way, we have started up just before the conflict, we started up the solar plant in Ratawi.

The first project which came on stream was a solar plant and the 300-megawatt phase. And the authorities were quite happy because facing a lack of gas for making electricity, we are supplying some solar electrons to the Bara area now since end of February. [indiscernible] is moving on. I mean, we told you that the start-up of production for Telanga will be end of Q4 -- end of Q4, I would say. We were explicit in February, I think. So there is no change on this part.

What is progressing well is [indiscernible]. We think that Iaco might be completed September, October. And by the way, as Kingfisher, the other projects in Uganda, where we are partner is also will be probably ready by summertime. It's possible that we'll begin to flow the oil from Kingfisher first. It's a long pipeline to fill. But the operations and crude oil production from Uganda might start up I would say September end of Q3 and then [indiscernible] Q4.

The next question is from Jean-Luc Romain, CIC.

It relates actually to the offshore U.S. where you just announced you had the cash back. Do you consider offshore wind U.S. as a dead zone for the foreseeable future? Or do you still see it as a future development zone in case an administration would become more receptive to this kind of development?

No. I was clear. I commented that in the U.S. newspaper, I think. I could use the word that Darren's noninvestable. It's not investable because the cycle of an offshore wind project is much longer than the duration of the U.S. administration. And it's offshore wind requires a long cycle of permitting, developing, negotiating. So if every 4 years, you are stuck because you have a change, it's not possible.

And -- but more fundamentally

[Audio Gap]

And you know the story that we -- I mean, when we studied all these projects in front of New York to Jersey and frankly, it was very difficult. The offshore part was quite in line with what we expected, even if there was some cost increase from the, I would say, the turbine point of view. But what was very expensive was the subsea cable and landing a cable subsea cable to serve New York very urban city, New York, New Jersey was much more expensive than planned.

So at the end of the day, we would be able to deliver electricity of around $150 per megawatt hour. It's much more expensive than what you can do in the U.S. So in terms of allocation of capital and considering the various ways to produce electricity in the U.S. with plenty of gas, solar, onshore solar, onshore wind, it's better for us to develop our position in the U.S. but with the most efficient allocation of our own capital and for consumers as well.

So that -- so no, the answer is definitely, it's not a matter to at TotalEnergies, we consider that it's not a good market for developing offshore wind. And in fact, what I also say, I think developing offshore wind requires some specific market. It's a question of cost to produce electricity. And it's linked as well. So U.K., Germany, France might be -- are some interesting countries because they have less capacity to develop onshore renewables because limited space, in fact.

So there is a market there. So we will concentrate on these projects. And the other lesson we draw is that on offshore wind is that it needs to be big to be profitable. So we are cleaning our portfolio. We had a small project in Denmark. We are just exiting it because it does not fly. Markets and honestly, Brazil, Philippines, India, forget all that. It has no plenty in Brazil. You can't produce plenty on onshore wind in North with , which costs much less than offshore wind. So offshore wind is more expensive. It should be dedicated to markets which could afford it and which need it. And that's the conclusion which we draw for ourselves. So we'll concentrate on some projects which are large, by the way, which are -- on which we believe that the fundamentals are good. And so that's the reality. So you will not see newspapers and press release that Total is back in U.S. offshore wind. at least as long as I am CEO and Chairman of the company.

The next question is from Anish Kapadia, Palissy.

I wanted to ask about battery storage and especially in the context of seeing Europe having its earliest curtailments of renewables this year, the record level that's expected this year and the extreme negative pricing. So I just wanted to get what's your view on the battery storage growth in Europe? How you see the Iran conflict accelerating this? And then what's the role of Total [indiscernible] within this context?

Fundamentally, it's not linked to the conflict. When you develop renewables, you should put batteries. So good news for the -- on the last 2 years. In fact, the cost of batteries are dramatically lower. They have been divided almost by 2 battery cells. Thanks again, by the way, to Chinese suppliers, but it's a reality. So you have a strong decrease of batteries. And I think it's absolutely necessary in the -- not only to avoid curtailment, but also it's a matter of grid management when you develop a renewable farm, you should have some battery. I'm against the CfD scheme in Europe because in the CfD scheme, the developer -- solar or wind developer have obligation to build the battery, is securing a price from the state, and he can -- so sometimes the states are smarter, we don't pay you if it's negative.

But in fact, it's just a strange scheme, in fact, the CfD. The scheme, which is working in the U.S. where you have some fiscal support on your CapEx, ITC or PTC is much better because, in fact, if you are facing the market, you develop your solar plant. And for sure, you always build the battery storage with the solar plant you are and your profitability will be low. So I think it's obvious that -- and the more we see, by the way, as you said, investments and development of new solar farm -- like in Spain, for example, but even in Germany, we begin to see the limit and the curtailment is higher and higher because there are new batteries. So yes, I think it's time to really incentivize and in battery storage.

So on our side, we are investing in batteries. We have -- in particular in Germany, it's a good market because there is a lot of renewables. We have a company which we acquired 2 years ago, and we have just developing -- we are developing 2 to 3 gigawatts of batteries. We just farmed down part of some of them at 50% to end with a good profitability. So rely, yes, we think there is a real market, in particular in Europe.

And it's not only because we run conflict, it should be accelerated. If Europeans are serious I would say, developing the penetration of renewables in Europe. It's absolutely fundamental to do it together with batteries to stabilize the grid and to be able to absorb most of this renewable production. And [indiscernible] to come back, SAF is good, strong. It's developing very well on the energy storage system business. I think we are -- they are #4, 5 in the world, and they are making quite a lot taking quite a lot of markets. So it was one of the reasons why we acquired SA was a little long market to, I would say, to take off, but now it's really a full speed on it. And there are also some technology improvements which allow to think that the cost could also when we were discussing with the CEO, he thinks that the battery storage could -- has already diminished by 50%, but another 30% decrease is possible on the cost, thanks to higher density of energy storage, et cetera.

The next question is from Bertrand Hodee, Kepler.

It's a follow-up on Mark question on refining. One of your competitor explained yesterday that because of various factors like major dislocation on crude differential, product yields or freight cost, it's realized refining margin in April was about $5 less than its headline margin indicator.

So do you see that? And can you also tell us what is the average of total refining margin indicator so far in [indiscernible]

I didn't see such a dislocation to be honest. I know that the year-end, I was looking what is -- normally, we have an indicator internally, but my team does not have Okay. So there was -- in fact, the realized refining margin in the first quarter was around 10.5%, while the indicator we gave you was around 11.4%. So there was a little lower, but not far. So we suffered less from -- that's true, but honestly today, one of the issue, to be honest, and including today in April, we have some -- yes, and it's true.

I will tell you, I'll give you another figure just because I want to be solidarity with my colleague. In April, the ERM was -- the indicator was around 25 and the MCV of the refining, the realized margin on variable cost was around $21.5. So you had not $5, but $3.5 difference. Why? Because honestly, the paper market today, these indicators are difficult to follow are difficult. But that it's going that way, the other month, it could be the other way. So we are trying to -- each of us are trying to trace an indicator to give a sense of what is happening on the market.

But there is a dislocation and it's perfectly true today between the products and -- by the way, it was an extraordinary situation, by the way, March where you've seen high oil price and high refining margins. Normally, you have -- it's rebalancing. It's countercyclical. It was not the case. So again, at the end, what I know is that I've never seen in my life such high margins on the paper.

So it's good. so that we can -- even if there is a little difference between the paper indicator and the realization, it's still delivering very good and strong results that the situation. And again, I know we have a debate internally because the daily, our teams are calculating the famous refining indicator based on the market. And we have some big ds because on the other side, when we see that we can sell jet fuel at more than $200 per barrel, we are not sure that all that is completely consistent. So it's today, you have -- in fact, as you have a dislocation between the physical market and the paper market, which is quite astonishing at certain point, it should converge. The type of indicators are not so I mean they are not so reflecting the reality of what is happening on the day-to-day marketing of the products.

[Operator Instructions] There are no more questions registered at this time. I turn the conference back to you for any closing remarks.

Okay. So thank you for your assistance. Thank you for your comments. I think it was a quarter where once again, we demonstrated the strength of our model. I think we will not disappoint you in terms of return to shareholders. The share of TotalEnergies since we have been listed in the New York Stock Exchange on December 8, I'm looking to that as a starting point of the Renaissance of the company has overperformed all our peers by quite a margin.

So I hope that this set of results will help to maintain it. And again, if we can attract more shareholders to this to TotalEnergies and to globally the sector, it's good. So thank you for your attendance. And I think we'll have opportunity to meet in coming months. And our shareholders for sure, will meet on the 8th Annual General Meeting on May 29, I think, in Paris. So thank you again.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the conference call. Thank you all for your participation. You may now disconnect.

Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to our Sustainability and Climate Progress Report Presentation 2026. This is the fifth year that we are organizing this event. We are live from our Paris headquarters, and you can follow us from our website, totalenergies.com. We hope that you got time to download our report. The program today will be first a presentation by Ren Amel, our President, Strategy and Sustainability, followed by 2 Zoom presentations, one on methane with Guillaume Chalmain, who is our Customer Line Director at OneTech and one on our decarbonization solutions to our clients by Mark Van Sadoun, who is our B2B Director.

The presentation should be 1 hour and 15 minutes. And then we'll move to a Q&A where you will be able to ask, of course, all the questions that you have, and we'll take some questions online as well.

You know at TotalEnergies, we have routines. In the morning, we have -- when we are starting a meeting, we have safety moments. In the afternoon, we have sustainability moments. So that can be small initiative, but they need to be very concrete, impactful and to talk about operations. The example I want to show you today is coming from our Suriname affiliate. It's about electrification, which is a mean to reduce our emissions on our operations. You know that we are starting the development of our Grand Morgu project, which is an oil project offshore Suriname, 220,000 barrels a day.

So the first oil is planned in 2028, and the carbon intensity of that project is less than 16 kilograms of CO2 per barrel. To achieve that objective, there are some initiatives that are taken by the affiliate. And one is electrify the vessels. As you know, there is a lot of logistics, the development phase, a lot of logistics, a lot of vessels are coming into Suriname to offload the equipment. And one initiative is to use electrified vessels and to ask our contractors to install, as you can see on the slide, some charging points. It's like EV. And when the vessel is at Kay, there is this option to plug rather than burning fuel on board to plug to electricity so that we can save 6 cubic meters of gas oil per week which in terms of CO2 savings is 65 tons of CO2 equivalent per month, which is already something before the start-up of the meeting. On that note, I give the floor to Arena.

Thank you. Hello, everyone. Thank you for being here with us today. I have the pleasure of presenting for the third time as far as I'm concerned. And I'm very happy to share the progress we've made in our sustainability and climate road map and then with my colleagues, who will present to you these 2 zooms on methane and what we do with our clients in our B2B division.

So first, we wanted to look with you at what happened on the energy market because this is framing basically our ambition and our strategy because we evolve in that wider energy market and want to take stock of what's happened in the last 10 years and 20 years, 25 years, if you go back. And here, you have a glimpse of what's been achieved and what's going in the right direction because what we see here actually is that a transition has started. And the main figure to look at that is if you look at the total primary energy demand, it has been growing steadily between 2000 and 2015, it was 2.1% growth per annum. It was 1.6 between 2015 and today with some COVID effects, actually more than that, let's say, in a normalized environment.

And at the same time, you've had more energy to the world, which brings energy, especially in emerging economies, which brings energy namely to the 4.6 billion people who do not have enough energy today to have a decent human development index performance. What we see here is that even though that is growing in a very steady way, however, CO2 emissions are still growing. That's not good news in absolute terms for the climate, but the pace of growth has very much declined.

And you can see that the pace of growth in emissions, the CO2 emissions here has been more than halved between the 2 periods. It means that a transition has started. This is really what we see in these figures. This is also reflected in the fact that GDP growth is basically the same, around 3%, 3.6%, 2.9% the end of COVID in the second period per annum. And other good news, there is a big growth in electrification.

Electricity demand is growing. Renewable energy supply is growing very much. That's the fastest-growing energy, as you can see here. But then coal is growing still today. The pace of growth of coal has declined, but it is still growing. Gas is growing steadily, 2.3%. And then finally, oil demand is growing at the same pace as population, which is a very steady historical trend.

So the transition has started, but it's not yet where it is supposed to be in terms of pace to reach the Paris agreements, as we all know. And we're just taking here 2 quotes from experts and scientists just to underline that. And basically, what we know, what we hear today from these experts and scientists is that scenarios that have 1.5 degrees heating are out of which. This is what the IEA saving its latest World Energy Outlook report last November. You have that on the left-hand side. And we're quoting here James Hansen. The reason is James Hanson is very authorative figure in the climate world. He's the one who in 1998 went to the U.S. Senate and made climate change really a political reality. It was a scientific reality before 1998, obviously.

But then things started to kick in motion, the 1992 convention in Rio, the IPC seeding setup. This was kind of a defining moment. And he says what you see here that it is out of which basically to reach these Paris goals, and he says that in respect of actually 2 degrees heating. And the main reason for that is the inertia of the energy systems, and I'll come back to that. But I would say equally important too is that what we know is that something has been very high on the energy agenda, energy and climate agenda in the last 10 years, certainly, it is sustainability.

And that's what you see here on the triangle of the energy trilemma. Sustainability has been at the top, maybe on its own actually for some time of the agenda. And it is still very much on the agenda. It certainly is very much on our agenda still today. And it means that we need to bring energy that is more and more sustainable, emitting less and less, and that contributes to human development. But then what's happened in the last 10 years and especially in the last 5 years is that you have had a resurgence of what has always been in the energy trilemma. That is to say reliability. We need to have reliable energy.

Current news are still a testimony to that. That is still an issue, making sure that we have access to energy. That's true for oil and gas. That's also true for electricity. And the blackout that happened in Spain in April 2025 is another example of the fact that it is very important to have reliable oil and gas, to have reliable electricity as well. And this has come at the forefront of the agenda, again, because of crisis.

And then I think what's key, and I'll come back to that in the course of the presentation, is affordability. We cannot collectively achieve the transition if the transition is not made affordable. That's a very, very strong, powerful, simple truth. And again, I'll come back to that because we have a role to play in this respect. Now what needs to happen? What do we collectively need to do to, let's say, accelerate the pace? You have here what we list as the main enablers for success and technical innovation is key. Let me give 2 examples.

One is EV penetration is lagging in a way, EV vehicles because there is anxiety around namely the range of vehicles, the ability to charge in pretty fast time. This is evolving rapidly. So there have been technological breakthroughs recently in this respect. It needs to happen for every form of energy and every kind of use. It needs to be affordable, as I was saying. And as we'll see in some more details, if low-carbon technologies on the demand side of things, especially how can we use low carbon electricity in an affordable way. If it is not achieved collectively by the -- by states, by companies, by clients to adopt that, we won't get there basically. And then it needs to be supported by public policies.

We need to have stable policies in place and they need to target what makes a difference. And it goes back to something that we advocate for a lot, which is the CO2 merit curve of things. Not every ton of CO2 is equal. There are some tons of CO2 that are cheapest to remove or to abate than others. And certainly, public policies support in the form of subsidies, it should aim for these tons of CO2 that are the cheapest to abate because this is how you achieve affordability in the transition.

Carbon pricing is one of those mechanisms actually, and I'll come back to that. And this is what allows for customers' adoption. And what you see here on the right-hand side of the slide is what a world in which things will accelerate would look like. And here we use where things stand today in terms of electrification of end use, the construction of the grid and where it should be going basically to make that happen.

So against that backdrop, where do we stand today? We are in a world where, as I was saying, the transition has started. That's very good news, but not at the pace required to meet the Paris Agreement goal. There is a scientific consensus, which is very much public in the public domain being shared that 1.5 degrees is out of reach. Now against that backdrop, what it also means is that because we are a European company, it's something we explained actually in our SMC report this year, we cannot adopt a net zero transition plan according to the European regulations because such a plan in the European regulations has to be aligned with 1.5 degrees.

And scientists say 1.5 degrees is out of reach. So what do we do against that, let's say, wider backdrop against which we operate? We do the same. we maintain the course of our strategy and our ambition. And this is what you see here on the right-hand side. We maintain our ambition to achieve carbon neutrality together with society within the framework of the Paris Agreement objectives.

When we say together with society, it means that this is the collective effort I was referring to. We are playing a part in that. States are playing a part in that. Consumers, other corporates are playing a part in that. And this is why also we show these enablers of success and we show these dependencies because we need to make the energy system evolve overall, and we are one of the players in the energy system.

And then we reassert our ambition, our aim to be carbon neutral in our operations by 2050. That's Scope 1 and 2. We reassess our objective to have a reduction -- a net reduction of our CO2 emissions in our operations, Scope 1 and 2 by 40% by 2030 compared to 2015. The same is very much true for methane. [ Guillaume Charman ] will give you a lot of details around that later on. We have the objective to reduce our methane operated emissions by 80% in 2030 compared to 2020. And you'll see we're very much on track to get there. And then -- and that's key for the transition of the energy systems, where we have a role to play, we are going to continue to put on the market for our clients, and this is why what Mark Benson will present to you, we're going to continue to put on the market an energy mix that has a lower carbon content over time.

And this is what is going to drive the reduction of our carbon intensity index. So we are staying that course. What does it mean in terms of figures? Here, you see where we come from and you have the, let's say, historical performance of our CO2, Scope 1 and 2 reduction of our methane reduction and of the life cycle carbon intensity. And you see here that last year, in 2025, we reduced our operated methane emissions by 65% compared to 2020.

Actually, we had started reducing the emissions, the methane emissions before 2020. We reduced the Scope 1 and 2 emissions to 33.1 million tonnes. That's compared to 46 million tonnes in 2015, while actually at the same time, we grew our production, and we created a whole new business segment, integrated power with actually some gas-fired power plants. And what we show here is that the performance in our, let's say, historical oil and gas sector is a reduction that's already very significant of 38% Scope 1 and 2 emissions over that time period 2015 to 2025.

And at the same time, we have lowered the carbon intensity of the energy products we sell to our customers. And you can see that it's been reduced by 18% more than that, close to 19% in 2025. And we are going to continue. You can see the objectives for 2026 and the medium-term objectives for 2030. They are unchanged compared to what you've seen in the last year, a couple of years and more than that. Now how do we get there? It's frankly -- and as Ron explained during the sustainability moment, it's a lot of concrete down to the ground, down to the operations initiatives. And you'll see some of those later on around methane. And here, you see the levers on which we can pull to get to our 2030 targets. This is what you see here.

As I was saying, there is actually an increase in a way in the bottom line, the baseline of the emissions because of the additional gas-fired power plants we've embarked into our operations. That's new. That's been new in the last 5, 6 years. Then there's the management we have around our oil and gas portfolio, and you can see that's driving a reduction that's actually comparable to the increase of the CCGTs. And this is because we have this low cost and especially here, low emissions approach to our oil and gas projects. I'll give details to you afterwards. And then it's a bit of everything, energy efficiency, electrification, greening H2 man reduction, obviously.

And starting in 2030, not before, as we've always said, we'll start using natural-based solutions credits so that we can also drive the reduction and reach our targets, but that will not start before 2030. And until then, it's all work on the ground -- with all of that, we have reduced last year the intensity of CO2 per barrel of oil equivalent we produce to below 16 kilograms, meaning when we produce 1 barrel of oil or gas equivalent, there is a release in the atmosphere of less than 16 kilograms CO2 per barrel produced. That's roughly half the industry average. We keep reducing that over time. And now that's the new threshold on which we base our investment decisions and new projects must be below that threshold. And that's a very, very virtuous threshold. Now let's look at an example on what we do around energy efficiency.

[Presentation]

So these are great examples of what we do and what everybody, as I was saying, as its collective efforts will be doing.

Now let's look in more detail at our transition strategy, which is encapsulated in 4 very simple words: more energy, less emissions, and this is what is driving our action when we implement our strategy. You know the strategy is based on 2 pillars: developing oil and gas, keeping producing and developing new oil and gas projects and building this integrated power segment so that we can produce and put on the market electricity.

What's important here is that there is growing demand, as I was saying, in oil and gas. There is also the natural decline rate of fields that the whole industry has to fight against just to maintain production levels flat. So we are investing in oil and gas, but we are prioritizing those projects that have low cost and low emissions because we believe these are the projects that will be resilient in any kind of scenario.

The key here is that we can adapt our strategy to evolving scenarios to evolving futures because we don't really know what the future holds. We know it will be different from today, and we need to be able to adjust our strategy in this respect. And this is exactly the way in which we prioritize our oil and gas investments. As far as gas is concerned and especially LNG, the key short- and medium-term priority is to abate methane emissions. As you know, this is a key priority for us.

And finally, when it comes to electricity, we need to achieve scale and size so that we make a difference so that we can provide reliable electricity to customers. When you bring scale, you can deliver affordable energy and electricity to customers and it allows that to be profitable, obviously, for our shareholders. So this is exactly the way in which we are implementing our strategy. What does it mean in terms of energy?

On the left-hand side here, you can see the energy production that the split we had in 2015, you see that there was no electricity back then. It was only oil and gas, actually more oil than gas. And you can see the evolution of that, let's say, energy production mix. You can see that last year, which is something where gas played more of a relative role to oil and especially there was electricity.

The production of power last year amounted to, as you can see, the 8% of our oil and gas production. There is also other low carbon molecules we produce like sustainable aviation fuel. And what do we aim for? We aim for a growth in our energy production. That's overall 4% per year by 2030. This is more than 3% per year for oil and gas, predominantly LNG. And this is a very significant 20% growth CAGR for our power production, as you can see here. The idea is that in 2030, we are aiming for a production of electricity that's going to be 20% of the overall energy we produce. So this is what we are very patiently, very consistently building and delivering.

And in terms of energy sales, you can see the evolution is the same. It is, in a way, just exacerbated. And you can see here that there is the same evolution in terms of gas playing a significant part in our sales mix between oil and gas and electricity playing more and more of a very significant part. All of that is driving the carbon intensity of the products we sell to our customers down, as you can see on the right-hand side. again, we achieved 18.6% reduction in this carbon intensity of the energy mix we put in the market last year, and we are going for minus 25% in 2030.

And this is key because the carbon intensity is really the reflection of the fact that we enable our customers who consume energy to reduce their own Scope 1 and 2 emissions because at the end of the day, what we want to achieve is that we, as an energy producer, like you saw in the movie just now, we reduce our Scope 1 and 2 emissions. What we want to achieve is that our clients can reduce their Scope 1 and 2 emissions. And this is what this I see, this carbon intensity index is really measuring. We are tailoring the investments so that they can precisely meet those targets.

And you can see here -- so the investment allocation this year in 2026, and you can see what we aim to do by 2030. There is investment in oil and gas for growth, new projects and maintenance investments, as I was saying, we are investing in existing projects and in new projects actually so that we can fight this natural decline of fields. The natural decline rate of fields, the IEA published a report last September is on average for the global industry around 7% to 8%. This is something we have to fight just to maintain production flat.

So this is what we're doing exactly when we invest, and we invest in new projects to sustain the growth that I was mentioning, which is more than 3% per year, a lot of LNG. It's not new. We've done that consistently. And actually, we have more than 12 years proved reserves life index, which puts us in the best league in the industry in this respect. Now we invest in low carbon energies, and we've done something very significant recently. We announced a deal late last year with EPH that has a fleet of CCGTs, of gas-fired power plants in Europe. We're going to be acquiring 50% of that fleet. That's a lot in Italy, the U.K., Ireland, the Netherlands namely. And what we're doing here, it's a share deal.

So it's going to be a capital increase to do that deal, which should close around the summertime. And what we're doing here is that we are really front-loading, accelerating the plan. We had a plan to grow in renewables still here, and I'll show that afterwards. We had a plan to grow in flexible generation assets, CCGTs, gas-fired power plants. And in Europe, actually, with that deal, we have front-loaded a significant share of that plan so that we can accelerate our power production.

And the investment effort is going to be around EUR 4 billion per year, including EUR 1 billion per year in this ETH share deal that we have, if you look at that, let's say, over the next 5 years, if you look at that over the next 5 years. We are going for a low CapEx approach to other low-carbon activities, and I'll show details of that afterwards, so I'll come back to that.

The reason is we are adapting our investment space to market penetration on the client side of things. And again, I'll show you some examples of that. And one very good way to look at our effort that's consistent over time is the EU taxonomy. 30% of our investment in a proportional view are eligible to the EU taxonomy. So this is what we achieved year after year to grow that low carbon business, that integrated car business that we've been building.

I was saying that what we aim to have is a resilient portfolio when it comes to producing oil and gas. And here, you have in a snapshot, that's a fairly busy slide. But here you have in a snapshot what it means in concrete terms to have a resilient portfolio of oil and gas. So it means first is that we need to have a good control of our cost and make sure that the breakeven in our oil and gas portfolio is as low as possible. And you can see over the last almost 10 years now, the breakeven has been very, very consistently low around the $25 per barrel threshold so that we can generate profits in a lot of prices environment, even in low prices environments.

The reason we've gotten there is that we have applied and we keep applying very strict investment criteria. Our investments in oil and gas need to be profitable in a $50 per barrel environment. So they need to generate returns in those environments. And they need to have a CapEx plus OpEx per barrel technical cost, CapEx plus OpEx that's less than $20 or less than $30 breakeven. So these are investment criteria we have been following in the last few years. They're not new. We are still following these criteria, and they achieve exactly what you see. At the same time, our barrels of oil and gas that we produce today that we produce in the future, they need to be resilient in any kind of a transition scenario.

Depending on where things will be going, if things might accelerate in terms of penetration of low carbon technologies, the barrels of oil and gas that will be relevant to produce in the future will be those that have the lowest cost of production. I've mentioned that, and those that need the less CO2 in the production cycle. And this is exactly what you see here. I mentioned that earlier. We have criteria in our investment decisions. We take into account the $100 per tonne carbon pricing, assuming that if it were to apply, we need to make sure that we make a profit in our investment.

And as I was saying, we have lowered the intensity of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere when you produce a barrel of oil or gas to less than 16 kilograms. So this is taking the intensity of our portfolio down. And what you see on the bottom left side here of the slide is very interesting is we've looked at what are the existing production and projects up to 2040. And you can see where our portfolio sits in that portfolio of production, global production. we have some of the most resilient in terms of emissions, barrels of oil and gas to produce.

And you can see here that they are relevant these barrels in many scenarios, including Parisalign scenarios like the APS24 that was published by the International Energy Agency. What it means too is that in terms of cash flow per barrel, we are increasing consistently the cash flow from operations we deliver per barrel. You see that on the right-hand side. And you can see that the new projects that are being put into production, they bring additional cash flow compared to the average that we have. Again, this is because you see the results of the investment criteria that we've been applying. So there is production growth and there is accretive cash growth because the cash growth is even more important than the sheer production growth in oil and gas.

So this is what we're achieving by applying this criteria in a very constant way. And this is how we are building this resilient portfolio of oil and gas. Here, you have really the same thing around our LNG projects. And you can see where our projects of LNG are positioned on the merit curve and how they reach breakeven in 11% discount environment, that's Asia. And you can see that the best positioned on the merit curve. So these LNG tons that will come on the market through the projects, they are resilient, they are sustainable so that they can contribute to meeting energy demand in gas. And you can see that, again, the performance in terms of intensity on the right-hand side of our new projects is significantly better than the average of the industry, as you can see.

Now let me spend some time with you on some very concrete examples of what it means in our investments, in our operations and projects to deliver energy that's affordable and therefore, that's profitable because the 2 really go together because this is what will drive customers adoption. Let's look at electricity first. What you see here on the left-hand side is the, let's say, benchmark of levelized cost of electricity production of various means of production. And you can see that without any surprise, the cheapest sources of electricity production today on an LCOE basis are solar and onshore wind.

We take into account that in Europe, $100 per ton of CO2 pricing environment, which is a reasonable, I would say, assumption to make. And you can see that solar and onshore wind, they perform better on an LCOE basis than CCGT and offshore wind and then the rest goes higher. So what do we do? We invest in those means of production of electricity that are the best positioned on this merit curve because we want to make profit out of that business, and we want to deliver affordable electricity to our clients.

And you can see that our portfolio is a portfolio where growth is going to come from these sources that are the best positioned on the merit curve. You can see that we are going to move from 48 terawatt hours production in 2025. So that's close to 50 terawatt hours electricity production last year to more than 100 to 120 terawatt hours production. And the technology from which is going to be derived is described here that even is fit in the car there in French, in the pie, that's onshore solar, onshore wind, a small portion of offshore wind and flexible assets, gas-fired power plants with batteries playing a part, batteries that can charge when prices are low or negative through solar, through wind and then they can discharge on the grid when prices are higher. So that's good for the reliability of electricity supply, one of the 3 tips of the energy trilemma, and that's good also for the affordability and profitability of these operations.

So this is what we are building as a portfolio, and you can see the split that we're aiming for in terms of where the production of electrons is going to come from. And you can see what it means in terms of gigawatts of capacity installed, still the same as you've seen since last year, 100 gigawatts of total growth capacity that we need to have developed and installed by then, a significant chunk, the majority for renewables and then also from flexible generation. And trading is a key component in that business segment to optimize and again, to create value for our shareholders.

Now here, what you see is the electricity generation that I've mentioned. If we look at the cash flow profile of that business, this year, in 2026, we aim to generate more than $3 billion in cash flow from our integrated power operations. And this means that this business segment will -- by the latest next year and might be sooner depending on when we close the deal with EPH that was mentioning, it means that at the latest next year, Integrated Power, the cash flow from operations will actually contribute to the dividend. It will generate more cash than we invest in terms of cash in that segment.

So this is what is shown here, and we are aiming for this $4 billion to $5 billion cash flow from operations in 2030 in this business segment. And it's always very interesting to compare that business with our oil business. And you can see on the right-hand side, oil and gas business that in a -- if we take a $60 per barrel environment, the return on average capital employed of our oil and gas oil activities is 12%. That's normal, so to speak.

Our Integrated Power segment is going to be generating, that's the aim we have 12% return on average capital employed by 2030. So the idea here is that in this business segment, we deliver the same return on average capital employed than we do in a $60 environment in oil activities. And what's very interesting too is that, obviously, and that's shown here, the Power division will not capture up cycles in the oil prices, as we know for very different reasons.

We have one just today, but it's going to be very resilient and very constant -- so it is also something that's very interesting to make sure that we have this cushion of cash flow from operations that are not, let's say, exposed to volatility in some cycles like the oil price. So that dividend, as always, is scrosan and guaranteed by a variety of activities, and we derive a lot of value from that integration and power plays a part in this respect, too. Now let's look at some subsegments of our activities.

And what we're showing here is really this, let's say, transition, affordability and pace of the transition journey. So what you see on the left-hand side is that in our fast and ultrafast public EV charging activities, we have 2,000 fast and ultrafast charging points now that have been deployed. You can see that the utilization rate is still fairly low. It's reached 9% in 2025. There is a slow growth, but still that's slow growth.

And the reason is there is not EV adoption, namely in Europe, at the pace that was expected, required or anticipated, have it your way. And then what do we do? We adjust our investment to the pace of market demand. There is not the demand that many expected that has materialized. So we keep investing lower levels of investment. You see that here, $100 million per year instead of $200 million -- sorry, $200 million per year. We focus on what makes sense from our operations standpoint, fast and ultrafast charging in our retail stations, highways and urban areas.

And we've gone for a low equity approach to what we call B2G. B2G is the public street charging concessions like in Paris and other capitals in Europe and elsewhere in the world. In France, we've done a joint venture. We announced that last year with [ Bitire,'saép ] to develop that activity with them. So there's less capital we put in. There's more leverage we can have. And we've done the same in the Netherlands and Belgium with TKO recently. So this is an approach where we're still going for that business, but with partners with more leverage so that we follow the pace of public demand, and we put our capital where it makes sense to put our capital in.

And then what needs to happen for that to accelerate? Back to the -- okay, what are the enablers concretely for EV penetration? Prices need to go down. And certainly, there needs to be a significant push for small segment cars because they can be made affordable. We noticed the case in China already Chinese electric cars are more competitive than Chinese ICE cars on the Chinese domestic market. Europe can get there. Other countries can too.

So we need to -- we collectively, the car industry, the states and governments that devise the policies they need to support adoption of small easy cars that need to be made affordable, affordable sorry. there needs to be support for the used car market. The reason is this is where people actually buy their car. In France, for instance, 70% of cars are bought on the secondhand car market, not on the new car market. So these are the enablers. Technology needs to be adaptable. The reason is, as I was saying earlier, there have been very significant developments in technology charging in ranges that by batteries can achieve and how fast you can charge batteries, mainly from some Chinese innovation.

We need to make sure that our infrastructure of EV charging will be able to adapt to evolving technologies at a pretty rapid pace actually. And then you need to take the power to these distribution points, these EV charging points. So networks, grids need to be upgraded. So these are very concrete enablers where policy support, subsidies, money can be put behind. subsidies were taken out by the French and German governments for EV cars for a year in 2024, 2025, reinstated last year, and we saw immediate results in the uptake of EV cars on the market. It had been plateauing really for 3 years.

Actually, there was a decline in 2024, and there was a slight uptick in that figure of EV penetration late last year and earlier this year. Let's look now at aviation mobility. We know that there is an excess cost or an additional cost to produce low carbon molecules for the aviation industry. And you can see here the comparison. We take as a benchmark, the cost of jet fuel before March, so let's say, in February.

And then we look at the merit curve of different technologies. SAF from coprocessing is the next cheapest source of production compared to jet fuel. SAF from brownfield, meaning conventional refineries is the next one and so on and so forth. And you can see that the most expensive is ESAF, meaning synthetic SAF to produce, which is made from the combination of H2 and CO2. And this one is extremely expensive, 10x more expensive than traditional oil jet fuel. So what do we do in this context? We, as always, invest for what's the cheapest to produce, therefore, what's the most affordable and the most profitable.

And you can see that in our European refineries, we have invested in co-processing capacity because they're the next cheapest ones compared to jet fuel. We've done that in Normandy. We've done that in NeunA. There's no CapEx required because you directly inject into the oil fuel refining or jet fuel refining process, you directly inject biodiesel, HDO or biofeedstock, lipids directly in there. So it goes into the process and then you have a blended fuel at the end of the process that meets the namely EU mandates requirements or even more than that today to grow in the market.

And then we've also invested in pure SAF midSA 100% SAF capacity. Lam Med is already producing 15,000 tonnes per year in the south of France. And Grand Prix, that's not too far from Paris. -- will start production by the end of this year, and it will reach a full capacity of 230,000 tonnes per year. By doing that, we are investing in means of production that are competitive when we go and face customers, airlines that have to buy these aviation fuels. And we need to secure feedstock because feedstock is key in producing sustainable aviation fuel.

So we've done partnerships mainly with Sara, Quatras to make sure we have access to the animal fat, used cooking oil that we need to produce these fats. And now what's required? What's required is something that's working in a way in the EU is mandates. Mandates in the EU, there is in a material way, the only place where you have mandates for demand to materialize in the world, that's in the. You have very small mandates in other places like Singapore or the U.K., but that's way smaller in terms of quantities. But then we listen to our customers and what they say is that it's going to be very steep because today mandates are 2% SAF in jet fuel, basically, that's the blend you need to have today on the market. It's going to be 6% in 2030 when you look at the European regulations with a mandate of around 1% of ESA in 2030. And you can see that ESA is the most expensive one. So maybe it doesn't quite make sense to have that yet.

And then the steps are going to be very steep. It's going to be 20% in 2035, 34% in 2040 and then going to 70% of blend that you need to have in 2050. That's what you have in the regulations today. Airlines are saying we can't have that, not in the current technology and price environment. So what we are saying is that, and this is something that airlines are advocating, there should be more technological neutrality in mandates. So that you put in the blend what's the cheapest to produce and therefore, airlines in Europe can stay competitive.

And you need to make sure that there is maybe more, let's say, progressivity in the way in which the requirements are going to be progressing. And certainly, what's very important is the more we can have a global mandate one way or another, the more there's going to be demand certainty and the more it's easier actually for suppliers like us to make our investment decisions, for instance, in Europe. So these are the enablers. And again, they are very concrete examples of what can be delivered by governments, by customers, by corporates together so that we can accelerate that pace of transition.

Same is true for the hydrogen. Hydrogen was seen as maybe some kind of a phenomenal universal energy vector maybe some 5 years ago in the discussions. We all know that things have changed in the way in which H2 is being looked at, but still it has not disappeared. And there's a typical here, what I like to call the chicken and egg issue on green hydrogen. Green hydrogen is very expensive. You can see it here on the left-hand side. And the question is, who's going to come first? Because supply needs to be that clients are comfortable they can make investments and suppliers of hydrogen need to be comfortable that there will be demand. That's the chicken and egg issue. What we've done is that because we are an energy producer on the one hand, you know that, but we consume a lot of hydrogen in our refineries.

Two, we've gone from an approach where we are aiming to procure, produce in joint ventures, low-carbon hydrogen, namely especially green hydrogen that we can use in our refineries in Europe starting in 2030. It will abate CO2 emissions. So that's good for climate, and we'll be able to deliver energy products to our customers. And then what we need to do collectively again is to make sure that we find a way to compensate the excess price because otherwise, that's not affordable, that's not competitive, it's not going to work.

And how can we do that? Well, when you look at that in Europe, if you compare the gray part of the gray hydrogen based on natural gas price, if you add up the ETS, so the CO2 pricing cost of producing gray hydrogen, you can see that you really don't get to parity with the price of blue or green hydrogen. Then you need to have what we call RED II RFNBO eligibility to a significant extent so that basically using green low carbon hydrogen in our refineries will generate these renewable fuels of nonbiological origin credits under the EU regulations, and that's for member states to implement. And then you can basically -- sorry, match the price in a way of the excess cost, excess price that you have.

So we need that to happen. It happened in some countries, the eligibility for certificates. It needs to be improved in some countries like Belgium and the Netherlands. And we need to have visibility beyond 2030 because we don't make investment decisions in a 5-year time horizon. It's more 15, 20 more years that we look at when we make investment decisions. We need to have more visibility. And then market size needs to grow because the more you grow the market size, the more you have scale and the more you can basically bring down the -- when you look at CCS, again, it's the same story.

On the left-hand side, you can see that carbon capture and storage is expensive. And you can see that the all-in cost of capture, transportation and storage of CO2 leaves a significant cost gap to the ETS price that in Europe, producers have to pay. So basically, what we've done is we've invested in some capacity, Northern Light in Norway, where we have a co-partner is now injecting storing CO2.

We need to make sure that clients are here. And for that to happen, there needs to be faster permitting in the EU for clients to do the capture side, for developers like us to do the storage side of things and transportation in between. We need to have a lot of visibility and regulation and especially, again, still the same story. There needs to be a way to make for this pricing difference that's in excess of the ETS price that if you store CO2, you don't pay the ETS because you can store the CO2, but then still leaves an extra price on it.

And there needs to be mechanisms in place. One of them, it's been put in place in some places. It's CCFDs, carbon contracts for different their policy tools that exist that can be used again to make sure that there is enough incentives for larger emitters of CO2, the cement factories, for instance, to make these investments to make them, again, affordable, therefore, competitive and make sure that in Europe, for instance, the example we're giving, competitivity is maintained for the European industry.

So all of that is putting us in a place where we are creating value year after year for our stakeholders, for our shareholders. And you can see here where this value goes, taxes, namely in a lot of non-OECD countries, emerging economies, which is very important. to our employees, obviously, to our shareholders and to investments. And it's something that we present every year. We have employees who feel safe working in the company. That's very important. Renault was saying we have safety teams in the morning.

They trust the way in which the senior management team, the company is evolving, is implementing its strategy. There is a lot of confidence. Therefore, we can embark our 100,000 employees in this journey because if they are not on board, if we, as colleagues are not on board, we can't achieve that, and they're proud to work for San Energies, which is very important to us. And this is reflected in the fact that they are very significant shareholders of the company. They now own close to 10% of the value capital of SosanEnergies. It's growing.

Last year, they invested EUR 0.5 billion in the capital increase for employees in our company. So that's the best -- it goes without any speech. I could have just mentioned that, and I think it shows that they feel more than okay working for Star Energies and the trust is what it is that we're doing in terms of strategy. Now others, when they look at us, find that we perform more than well. And here, you have extra financial evaluations by third parties. I won't comment on that.

And when you look into more details, you can see that we have very, very excellent ratings by EcoVadis in our affiliates, in our operations, that's supply chain management, that's environment, that's safety, that's human rights. This is what goes into these rankings and evaluations that we have.

Finally, let me conclude here before I leave the floor to my colleagues. You can see here 15 years of evolution, and there's one simple way to look at that. What needs to go up is going up. What needs to go down is going down. We are taking profits up share price at energy production up because we're bringing energy to the world. We're taking CO2 emissions, methane emissions, life cycle carbon intensity down, and we have no intention to stop. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Aurelien. Very good morning or afternoon to all of you. I'm very pleased to walk you through this presentation and to share with you some insight into what we have been doing in the company to fight against methane emission as Aurelian was explaining, also to explain you what we intend to do to take this fight a step further. You will see that there are many initiatives that we have already undertaken, which I think position us as a leader in the industry.

And of course, we would like to maintain this position of leadership. But first of all, why does methane emission matter? Methane is a well-known greenhouse gas like CO2, but its global warming potential is much greater than CO2. If you consider a period of 100 years, it's 30x more impactful than CO2. If you consider 20 years, it even jumps to 80x more. Why is that? Because methane, unlike CO2 is unstable in the atmosphere, and it has an average lifetime, which is around 12 years only.

We estimate that methane has been responsible for globally 1/3 of the global warming since the Industrial Revolution. And if you take the example of the year 2023, out of the 56 gigaton of CO2 equivalent that were released on that year, you have 12 gigatons that were directly linked to methane, mainly because of the activity in agriculture, in waste and of course, in energy. And out of this 12 gigaton, you had 4 gigatons specifically linked to the use of fossil fuel and 2.4, which were directly associated with the oil and gas activity.

Because of the relatively short lifetime of the methane, as I explained, acting on its emission does have a short-term impact on the global warming. And we believe actually that it's probably the most efficient lever that we have to fight against this warming. And just to illustrate that, you may remember that it was back in 2021 in Glasgow at COP26, 160 countries committed to reduce their methane emission by 30% over this decade.

If this commitment is met, which we hope, it will then have an impact of 0.2 degrees Celsius on the global rise of temperature by 2050. So you can see that the impact is indeed very meaningful. Probably contrarily to what they have in agriculture and West, we do have in the oil and gas industry, both the technology and the operational expertise to fight efficiently and quickly against methane emission. And what we have been doing as a company shows that very clearly, and actually, it will be the purpose of this presentation.

But first of all, and very logically actually because of what I've just said, we are strongly supportive of all the international initiatives that have been taken to act against methane emission. So the first one that is mentioned here and that we co-funded is the oil and gas climate initiative that was launched in 2018. It's a CEO-led initiative that gives an objective in terms of methane intensity reduction.

Likewise, we also co-founded the oil and gas methane partnership. This is a United Nations-led initiative that sets a reference framework for methane emission reporting. And by the way, we were granted by the OGMP 5 years in a row, the gold standards. We are very proud of that. And then there is a third initiative that is mentioned here that our CEO call it, which is the oil and gas decarbonization charter, which was launched in COP 28 back in 2023. It's a coalition of 56 oil and gas international or national companies. This coalition represents 40% of the global oil production. And they committed to -- we committed because we are part of that to, first of all, eliminate routine flaring and secondly, to achieve near zero methane emission and this by the end of this decade.

So now moving to what we have done in the company regarding methane emissions. First of all, with the plot you have on the left, you see that we have been able, over the last decade, so from 2020 to 2010, sorry, to 2020 to cut by almost half our methane emission in the operated asset. And we did that mainly by acting on flaring. And since then, as you can see, we have kept reducing very steadily the emissions.

Over the last 5 years, we were able to cut them by an additional 65%. Interestingly, in 2020, our objective was to reduce the emission with the 5 coming years by 50%. And we decided last year to raise this target to minus 60%. So as I just said, and Aurelien said it as well, we did even better than the reinforced targets. For that reason, we are very well on track to deliver the objective that we have for the end of this decade, which is to achieve 80% reduction as compared to 2020.

And by the way, we said to ourselves, it was said previously as well recently, a new intermediate target, which is to reduce by 70% by the end of this year, our emissions as compared to 2020. Likewise, regarding the methane intensity, which is the ratio between the methane that we released to the atmosphere over the amount of commercial gas that is produced. Methane intensity is on a very clear downward trajectory. We started this decade with an intensity at 0.15%. And at that time, we're targeting not to exceed 0.1% in 2030.

Actually, we already reached this objective back in 2024. And for instance, last year, we were as low as 0.07% -- it happens that the bulk of the emissions that we have in the company takes place in exploration and production. And for this reason, the E&P branch with One Tech support has set up an organization to tackle the emissions very systematically, source by source.

And you have here the 4 main sources of emissions. First of all, what we call fugitive emissions, which is CA basically. Then you have flaring because whenever you flare gas, there is always a fraction of this gas, which is left unburned, typically around 2%. Third, you have venting whenever by design, there are release of methane to the atmosphere in some area of the processing facilities. And then you have incomplete gas combustion in gas-driven equipment could be a gas turbines or gas engine. So we did tackle very systematically these sources. But of course, when you embark in this type of journey, the very first thing you need to ensure is to have a proper mapping of your emission and to do that with the appropriate technology.

So several years ago, when we decided to equip ourselves with devices capable of measuring methane, including at low concentration, including in hard-to-reach areas like fair, we saw that there were very few technology available on the market. And on top of that, not with the accuracy and not with the functionalities that we were looking for. So we decided to develop our own technology, this with the support of 2 French research institute, the CNRS and the University. And altogether, we developed a new sensor, which we call OSA, which is a gas spectrometer that is indeed capable of measuring low concentration of methane and also CO2 in the air, where there can be either handheld or embarked on drone. We did qualify this technology in 2021 using our TAI platform, which is a testing platform southwest of France nearby Post, so through a blind testing program.

And more recently, the international methane emission observatory together with Stanford performed a benchmark of the various tools available on the market, again, based on blind testing. And they came to the conclusion that OSA was indeed the best-in-class technology in this category. So we have since then industrialized the manufacturing of the sensors.

We have deployed [ OoseEA ] throughout our operated assets. It was a very important achievement because it was truly a step change in our understanding of the emission, and it triggered a number of actions to fight against these emissions. As we were doing that, we also started to offer the operators of our OBO assets to conduct with our support OSA surveys. And likewise, we also offered this service to several national oil company. Just to name a few, there was Sonal Angola, Petrobras, Socaazarbajon and a few others. And interestingly, we also accepted to share this technology with Veolia, so a very different business for them to map their emission in their landfill.

So certainly, OSA was an important step in our journey, but it was not enough actually because with OSA, you conduct spot survey. So it's not really appropriate for any discontinuous submission.

For this reason, we decided it was at the end of 2024 to go a step further by equipping all our operated assets with a permanent monitoring system that consists of various type of devices such as IoT sensors, infrared camera. It also comprises systems that allows us assessing in real time the fraction of gas that is unburned -- left unburned in flares or in gas-driven equipment.

And thanks to truly a massive engagement of all the affiliates in the NP branch, we were able in just above a year to deploy that everywhere. For instance, we deployed in the order of 13,000 IoT sensors everywhere offshore, onshore. And as you can see, all this for a cost, which is, I would say, limited -- which was limited to $50 million, limited given the magnitude of the plan. So that's where we are. And as we are doing that, we also set up in the head office a methane tracking center, MTC.

So in the MTC, we collect real time all the data that are acquired now on sites related to methane emission, plus also data that we received from a number of satellite data providers. And the MTC objective actually is twofold. First of all, logic is to support all our sites in their detection program and also very importantly, to try now to make the most of this massive influx of data, leveraging IA digital solutions to try and take our fight against methane even a step further.

I told you earlier on that the very first source of emissions that we have to tackle are fugitive emissions. So leaks, you can see on the top right of this slide, an example of a gas leak at the level of a flange. Back in -- at the beginning of this decade, fugitive emissions accounted for close to 10% of our global methane emission in the operated perimeter. And of course, our duty is to detect immediately any fugitive emissions, which we can now do, thanks to this permanent monitoring system that I just described. But as soon as you have detected that there is something going wrong in your process, the next step is to be able to identify precisely what is the source of the leak and also to measure the rate of this leak, which we cannot do actually with the IoT sensors.

And for that, we do what we call a QLR survey, which stands for quantification, leak detection and repair, which is basically an handheld infrared camera survey, which indeed allows us to say precisely what is the source of the gas leak and how much of gas is released to the atmosphere. And then, of course, the very last step, but the most important actually is to fix all that, to stop the leak, which we are doing exactly like what we are doing for oil fields.

So we put here a very concrete example of various detection that we've been able to do with this large pan of tools that we have now in hand. Starting on the upper left of this slide, you have a satellite detection that was done in the Middle East, one of our assets onshore. The core pixel corresponds to the gas cloud. Actually, it originated from a cold flare after a process event.

Moving down, you have example of detection that were done with OSA, either walking the sensor through the facilities or by drones through flights. Upper right, you have 2 examples of detection from a fixed camera. The one on the left is very interesting. It took place in South America onshore assets. We were actually able to detect a gas leak from a buried pipe because of pin due to corrosion. And then on the right, you have another example, which is, again, in the Middle East at the top of a storage tank with gas release.

And then moving to the bottom part of this slide, right part, you have a very short detection that was done, thanks to one of these many IoT sensors that we have now deployed. This one took place in the North Sea after a maintenance operation. Needless to say that in all these cases, we act swiftly to stop that. I told you earlier on as well that a second source of emission possibly was flaring. When dealing with flaring, the first thing you need to address is routine flaring.

And by the way, we are committed, as I said earlier on, to eliminate routine flaring from our operations, operated assets by the end of this decade. So here, you have the example of what happened in Nigeria. We are offshore OM100. It's an oil asset. And by design there, the associated gas used to be routinely flared in a number of satellite platforms. So we decided to collect this gas, route it to a central complex, treat it and then send it to an LNG for this gas to be liquefied. It allowed us to abate our emissions by 1,000 tons of methane per year.

But probably more interestingly, it came with a net technical cost, NTC negative minus 40 tonnes per CO2 equivalent abated. Why that? It's because when you combine the revenues that is coming from this extra gas that we monetize plus the avoidance of paying penalties for flaring, you do more than offset actually the cost of rerouting the gas to the central complex. So that's what for routine flaring.

Another type of flaring is safety flaring. But contrarily to routine flaring, you cannot avoid safety flaring because you always need to flare a fraction of gas to -- just to ensure a safe performance of your operations. But the least we should do, we shall do is to make sure that this gas is as little as possible. Here, you have the example of what we did in Gabon offshore in 2 very mature assets, Ang and Torpy, which were equipped as they were mature by all design flares.

And so we decided to modernize these flares by installing new flare tip with a flame stabilizer, also an automatic ignition system. And this plus a few other optimization allowed us to reduce the methane emission by more than 3,000 tonnes a year. here again, by the way, with a negative and is slightly negative, but negative because of the extra gas monetization.

The last example I wanted to share with you regarding flaring is what we call flare gas recovery systems, or FGRS, which may be better known as cllothlare. Here, the principle is very simple actually. Very often in the former design of facilities, all the residual low-pressure gas streams are flared. So the idea is to collect this gas to compress it and to recycle it in the processing facilities. Today, by design, any new facilities that -- any new project that we launch is equipped with a cloth flare. It's must do for our engineers. And we also embarked in a retrofit campaign in several brownfield assets.

We have installed as part of this campaign, a closed flare in Tama Rosa, which is an oil onshore asset in Italy. Likewise, we did that in Egina FPSO, Deepwater Nigeria. Before concluding, 2 examples that we wanted to share with you regarding the third source of emission, which is venting when we release gas by design from our processing facilities. And here, the first example we wanted to share with you is taken from the U.S. and more specifically from our shale gas asset in Texas, Barnett asset.

There, we produce gas from quite a number of wells that are spread over like 400 pads. It happens that these pads were equipped by design with what we call gas instrumentation, which is used to automatically power a number of devices on the pad. The issue with the design is that once you have used the gas, it's just released to the air. So we decided to switch all that from gas instrumentation to air instrumentation simply by installing air compressor on the different pads. As you can see, it resulted into just a massive methane emission reduction, minus 7,000 tonnes per year even more.

Remember that last year, at company level, our total emission in the operated perimeter was slightly above 20,000 tonnes per year. So it was a very meaningful initiative at the company level. And this with a net technical cost that was limited to $20 per ton, thanks to the extra gas monetization. And very last example we wanted to share with you. We are back in Nigeria, but this time in onshore, OML58, we have on the asset close to 10 storage oil tanks, which were equipped by design with what we call a natural gas blanketing system. It is gas that you put inside the storage at the front of it just to avoid any oxygen ingress. The issue with that, and we realize that thanks to OA surveys that it comes with a significant release of gas to the atmosphere.

So we decided to change this blanketing system for a nitrogen blanketing. And here, again, like for the Barnett, it resulted into a massive methane emission reduction, minus 5,000 tonnes a year with a technical cost that was slightly negative. So this leads me to my concluding remark, which will be very short. First of all, I hope that with all these examples, very concrete that we shared with you, you are as convinced as we are that it is indeed quite possible to act efficiently and quickly against methane emissions, providing we do that very systematically and we mobilize the appropriate technology.

On top of that, very often, we see that we can even do that in an accretive manner. And as far as we are concerned, it truly reinforce our conviction that it's the whole oil and gas industry that should follow this path, and we are here to support this move. And also, we'll keep very proactively pushing the operators of all our BO assets to engage in the same journey, sharing with them our experience and knowledge. So with this remark, I will stop here and hand over to you, Marc for the last focus.

Thank you, Guillaume. Good afternoon. Before sharing some customer cases, I will share with you some achievements and also some takeaways where we are regarding the customer decarbonization. As Aurelian told you, we are well on track on our objective to reduce the carbon intensity of the product we sell with an achievement by the end of 2025 of 18.6%. But what I wanted to illustrate with you here is how we that. So the 3 main levers to achieve it is first by reducing the direct operational emission.

The second one is shifting our energy mix with more gas and less oil. And the third one, which is very important, is by expanding the sale of electricity to our customer, which alone account for 70% of this objective. So this is what you will see later how we do that with our customer. Maybe a word on One B2B.

Just as a reminder, One B2B was created 4 years ago in the context of the energy transition with the main mission to support our large customer in their decarbonization journey. Today, this is a team of 35 experts acting as a bridge between customer needs and capability of the company to design and develop tailored long-term low-carbon solution across all the company. We are structured around 10 key segments covering 37 industries. And today, we track and support more than 450 customers worldwide.

Just a number to give you a magnitude, all those customers, they represent around 2 gigatons CO2 emission per year, which is roughly 5% of the global emission worldwide linked to energy use. Now from strategy to implementation in terms of product, one integrated low-carbon multi-energy portfolio tailored to each customer transition, ranging from renewable electricity through classic PTAs or clean farm powers to decentralized generation, batteries, mobility and low-carbon molecules.

Together, this solution address our main key challenges of our customers. And Aurelian told you, first is securing reliable, affordable supply. Second is, of course, reducing emission. And the third one, which is key also, is to meet their industrial requirements. So where are we now? I will not enter in detail in all what you see here in the numbers, but the slide shows a clear progression.

In 4 years, we have moved from first deals to real scale. The first comment I want to share with you is that we are delivering globally. And of course, on our key strategic geographies, Europe, the United States and of course, Brazil. And this shows that our model is working across geographies and also through different market conditions. The second comment I want to share with you is that decarbonization takes time. These results reflect months and years of work structuring solution, building trust with our customers and also turning ambition into long-term commitments. And the third one is our capability and credibility now are well established on the market. And 2025 mark a clear step change with major agreements with the data center sector, which is certainly one of the most fast-growing and demanding sector.

So in short, delivery, scale, credibility. And before turning to the examples of decarbonization with customer, I would like to take a step back and to share with you a few takeaways on where our customer stand today with their decarbonization journey. The first main takeaway is that commitment remains strong towards 2030 despite a tough economic context. But visibility beyond 2030 is more limited, to be. And most efforts of our customers focus on Scope 2 because reducing Scope 1 remains today complex, capital intensive and highly dependent on technology. The second message I want to share regarding my experience with the company and our customer is that across sector, we see 2 distinct dynamics.

The first one is that for most of the sectors in industry, decarbonization is not pursued at the expense of competitiveness. Customers face real constraints first, its complex industrial transformation and also the absence in the market of a green premium to justify large investments. At the same time, you have a few fast-growing sectors as data centers, aerospace, defense, but also pharmaceuticals that are moving faster, driven by growth, strategic positioning and strong sustainability commitments. And finally, when it comes to solution, low carbon electricity clearly stands as one of the main levers today to decarbonize.

Hydrogen has moved down the agenda and CCS still remain critical for specific sector as a cement industry. So now let's illustrate with 4 examples. The first one is data center. I want to share with you some highlights on this sector. You know that the sector is really booming. AI is accelerating demand and data center players are really engaged in a race in a race for capacity and for market share. The horizon is quite short term before 2030, and energy is really their top priority. It's critical for them to grow.

The electricity demand from data center is expected to double, exceeding 1,000 terawatt hour by 2030. And they face 3 immediate challenges to really understand what we will do. First is a fast access to land with a stable grid. reliable and 24/7 power and meeting very ambitious sustainability targets. So now let's take the example of Google to highlight what we have done with this major player. In 2025, we have signed 2.2 gigawatts PPAs with Google, 1 gigawatt in Texas with TotalEnergies assets and 1.2 gigawatts in the U.S. through our DVlearways on over 3 grids.

And in Texas, it's a real breakthrough what we did with Google. We provide an integrated scalable solution and access to a land to install a data center with grid connection, renewable generation and possibility to install. And beyond the U.S., our partnership also with Google is global. Earlier in 2025, we also signed a PPA in Malaysia for 20 megawatts. And all that project, all those projects directly support the big ambition of Google to be 24/7 carbon-free.

The second example I want to share with you is also another strategic sector, which is semiconductor. The semiconductor is upstream part of the data and tech industry and demand is also driven by AI and also by connected devices. Energy consumption is growing at the same pace as data center. And the production of semiconductor remain mainly in Asia, but with some selective reshoring in the U.S. and in Europe for critical technologies. This is not really a new territory for us.

We were in 2023, a founding member of the Semiconductor Climate Consortium Energy collaborative launched during COP28. So now let's take the example of Skeicroelectronics, which is a leading European player supplying hyperscalers and major electronics company worldwide with an ambition for them to be 100% renewable energy by 2027. In 2025, we signed a major wind farm power contract in France, 1.5 terawatt hour over 15 years, new solar and wind assets, firm 24/7 power aligned with their continuous industrial operation, which was key for them.

The third example is the aviation industry. aviation sector, it's an important emitter of CO2, around 4% of the global emission. And also, it's a booming industry. The global passenger traffic and the commercial fleet will double by mid-2040s and with around more than 40,000 new aircraft expected over the next 20 years.

In terms of decarbonization, conventional propulsion should remain dominant, meaning that sustainable aviation fuel, the SAF is the main near-term lever to decarbonize Scope 3 emission. So one of our key customers, Airbus, is strongly committed to pioneering decarbonization aviation with an ambitious road map targeting 3% CO2 emission reduction in Scope 1 and 2 and also 25% use of SAF by 2030 in their operation. TotalEnergies and Airbus share a long-standing partnership of over more than 50 years.

And recently, we have strengthened it around SAF innovation, including the development of blends above 50% compatible with future and current engines. And in 2025, the partnership reached a new milestone with electricity with the signature of 2 power contracts to supply the sites in Germany and in United Kingdom, representing 3.3 terawatt over the next decade. So this showcase the full extent of our multi-energy positioning with one customer.

And to conclude, I want to share with you a case in the steel industry, which is certainly one of the hardest sectors to decarbonize, accounting for around 8% of the global CO2 emission. And we will focus here on the downstream of this industry with Vallourec, a global leader in premium tubular solution mainly for the energy sector. Vallourec aims to reduce its carbon intensity by 30% and green electricity is certainly the main key lever for them to achieve this target.

We will go to Brazil. Brazil is a key geography for Vallourec, where they have a strong integrated industrial footprint, especially in Minas Gerais, which is North Sao Paulo. And in Brazil, you may know hydropower, which is dominant, the reliability can be a challenge during the dry season. That's why Vallourec signed with us a 10-year PPA for 235 gigawatt per year of wind power through our joint venture, [ Caaentos. ] So this power is produced thanks to a complex called Serra Tigre, which is one of the largest onshore wind sites in Brazil.

So this contract will secure to Vallourec low carbon, reliable electricity and marks really a new step in our partnership with a strong supplier for us that has become now an important customer. This is all for me in terms of example. Thank you very much. And I'm sure you are in contact with customers. So if you have some customers who have strong challenges in terms of decarbonation, don't hesitate to tell who to call. Thank you.

Can start the Q&A. Sorry for the diversity on study. Questions?

I have a question that's not really related to the presentation. So I'm really sorry. It's more related to the current geopolitical context. But basically, given the exposure of the group in the Gulf and in the Middle East, I would like to know and could you please share how the company basically anticipates and manages the risks that are related to the conflict, especially with regards to the protection of workers, subcontractors, migrant workers, local communities and the protection of the environment and give us some detail on crisis management at the moment.

Crisis happened on Saturday on Tuesday morning, next Tuesday, we decided to evacuate all the families which were in the Middle East, including some nonessential workers, I would say, colleagues. And the one which would not -- would not like to stay in the region because, I would say, of some anxiety. So it represent 1,300 people, which were in the UAE, in Qatar, in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. We evacuated all of them. I think it was in 7 days -- 6, 7 days. We still have today some people on the ground, limited workforce, mainly Abu Dhabi in Qatar, people who are seconded in the operations.

There are still some operations running there. We have also 15 people in Iraq. We have also -- and we don't put everybody out because we have some local staff as well, and that's part of the -- and so it's not only expatriates, which we have to take into account. We have local staff. For local staff, we have offered to some of them if they wanted to exit. Most of them, of course, live in the country. And so in fact, the offer was not really followed, but we have taken into account what we could do with them.

And -- but we think it's important to keep a presence as long as we have some local staff there to keep a relationship. There are also some contractors who continue to work, in fact, on the ground. Everything is not stopped. It's not because we -- so we have stopped production or not us, by the way, we stopped our production in Iraq. In Qatar, you've seen decided quite early stage to stop. Offshore Abu Dhabi stopped. We are still running offshore -- onshore Abu Dhabi operations are still there. And [indiscernible] in Saudi Arabia is still running. So we have some operations we need to take care. And of course, keeping a presence there is important for all our stakeholders as well.

And we have been, I would say -- so we have been quite reactive to take all that into account and people first. It was the first priority, to be honest, for all of us and then to continue to keep the relationship -- close relationship with stakeholders at different levels of the company. So -- and they appreciate a lot, of course, the fact that we continue to be in contact with them following the events. I would say that's what we can do. And so the setup we have put in place and was quite reactive.

And Catherine, who is there, who has spent some nights to welcome people at Charles de told me that everybody was quite happy. We have a good travel agency in the company. I can tell you after the COVID, now this crisis, we are well accustomed to do it. But of course, I will tell you, including the families today, they would like to know when they can come back. So for the time being, we -- of course, we stay here and we take care of them in their country. Families are not all here. They were repatriated where in the, I would say, home country for some of them because not all of them are French, are people from all the many countries in the planet.

My name is Nina, I'm from PSA. I have one question, whether you could elaborate on the rationale behind striking the recent deal with the Trump administration gritting wind power projects in exchange for a new -- starting new oil and gas projects. And I think in particular, given that you also said the transition is happening, how is this compatible? And I mean, how is your general significant oil and gas growth and LNG growth compatible with decarbonizing and creating long-term value in a transitioning energy system?

I'll start with the second part of it and then address the first part of your question. Energy demand is growing in oil, gas, power. Power is growing the most, but still growing in oil, still growing gas and actually produce -- we look at what may happen by 2050, gas is going to grow and not decline in the foreseeable future by 2050. And one day, maybe there will be a peak in our demand, but that seems to be further away and then a slow decline and that slow decline will be slower than the decline rate of fuel.

So in other words, oil and gas production today and in the future is relevant to address that LNG demand. But because we want that to be resilient, that's why we work very hard on our operated emissions on maintain emissions in oil and gas. Oil and gas is very relevant in that transition journey as well because transition is not moving overnight from one given system A to system B, it's a gradual phase-in of system B and then very gradual and slow phaseout of System A and there's no phase away, let's say, system way for the time being.

So oil and gas production in this respect is very much relevant, and this is why we have the 2 pillars. This is why we work on the resilience of the portfolio. Now to your first question, I think I'll make a...

I will take the first question because I negotiated the story. Let me be clear, it's very simple. There is no way to invest in -- in fact, offshore wind is an uninvestable topic in the U.S. You cannot invest billions of dollars in a country where we have no stable policy that every 4 years, somebody will tell you it's good or it's not good.

We are also there to create value for our shareholders. And we came to the -- we studied a lot. We know we were committed. We spent and in fact, the money which is given back to us is exactly dollar for dollar, what we put on the table to the treasury to get the license. There is no taxpayer payment to TotalEnergies. We gave $98 billion in '22 to acquire these 2 license. They gave back the 2 license.

Why we came to the conclusion first after having studied all that, that it was quite honestly expensive energy, $150 per megawatt hour. And it's true that in the context of the U.S. where you have a huge amount of land, you can develop onshore solar, onshore wind, and we continue to develop onshore solar, onshore wind. We are definitely committed to that. And we did not renounce to none of our strategy in integrated power in the U.S.

On the contrary, we are building 2 gigawatt per year, more or less, and we continue to do it. And the administration did not ask us to stop. I mentioned that in France at the press conference, but onshore wind is good for the U.S. I have no problem with that. But in this energy mix of the U.S., in the specific case, we do not need to develop this offshore wind, which is much more expensive than onshore renewables, I would say.

Secondly, when you have a government which tells you that there is a national security concern, it's difficult to argue against. and you are a private company. It's not up to me to decide if there is a national security concern. So we came to the conclusion that we could have 2 ways to arbitrate for what? Because at the end of the day, I would not have decided to take FID in a country where we could have tell me 3 years after you have to stop, what unfortunately happened to some of my colleagues. We are early enough. So we decided to engage in dialogue to say, okay, look, if what you say is the case, we give you the license back and you give us our money back. That was the point.

They ask us do we propose -- by the way, it was our proposal to reinvest in the country. There was -- they preferred us to invest in traditional energies. We say yes, but then it's LNG and it's gas because it contributes to security of supply for Europe. And by the way, we are investing already in LNG. So it will not be oil, it will be gas. That's a choice we've done in the dialogue with the U.S. authorities. So at the end of the day, I think we have been pragmatic. It's not renowning to offshore wind.

We have projects -- same this year, we got a project in France. We have a project in the U.K. We have enlarged our portfolio in Germany. I think in Europe, it continues to make quite a lot of sense offshore wind because we don't have the same type surface of land because we have more scarcity to develop the renewables. Maybe also because as you have a scale, you can have the cost down. That is what we -- our objective. So we will not renounce offshore wind in Europe.

In the specific case of the U.S., we have been pragmatic and it's better for us to get the money back. And we are investing in the U.S. in gas, yes, it's true. But LNG is contributing as well to the life cycle carbon intensity factor diminish also with gas, more gas and less oil. That's part also of our transition strategy. So that's the rationale of it.

And in fact, to be honest, for our shareholders, better for us to get the money back by making a write-off, which was the alternative. And to say you, we have made a write-off EUR 1 billion. It's an accounting line, don't forget it. I'm quite happy to have been able to convince them to enter into that discussion because it was our initiative. There was none of them. We came to them to them, look, let's be pragmatic.

You will see that other companies will follow us.

[indiscernible] from Bancoter. I have, I mean, following this discussion, my first question would be, could you give us some color about the geographical split of your green or, let's say, low carbon CapEx, I mean, what you just described in this presentation. And the second question is, how far would you say your objectives in terms of Scope 3 -- well, overall supply chain carbon intensity that is minus 25% by 2030 would be at risk regarding, I mean, this sort of situation where you will have to arbitrate, I mean...

On your first point, it's something that we've decided to make, I think, very simple. On the Integrated Power segment, so renewables, flexible, as I described, we have 3 main geographies in which we invest, Europe, the U.S.A. that's -- and 3 grids in the U.S.A. that's PJM in the Northeast, ERCOT, Texas and Kaiser, California and then Brazil. So these are the 3 main geographies where we concentrate, I would say, more than 70% of our efforts of development in terms of integrated power. And there are some other areas where we make more targeted investments in some renewables in some oil and gas countries, actually adjacent to our oil and gas activities in the Middle East and Africa, for instance, or Asia, for instance, in India, where we have renewable activities and development.

So in terms of power, this is where, to your question, we are basically putting our investment. Then low carbon molecules, as you saw, sustainable aviation fuel, it's really driven by mandates for the time being. Mandates are in Europe. So this is why you've seen this approach where we've invested in the conversion of Grand Prix in the south of Paris, converting this traditional refinery into a biorefinery that's going to be producing sustainable aviation fuel, 100%. And then we've made adjustments so as to co-process traditional jet fuel and a blend of sustainable feedstock in our European refineries in Germany, in France, there's going to be Belgium. So that's a European story as far as SAF is concerned today because that's where there is demand to make it very simple. So -- and then EV charging is something that's also very much European as far as we are concerned because, again, it's really demand driven for the time being.

25% will be reached. A strong winner in the company where we use the word objective, generally, we deliver. So this will be delivered. And it's why? Because we are -- we stick on what we said. We want fundamentally and a clear strategy has been set. We want integrated power to represent more or less 20% of the company. And mechanically, it will represent 20% of the company and will drop this intensity carbon 25%, even maybe a little lower than that, in fact.

So I'm confident this arbitration we've done in the U.S., it was 1.5 gigawatt. By the way, the way we are developing it, I think it was not there for 2030, I can't tell you. Maybe 2033 or '34, offshore wind is more for the next decade, even in Europe. The cycles, offshore wind is very different from onshore solar and wind. Onshore solar, you have a cycle of investment of 2, 3 years in many countries. Offshore is more 8 years, 10 years. It's more an oil and gas, I would say, type of CapEx cycle, in fact. So it does not impair at all the targets we've done.

Okay. Questions? Yes, we have questions.

[indiscernible] from MUFG Asset Management. So on Slide 21, it was quite interesting to see your 2030 power generation. If I understood quite well, so it was 100 to 120 terawatt per hour would be the energy electricity production target. Would it still be 70% renewable and 30% flexible assets? And the other question I had was also on EPH, if the electricity generation will mainly be peak load or baseload...

Well, so you can see on the pie the Slide 21, I think that's the one. You can see the divide between onshore solar, onshore wind, flexible. And you can see that's around 2/3 renewable, 1/3 flexible gas-fired. So this is what you have. So this is the order of magnitude we want to reach and then we're on that track. I think last year, that was a split 2/3, 1/3 in now 48 terawatts production. On the PHD, so these are European gas-fired power plants. So they're not baseload. I'm not the one expert. def in the E is the one, but they're not bad. They are no marginal demand and peak rather than baseload, obviously.

Some of them are more used than others. It's a question, of course, of merit curve in some countries. In Italy, clearly, the coal to gas-fired power plant is coming much quicker than in France, for example, because it depends really in the countries where we have invested with EPH. Some electricity system are asking -- are calling the gas-fired power plant quite quickly. Some it's more big. So it depends on the countries.

On a couple of the slides, you mentioned regulatory dependencies, policy dependencies, which we all know and understand, particularly SAF hydrogen, for example. To what extent are you able or currently already pushing policymakers directly to bring in the kind of policies that you need to see these opportunities. So taking a, I guess, a transition or a Paris positive approach rather than being just a policy taker.

And how are you working with trade associations to do that as well? And an example is on the EU methane regulation. We spoke the other week early on about we were really pleased to see you come out and say, we support elements of this, and we think it's a good thing. This is how we would like to see this be implemented. We think that's a real positive. But we know many of the trade associations you're a member of are saying almost the opposite thing. So how are you able to do that on some of these other opportunities like SAF and hydrogen?

There's one thing we can do and we do is we approach policymakers, especially at the European level for SA, for instance, the example we gave or H2, happens at national level for H2 for the implementation of the RED II directives by member states. And we reach out to them, and we make those points. I mean the points you heard today, these are the points in more detail to make to them saying, we need support.

We do that with the players in the industry. So it's not only just us energy producer, it's the clients really. So we work with them so that they make the same advocacy point so that we increase the chances to have these supporting policies. Now let's be humble. We do make that. Do we get the results? Not all the time, but we keep working very hard to make that happen.

So yes, we do have that engagement, and we do advocate for these public policies to be put in place, and we work with namely other sectors to make that happen. That's true for aviation, that's true for EV mobility, for instance, and the same is true for hydrogen also.

On the methane, to be clear, we have an intense dialogue with the European authority, myself with Dieter Jorgensen. Even with Criss-Right in the U.S., I've been asked to go to him to explain why this regulation is maybe not as terrible but they think that it will be better to find a way to compromise with it and to be pragmatic. So not to renounce. And I think the dialogue which we create and I'm participating, others are doing, we try to make the link and to show, look, it's better for us to engage.

Of course, we all know that in the U.S. on the methane, the regulation has been built on the idea you have one field, one plant. which is what happens in the Middle East, for example. In the U.S., unfortunately, you don't have one field, one plant, you have a huge amount of gas production, a network and then a plant. So obviously, we need to find a way to evaluate what is the methane content of this network. So we have -- that does not apply like that. It does not mean that we should announce, and I explained that to Chris Wright.

So we try to really engage on it and not to just say everything is bad, forget. I think -- and on the SAF, for example, as well, what we said about being more gradual, trying to understand technologies. We are also -- I was in Brussels recently with some parliament members to explain, but not to say it's not good, just to find a way to -- a pragmatic way to go to progress. And in fact, that's what we need to do.

Regulation will work only if it's implemented, if it's accepted by customers. And you can see on the SAF today, a big pushback from some customers, online companies -- we say it's too expensive. It depends what is too expensive. So let's progress progressively, I think we think we can do it. So we engage. Your question about trade association is a real question. each time I'm going to the U.S., we left the API. I can tell you, I'm not very popular from some people there. And they want to convince me, I told you, look, we cannot -- I cannot do -- it's because of methane that we left the API because they were on the table, there was the large corporations like my peers, we agree on methane.

But then this type of trade association sometimes are more governed by the small ones. We want to do nothing. So we say we cannot just pay to a consensus to have a sort of minimum consensus because most of the trade associations are working on the basis of minimum consensus. And sometimes these types of policy are putting -- I mean, this type of governance unfortunately, does not allow us to be progressive enough. On the OCI, for example, we are only 13%. We try and that's why we want to keep -- and we had a discussion in 2 days ago about officially, it's 0.2%. Can we drive down the 0.2% on methane intensity to 0.1%. So -- and we think that if the leaders are all going to 0.1%, maybe we can engage the industry. So this is where we are, we can do something.

And methane for me is a perfect example. That's why I push all the teams to be a leader on it. And no, we want to use it in this presentation, which was very well done by Guillaume, we use it all over in many places, in many countries. So that's why we can engage. Trade association, honestly, sometimes we are frustrated. And -- but the point is that do we -- and it's like you you can be shareholder of TotalEnergies and engage with us or not be a shareholder. And then you -- we continue. So it's the same -- exactly the same position for us.

Do we want to have a seat around the table to say our voice and to have one person which say, look, ETS is good and don't stop saying that it's -- you will solve all the competitiveness of European industry because we give up on ETS. It's no sense. And that's some trade association basically could say that. And better to have 1 or 2 large companies say, no, it's more complex than that. I prefer to have my representative around the table by getting out. But that's really the same debate that you could have by saying not to a shareholder of TotalEnergies.

Thank you firstly for the LNG merc. Very helpful analysis to be able to see. So I appreciate you bringing that in this year. I did want to ask if you have a comment based on the current geopolitical context and reflecting on the fact that previously, you've spoken about that a future LNG price drop could stimulate demand in the key markets that you're targeting. Do you see that challenged by the current conflict? Or do you remain of that view?

That's a very good question. We said that to the U.S. authorities, including U.S. LNG producers, they promote. We told them be careful. We had a crisis in '22, another crisis in '26. This could push some customers in some emerging countries being afraid of that energy, which is going very volatile. The problem is that the alternative for them is to switch back to coal, which is that we will do. So we warn the U.S.. And honestly, we've done it because I'm convinced that the idea that some countries which are very price sensitive, we hesitate to engage in long-term contracts with an energy, which could be suddenly so volatile. So that's true that long-term contract is a way to avoid the volatility of the spot market, but there is something of affordability -- and that's a challenge. So yes, it does not help.

Having said that, again, I don't know what will happen in the Middle East. So it's very difficult. I don't want to make 20 scenarios in front of you, but we've made the presentation, we go up to 650 million tonnes by 2030 of production. Market is at 400 million. So even if we limit all the Middle East is still 500 million tonnes of LNG, this will have an impact on the price. And so it will -- my view is that industries in emerging countries in Asia, for example, Southeast Asia, they have the optionality. They can continue to use fuel. They can go to coal, they can switch to gas.

And they will be, I would say, versatile depending on the affordability, which will lead their choice. That's my view on them. So that's point. But it's clear that it's not very good to have for this energy to be also -- but by the way, it's not good. And as we are today speaking about sustainability, it's good for renewable fundamentally all that. I want to say my view is that for 2 reasons. It's good because it's domestic energies, domestic, so they control security of supply.

So I think countries which are more and more afraid to face this question of security of supply will move quicker probably. So it will encourage to go to renewables, I'm it. Then the question for some of them, it is that it is a mix of coal and renewables or what is the space for gas? It's a question. I agree with the question. But again, let's continue to believe that it's better to continue to push, and we'll see that. But I think globally, this crisis is good for renewables.

Other questions in the room? We can take maybe questions online. So we have one question from Schroder. Pretty impressive work on methane. When do you expect to reach Level 5 GMP methane measurement in non-operated assets?

The sooner, the better.

Actually, for obvious reason, we first put our focus on the operated portfolio because we have a direct control. It does not mean that we did nothing in the meantime to push the operator of the OBO assets to move forward. I explained that we already shared the ODI technology with some of them. But now we have reached a point where we think we need to change gear for the OBO asset, and that's why we really push our managing directors in all the affiliates where we have OBO assets to share this -- the kits I presented to you guys and really encourage these operators to move forward as we have done actually.

Pragmatic objective this year, each of these guys must make the same presentation venue in each of the OBO to show them that it's possible with pragmatic topics with technologies. It's a matter of technology and it's not so expensive. So we can demonstrate now that we have done it, and this is the objective to move the OBO.

Methane emission maybe a last point. methane emission in the OBO perimeters decreased as well, but not as fast as what we have done.

But a country like Qatar with whom we are working closely, they are not happy at all. I can tell you. Last year, when I met the minister, he did not receive the gold standard. He was very unhappy and he said -- I told him we can help and he said with team, we need to be for GMP. So even if they are not necessarily agree with all the Paris Agreement, fundamentally, it's a question also for them to be the leader of the industry and that fast possible. So we can push the OBO assets, we must push them.

Questions in the room? No question in the room. So we have 2 questions on Mozambique, one from HSBC and one from AP 3. The first one is, do you have an update regarding the complaints filled by PNE regarding the Mozambique LNG incidents? And are there any findings from the Mozambique government's investigation as well as the independent Mozambique National Human Rights Commission investigation. So this is the first question.

And the second question from AP3 is when you lifted force majeure in Cabo delgado, you referred to the improvement in the security situation in the area. This was linked to the presence of national security forces, but also international support. How will you act if Randa withdraws its support in the area? Will you still consider the situation to be safe and secure?

So on the first question, there was a communication by the Mozambique Human Rights Commission. I think it was around 10 days ago actually. And they say that they're still ongoing with their investigation on the ground. They said they've gone to [indiscernible] actually and they've conducted inquiries verifications, as I understand, interviews. And they say to this stage, they haven't found any evidence that the serious -- very serious allegations of Tortue and Murder were actually supported by any evidence. So that's where it stands today. basically. That's what we know from the Mozambique side of things. And no, there's no news from the French complaint filed in France. So we'll just provide information as and when we are as always.

So the second question is quite clear. Yes, the presence of international forces is part of our evaluation of situation. But -- and so we would have to reevaluate if they were leaving, but they will not leave.

Other questions in the room? So we have the last follow-up question from -- again, from Schroders on Mozambique. Given your focus and disciplined capital allocation and the low cost of supply portfolio, how do you assess and price aboveground risks such as geopolitical instability, human rights issues when evaluating opportunities? In particular, what concrete changes to governance in decision-making have been implemented since Mozambique? or are this applied across other high-risk projects? And what thresholds must be met before capital is deployed?

I think the first answer to that is that actually the fact that we have projects in very diversified geographies. And by the way, we are the most diversified in geographies where we invest and produce oil and gas namely is an answer to that. This diversification in the many places where we operate, build projects, oil and LNG is a protection against the possibility that in any given place today as the Middle East, actually, there can be a crisis. So the fact that we are in so many places is a protection against geopolitical risk in and of itself.

Now to the more precise question around Mozambique, First, in Mozambique, when the project was under force majeure, there's something that we did that I think was very important is in spite of the project not being under construction, it was suspended for more than 4 years. What we did, however, that Mozambique LNG ended a foundation with significant capital, and there were a lot of and there are still obviously ongoing socioeconomic development activities taking place. So even though the project was not moving forward, the contribution to socioeconomic development on the ground around the project in the communities are still being advanced.

And the reason is you want to be able to do that so that there is some benefit felt short term immediately by these communities so that there is some buying in the project basically. So I think this is a very good lesson learned, I would say, when investing in these geographies that can be risky, that can be tough in an environment that are poor, but we make sure that there is some socioeconomic development going on at the same time as the project is being built because projects will only generate revenues 5 years, 10 years down the line, and you need to make something happen before that for the community. So I think that's one of the big lessons learned from that experience.

The question was about governance and I would say, for future projects. So we, of course, draw some lessons of what happens. We observed that fundamentally and for our company is a challenge that onshore projects clearly raise more the complexities from human rights, from stakeholders because we are onshore. We have to take -- we have land acquisitions, all that. And the answer to that for me is we need to anticipate all that. We cannot just go -- it's a project, let's do it, and we will do it in parallel. The parallel engineering does not work very well.

We need to anticipate the phase and taking care of the people, local population to take care of all these land acquisition before to really engage. If we want to want to do everything in parallel, our teams, of course, are dedicated to build the project and maybe not efforts done. So that's a question that a point. So we want absolutely on this type of projects. to have a clear view of what is the status and to have done it before.

If we need to acquire land, let's do it before we engage the company in. And then the second point, of course, is that I can tell you much more -- there is more focus clearly on this type of issues. We have a risk committee and even with the Board where we are -- when we have such a project, we go through the different issues one by one to explain what have been the action plan and what we plan to do to cope with it.

And we have to be convinced that we have, I would say, the solution in place to be able to face the challenge. That's the point. And unfortunately, we cannot anticipate terrorism and conflicts and armed conflicts.

So we have a question on one with B2B. Following Mr. Puan comments on LNG, do you already see impacts from the Middle East crisis on your large clients, notably the gas intensive ones. Do you expect lasting effects on their demand, which ones?

Honestly, TotalEnergies, we have made one decision, which is not to declare force majeure for any of our LNG customers. So it's a strong decision. We said to our customers, there will be no -- we will not invoke force majeure to tell you we will not deliver the gas. Why? Because we are a portfolio company. We have a large portfolio. So we want ourselves to be the security of supply for the customers. So we will absorb the fact that we -- yes, we'll have a miss of LNG coming from Qatar and Abu Dhabi, but the portfolio is large enough. So we direct part of our portfolio.

We know we have some molecules that we are keeping for ourselves at our discretion. And so we told them you will receive the -- so we will respect the contracts. So it's a way to tell to our customers, okay, look, yes, there is a mess somewhere, but you will not be impacted by the supplier, which is TotalEnergies, of course, in terms of price and in terms of volume. So we respect all the contracts which have been signed by our customers. And I think this is the answer to the risk you mentioned.

Questions in the room? Last chance.

HF. I wanted to have your view on the recent events that we saw with the EU ETS. So it was briefly mentioned earlier, but I wanted to know what your view was on the outlook of the regulation because the review is going to come pretty soon. The impact it has today on your refining margins, for instance, and what you expect for the future of the regulation?

ETS, this is really carbon pricing in targeted sectors. This has been a cornerstone of the EU policy around the rating, especially industrial emissions. And I must say it's been efficient. So there isn't a cost. There has been a cost competitiveness. It's being dealt with and managed by the free allowances. So the question to us is not whether or not ETF should stay in place. ETFs should stay in place. Again, it's been efficient, effective as a tool. And there should be a fairly high CO2 pricing through the ETS so that it does drive investment decisions.

Otherwise, investment decisions are not driven if the price is too low. Now having said that, there are mainly 2 important things that need to either be maintained or happen for the other one. What needs to be maintained is to make sure that there is a very careful thinking around the free allowances that goes to industries that are exposed to international competition because through the free allowances that some sectors receive, then you can compensate the ETS pricing for some of these industries.

And then the other thing that needs to happen, and that's not really the case today is that the revenues collected from ETS they need to be directed to support initiatives, investments to decarbonize. Basically, there should be some kind of a closed loop between that's money taken through the CO2 pricing ETS system, and that money should be channeled back to investments made to decarbonize, to electrify the use and to decarbonize. And this is something that we actually are pushing for.

So fundamentally, we push for ETS, keeping the ETS system as much as we can is our position. I confirmed it to many governments, to French government to the commissions to all -- and we think that the ratio of competitiveness of the industry is not just ETS, it's the energy price today and other factors, regulations as well. So we cannot ask ETS to solve all the issues alone. And I think it will be strange for me that Europe clearly need to drive to security of supplies. The renewables are part of it.

If you lower the ETS system, you will not face -- you will not help renewable system to be developed. So we have a question of consistency. So we mix 2 things there. And I think at the end, if we need to give support to industries, to chemical industry, you can do it also by industrial policies by having some special PPAs price, et cetera. So we are on this position ourselves. Then I think that compromise will -- I see many countries, in fact, are supporting the ETS system. And having said that, they also would like to keep some industries in Europe.

So we need to find a way. But the system which was explained by fundamentally the idea is, okay, you collect taxes from carbon. So please, the ones which are investing to decarbonize, you have to support them. In particular, on the example of carbon capture and storage, it costs $150 per tonne. The ETS is $80. So if you don't have -- you need to find a way to compensate the difference. And that's where the ETS revenue should be used in order to support that.

So I think that's more what the scheme we propose rather than just trying to make the same instrument, many policies. That's what we think. Where will it land? I think it should -- I would be surprised that the amendments will be major. We will need to do something for a few countries, but fundamentally, most of the countries want to keep the basic system.

Any last questions from the room? Okay. We have no more questions. Aurelian, do you have closing remarks?

Well, as always, thank you to all of the teams who've put that together. That's a huge work. And even more importantly, thank you to all of the teams on the ground. As you've seen, it's very much underground work who are making that a reality. So thanks to everyone for having done that. Thank you for your time today.

Thank you very much.

So welcome, everybody, for this presentation of 2025 year results and the objective for 2026. We are from London. It is sunny like its sun for the shares of TotalEnergies until we speak. So we'll see after that after this call. And I'm happy to be here today with the Executive Committee members. You know all of them, but not Catherine.

Catherine if you could stand up, which was -- she's our new member in charge of people and social engagement and all global services, that's Catherine. And there is another person which is next to us that you need to know, which is Arnaud Le Foll. Arnaud is our Deputy CFO. You will have a chance to listen to him today.

We'll make a presentation in two big parts and to focus in the middle, so to change. So Jean-Pierre will introduce the -- first, we'll have, of course, safety moment. It will be done and the, I would say -- Safety, Sustainability part will be done by Nicolas Terraz, our President Upstream. Then we'll have Jean-Pierre, who will make a review of the 2025 results. Then 2 small focus, one Namibia by Arnaud because Arnaud before to be deputy CFO was one in charge of the negotiation of Namibia. So let's have the opportunity to let him -- listen to him. And then Stephane will come in a focus of data centers, AI from -- as a way as a business for us, but also what we do internally. So just to focus.

And then I will take the last part about what are the objectives for 2026. So it would be -- normally, if we are respecting the timing, mature, it should be 1 hour, 1 hour 5 minutes, we'll see. But be patient when you have time to ask your question. So Nicolas, the floor is yours, to begin.

Good afternoon, everyone. So first, let me take a minute for the sustainability moment. We thought for a sustainability moment, we'll share with you a very concrete illustration on what we are doing to fight methane emissions. And to fight methane emissions, the first step is to detect them. So what we did last year is that we installed in all our sites, a network of detection and monitoring system fixed continuous. And what you see in the footage here is a picture or a video taken in Argentina in Neuquen and we are just commissioning an infrared camera. And this infrared camera detected what is not a fire, but it's -- it's methane. And in fact, it's methane coming from underground, from a pipeline, which had a pinhole, it was a very small role and was leaking methane in fairly modest quantities. But still, this was detected. This was, of course, immediately fixed so the pipeline was excavated and the leakage fixed. But this really illustrates the role and benefit of permanent methane detection to reach near zero methane emissions, which is our objective by 2030.

So let me now move to safety. So you see on the slides, we are -- we are on a journey of continuous improvement in safety, both for safety at work and for process safety. So for safety at work, you see on the left part of the slide, our total recordable injury rate, which has been continuously decreasing. And last year, we were below 0.5 event per million man-hour, so I think we are pleased to be ahead of our peer group.

Where we are not happy, in fact, is that we had one fatality last year. This happened in Angola during the offloading of drilling casings from a rig to a platform supply vessel where one person working onboard the supply vessel was crushed by those drilling pipes. Manoj Kumar, he was 51 year-old. He was married, he had 1 child and after the accident, what we did is what we owed to him, which is to take very strong action to reinforce the safety of dock operations onboard our supply vessels by putting more physical barriers, steel frames for pipe offloading operations, but also by taking very strong organizational measures in terms of supervision of the dock operations onboard our supply vessels.

For process safety on the prevention of major risk, you can see illustrated on the right part of the slide with the reduction of the number of primary losses of containment on our sites, which have been decreased by 60% since 2020. And so we're continuing to work on that front. And today, more than ever, we want to ensure everyone working on our sites, either staff or contractors can return home safely and we aim to achieve zero fatality in our operations.

I'm now coming to emissions. And here, we're already pleased that in 2025, we reached and even exceeded all our emission reduction targets. So I spoke about methane just before. Now we are at minus 65% in our methane emissions compared to 2020, we had a target of minus 60%. We -- and as I mentioned, we are monitoring this super closely in order to reach near zero emission in 3, 4 years.

For greenhouse gas, looking at our Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions, you see that last year for oil and gas operations, we reduced the emission by 1 million tonne compared to 2024, and we have a cumulative reduction of 38%. Also the gradual evolution of our sales mix is driving down the life cycle carbon intensity of our products. So the products we are selling. And you see the figure here, minus 19% in 2025 compared to where we were in 2015.

On the last point, but not the least one is that you know that we've invested $1 billion in energy efficiency improvement program over '23, '25. This is paying off. It's paying off with a reduction in our emissions because the actions implemented through this program resulted in a reduction of 2 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions less. But it's also paying off in terms of dollars because this program has generated around $200 million annually of energy and CO2 savings from 100 [indiscernible] on our various sites.

So this was about emissions or now I'm going to hand back the floor to Jean-Pierre.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon. So I will present to you the 2025 results, and I think the key achievement of the year. So you know we have a pretty well-balanced strategy, integrated strategy anchored on two pillars, the first one, oil and gas; and the second one, gas and LNG.

Let me go through the main achievements of 2025. So starting with oil and gas and oil in particular. So you see that you know that we started up two main oil and gas shields, one in the U.S. with Ballymore, another one, another deep offshore development in Brazil with Mero-4. Namibia, it's a very clear achievement of 2025 year. So entering in the block till now operated by Galp, supporting the Mopane discovery. So entering into that block, of course, is a very clear achievement confirming this Namibia as a new, I would say, Golden province for TotalEnergies. Arnaud will come back on that to give you more details about that.

To prepare the future, so we have reloaded our portfolio, exploration portfolio. You see here the different geographies in which we are very active in 2025. On the gas and LNG side, Rio Grande. So we -- FID, we sanctioned the project Train 4 in Rio Grande project, with an additional 1.5 million tonnes per year of additional LNG uptake. Acquisition of additional interest in Malaysia. So you know that we entered into Malaysia very recently, so confirming the willingness of TotalEnergies to be the hub that is perfectly positioned to supply the gas market in Asia in the coming years. And continuing the integration, the upstream gas integration in the U.S. with additional acquisition of dry gas in Anadarko basin. And on top of that, end of 2025, we announced the agreement with NEO NEXT, in fact, to merge our upstream assets with those of NEO NEXT, creating one of the largest oil and gas or -- the major oil and gas players in the U.K. aiming to deliver synergies.

So to summarize, yes, we grow, we are a growing company. So you see here the figures 2025, 4% upstream growth. You know that the guidance were above 3%. So we are largely above the guidance.

At the same time, we keep a discipline. I will come back on the CapEx, here you see the figure for OpEx per barrel. So the best OpEx per barrel among our peers: $5 per barrel, of course, it's very important for us to keep this advantage to face the possible low price environment and very important in our view, the fact that we were able to deliver 120% proved reserve replacement rates. That means that we -- the reserve, proved reserve we have at the end of the year, at the end of 2025, we'll cover 12 years of '25 projection.

And the other pillar, so integrated power. So another year of delivery of our strategy, more than 20% net power production growth both on coming from renewables and from CCGT from flexible assets. We mentioned here 3 main achievements of the year. You know the agreement we signed with the EPH that will, in fact, accelerate our gas to power integration in Europe, supposed to be closed mid of 2026. Stephane will come back on that. So we served, I would say, on the wave created by data center, [indiscernible], to sign 6 terawatt per year PPA with data center impact. And implementing our model, so as you know, we recycled the CapEx, the capital and so we successfully signed different farm down in the U.K., in Greece, in Portugal, in France in '25, recycling the equivalent of $2 billion.

Scorecard for 2025, clearly, we are a growing company, delivering of our objectives. First, more energy, growing energy growth regarding energy production, 5% when you combine the growth coming from oil and gas and the growth coming from electricity. So more specifically, on the oil and gas, I already mentioned the fact that we achieved close to 4% growth. You know that the targets were above 3%. And for electricity net production, we increased the production by almost 20% between 2024 and 2025, reaching more or less 50 terawatt hour in 2025.

Refining utilization rates. So we were clear that during the first semester, ASC has to face some technical incidents problem of reliability of some of the assets in France or in the U.S. The second semester, this has been fixed. And so given this performance during the second semester, you see that globally, all in all, over the full year. So refining utilization rate were in line with the targets we had. LNG sales were growing 10% more compared to last year, in line with the growth in production. And finally, on this topic, more energy. So renewable growth installed capacity. So 24 gigawatts of growth renewable capacity at the end of the year. We were at 26 gigawatts end of '24. That means that in the course of 2025, we are able to put into production, 8 gigawatts of additional growth renewable capacity, and it is the pace we need to achieve 8 gigawatt per year to achieve the target we have for 2033. So more energy, less emissions.

I will not come back on the figures because already Nicolas presented that. Just to mention to summarize that we are able to lower the emission, maintain Scope 1 and Scope 2 on our operations, while at the same time, being a growing company, 5% more energy produced in 2025. More energy, less emission is good, but it's better, of course, to grow the free cash flow to supply the shareholder returns.

There are, of course, two main drivers. The first one, maintaining the discipline on OpEx and maintaining this differentiation advantage we have, having OpEx per barrel at $5 per barrel. And CapEx, I will come back on that later. So we were, of course, in the guidance at $17.1 billion. So globally, versus CFFO, I think we're not exactly valuable, we anticipate when we gave the objective '25, but not very far at $28 billion. So delivering in our view, a robust cash flow in 2025.

So now some figures regarding this 2025 performance. So starting on the left-hand side of the slide, the cash flow and the contribution of the different business units to this performance. So $28 billion of cash flow generated by our operations. You see the different contributions, so exploration and production. Production of the growing cash flow and the fact that I will comment that later. The cash flow are accretive and the growth is accretive. Second portion, integrated energy. So suffering in 2025 in markets with low volatility, but compensating downward in prices by additional production. I mentioned to you, a 10% growth regarding production and sales.

Integrated power at $2.6 billion, so in line with our expectations. So we have target to have a cash flow above $2.5 billion for 2025. And downstream, $6.2 billion. So both ARC and Marketing & Services, I think is a demonstration of the resilience of the company and the integration between ARC and Marketing & Services. Once again, with better utilization rate during the second semester, downstream, ARC able to capture the good margin that we benefited from in the second part of the year.

The uses, so I think the yellow part of the graph, so we used more slightly above $17 million for CapEx. So both organic CapEx, acquisition minus divestments and the shareholder returns with two components: the first one being dividends, so $8.1 billion cash out linked to the dividend taking into account via trades we had in the course of 2025. So it's growing dividends. And we execute the buyback program for an amount of $7.5 billion globally on the full year. The net adjusted income reached $15.6 billion and so we continue to deliver the best-in-class profitability. So return on equity at $13.6 billion and the best-in-class ROACE at 12.6%. The net income IFRS, so after taking into account nonrecurring adjustments, it's $13.1 billion for 2025. And this has been done maintaining a strong balance sheet. So the gearing at the end of the year were below 15%, so at 14.7%. So globally, total shareholder return of $15.6 billion, so dividend plus buyback, so representing a payout when you compare this return to shareholder to the cash flow we generated in 2025. So it's a payout close to 55%.

Now CapEx. So I already mentioned that. So discipline, of course, maintained through the year 2025. So the guidance, 15% to 15.5%. And so the final figure of $17.1, yes. And so this -- you see the right [indiscernible] with splits between the different businesses. So more or less, 1/3 devoted to new oil and gas projects. And close to $3.5 billion to low carbon energy, the main component of that being Integrated Power.

This figure is the translation of the production of $16.8 billion spend on organic CapEx, so the spending on the existing portfolio, these assets plus $3.9 billion devoted to acquisition, minus $3.6 billion to divestments. So that means that the M&A was quite balanced in 2025. But if you add the 2 figures, you end up with a figure at $7.5 billion. That means that we continue to be very active on our portfolio, divesting mature assets and replacing them by assets with better performance and implementing our strategy regarding, in particular, integrated power. For the main acquisition we made for Integrated Power is VSB, the German renewable player. I already mentioned the U.S., Malaysia and on the opposite side, divestments, so it's mature assets in Nigeria, in Congo, N'Kossa, just to give you these two examples, in Argentina, Vaca Muerta assets. And on top of that, all the countries I already mentioned regarding the implementation of strategy, the recycling of the CapEx, the capital for integrated power. We saw divestment in the U.S. and in Europe.

Let's move in more details to see -- to look at the upstream performance in 2025. So once again a growth by 4% and feed by, of course, a low decline. We benefited for our portfolio of a decline by around 4% per year. And on top of that, as you know, we have a very deep portfolio. And so in 2025, we were able to put on production, additional barrels that globally contributed to 150,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day. And this production is accretive. So it's the demonstration. So we increased the production by 4% but in a constant environment, we increased the upstream cash flow by 10%. What does it mean? That means that the baseline for our portfolio has, in this environment, $70 per barrel for Brent and $12 per MBTU for gas to generate $19 per barrel of CFFO. And the new projects to have a list, by the way, on the right-hand side of the slide. So this 150,000 barrel equivalents of additional production has, on average, not CFFO, more than $30 per barrel. So that means that, of course, with the new production, we increase the of the portfolio. And so the difference between this $30 per barrel with the $19 per barrel for the baseline, so created an additional $700 million in 2025 regarding the CFFO.

So integrated LNG. Well, it's clear that in 2025, we had narrowing spread between Asian markets and European markets. So the spread between GM and TTF that is lower than before. Most of it is below $0.5 per million BTU. So why? Because the market is more efficient. And so now, for obvious reasons, saving freight costs the U.S. LNG went in 2025, mainly to Europe and on the opposite, Middle East LNG went majorly to Asia. So in that market, of course, it's generated less possibility of arbitrage between the two markets. And on top of that, we had low volatility. All in all, thanks to the growth, 10% growth in production and sales, I already mentioned for integrated LN, we were able to more or less offset the low price environment, the low volatility environment, posting for integrated LNG CFFO in 2025, $4.7 billion, so only 4% below 2024 CFFO.

Integrated power. So we continue the execution of the strategy. I think you have here the figure, the progression, the increase between 2021 and 2025. So more than doubling the production between multiplied by 3 or multiplied by 4 CFFO and net operating income. And at the end of 2025, we had ROACE close to 10%.

So we execute the strategy. Once again, we found out different assets to recycle the CapEx, the capital. We signed this EPH acquisition accelerating our integration in Europe. And we scale up data business with additional relations which take signing PPA with data center to supply than with electricity. So a good achievement, confirming the objective we have for this business segment in 2025.

Ordinary share. So you know that on the eighth of December 2025, I think if we opened a new chapter in the story of TotalEnergies on the NYSE in the U.S. So now our ordinary share, so the same share as the share that is listed in Paris is now listed on the NYSE, so allowing in fact investors to buy the same share, either in Paris or in the U.S. And by the way, by doing that, we have listing almost around the clutch from 9 a.m. in Paris time to 4:30 in New York time.

The objective is clear. We will ease the life of our investors by doing that. We will, of course, try to reach new shareholders that we're not able or that do not want to invest in Total Energy [indiscernible] so it's the objective we have in the coming months to try to capture additional investors through wealth manager and financial advisers. And on top of that, by the way, by doing that, we have an option to use this listing, these shares listed in New York as a currency for potential M&A in the U.S.

So the scorecard benchmark the performance of TotalEnergies compared to the performance of our peers with four main metrics, the first one being ROACE. Once again, we are the best in class in terms of ROACE, I think for the fourth consecutive years. In our view, it's a clear demonstration that we can be a leader in the transition while delivering top profitability ROACE. Second, TSR, so total shareholder returns, best TSR in 2025 at 28%. So meaning that if you have invested in total share on the 31st December 2024, at the end of 2025, considering the reinvestment of the dividend, you will have a gain of 28%. Proved reserves life index. So very good and very differentiation factor compared mainly to Chevron share and BP. So we maintain the 12-year reserves, very good achievements, meaning that with this -- the results we have in our portfolio, we are comfortable to feed the growth beyond 2030. And upstream production cost, true cost $5 per barrel. So it's clear competitive advantage that we want to keep.

I think I will end the presentation by this slide. So I've already commented the TSR. So you know pretty well the policy of TotalEnergies regarding the dividend. So in contributing to this TSR. So in 2025, so the performance of the share was best in class, +20%, so we strongly believe that our share is -- continue to be underevaluated but this is, in our view, an illustration that the strategy of TotalEnergies is now well understood by the market and to summarize, growth -- accretive growth, discipline on costs to maintain CapEx as anticipated and maintaining OpEx per barrel at low level and on top of that, delivering all the growth we have in mind on both pillars, oil, oil and gas on one hand and integrated power on the other.

Thank you, Jean-Pierre. That's for '25. That's the past. So let's speak about -- as a bridge between both '25 and '26, but Namibia, which was -- we didn't make a special session like on EPH because it came late in December, but it's our opportunity to come back on what we have built with this deal with agreement with Galp in Namibia, which will be, for us, obviously, a new major up for our future. Arnaud for is yours.

Thank you, Patrick. Ladies and gentlemen, so let me start by setting the context for our progress in Namibia. Over the past few years, our exploration and business development efforts in the Orange Basin have led to significant discoveries that are now forming the foundation of a new deepwater Golden province for TotalEnergies. And so today, I'm really thrilled to walk you through the steps already taken and what lies ahead.

So here, you have the core of our position. So across two licenses, PEL56 and PEL83. We have already confirmed substantial discovered resources, and we begin with two operative deepwater projects, Venus and Mopane. I'll come back to them in more details. Together, what we have already enhanced is $1.5 billion of discovered resources. And we see major additional prospects in potential currently being matured. These two projects, they form the basis of a new deepwater hub for TotalEnergies, enabling us to plan for future development, of course, but around shared infrastructure, optimize logistics and economies of scale. So this is really the beginning and materializing the beginning of our presence in this highly prospective basin.

I'll come back to this important milestone, which was the transaction with Galp. So last December, we concluded this cashless transaction with Galp, which we expect to close by the summer, mid this year. First, for us, this deal crystallizes the value of our discoveries. It strengthens our operating position and of course, it opens new opportunities in the country. So on our side, with the transaction, we secured 40% operated interest in PEL83, which is the home to Mopane with already resources identified to end up in the development and more than 1.5 billion barrels of exploration potential opportunities on the same block.

In return, what we give to Galp is a 10% interest in PEL56, which is the home to Venus and slightly less interest in the neighboring PEL91 exploration block plus we'll carry them for 50% of their expenditures for exploration appraisal and for the first development on the block. So as a result, TotalEnergies becomes the anchor player in one of the world's most dynamic basins with stronger alignment across the value chain which is illustrated here on the slide. It shows how Venus and Mopane make TotalEnergies the reference operator in Namibia definitely.

As you know, with 10 FPSOs already operated across Africa with one new being in construction currently, we definitely benefit from a broad deepwater project experience in the region. This enables us to deliver fast and reliable execution, proven low-cost development, strong long-term relationship with contractors and efficient scaling of procurement, logistics, engineering. This experience was definitely an important factor in our selection as operator of PEL83 and for the authorities of Namibia to bring their full support to the transaction. They definitely see us as a credible partner in the basin.

On the left-hand side, the production profile shows our Venus and then Mopane could sequentially ramp up from 2030 to reach about 350 kb/d of production with additional upside thereafter. So our objective is clear, and you got it. We want to establish a sustainable multi-FPSO hub in Namibia to maximize synergies for the benefits of all the stakeholders.

Turning to Venus in more detail. So Venus is our first development. Venus is fully appraised with around 750 million barrels of resources. The engineering is well advanced. The feed is complete. And today, with recent EPC bids, we have confidence in visibility on cost. Key parameter of the project. So it's a 150 kb/d plateau production with costs below $20 per barrel. In terms of course, Scope 1 plus 2 emission intensity, we are around 15 kg per barrel featuring the same low emission design as in our [indiscernible] FPSO, so full electric architecture, centralized power gen, for closed players, vapor recovery units, et cetera.

We are now fully engaged with the Namibian authorities to progress towards an FID by mid-2026, allowing a first oil in 2030. So Venus is expected to become the first FPSO development in the country and is really the opener of the basin as a new producing region.

The second project is Mopane, which is progressing in parallel. We have current estimates from 800 million to 1,100 million barrels of resources which will allow production above 200 kb/d. We plan in the short term an exploration and appraisal campaign, so in '26 and '27 to refine the development concept and confirm the size of the first phase including in 2026 the Mopane extension well and thereafter, two appraisal wells. Like Venus with Mopane, we target emissions intensity below 15 kg per barrel and cost below $20 a barrel, of course, taking full benefit from the synergies with Venus. So with potential FID in 2028, Mopane is the second pillar of our Namibia strategy which is contributing significantly in production beyond 2030 and with additional potential from prospects, such as, as you can see on the map, Quiver or Sobreiro in the same license.

Finally, let me zoom out and have a look at our broader exploration portfolio in the Basin. So beyond Venus and Mopane, we see around 10 billion barrels of exploration potential across multiple prospects. So to the south with our licenses, DWOB and 3B/4B and material well-defined prospects in South Africa and to the north with the recent signature of our entry into PEL104, that expands our operated acreage in Namibia. So you can see with discovered resources, prospective upside and strong operational capabilities, we think we are well positioned to lead the next development cycle in the Orange Basin.

So in summary, Venus and Mopane are large competitive low emissions deepwater projects. For Namibia, these projects are important. They are the projects that represent the first steps toward establishing domestic oil industry in the country. And with wider exploration portfolio, we have meaningful upside in the future. So this all together forms the foundation of a new golden province for TotalEnergies with a multi-FPSO hub with strong long-term potential, all operated by TotalEnergies.

Thank you, Arnaud. I think you will have some questions, but we'll give you more insights. I was myself in Namibia last week, and we discussed with the authorities and what Arnaud said is true. We are considered now as a major player there and it gave us a good momentum to move forward these projects.

Now I leave the floor to Stephane, who will make a second focus on one of the other major activity, which is, of course, taking benefit from this AI and data center evolution. Stephane, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Patrick. Good afternoon, everyone. So we'll cover two subjects, one is how we are going to power the AI revolution with our integrated power supply. And the second part will be how we plan to boost our operation by using AI. So I'll start by the first subject with a simple message: We are creating additional value by providing to data center fit-for-purpose solutions. How do we do that? What do we sell them? There are three type of products with a free level of sophistication.

The first one is the usual corporate PPA as produced. It's quick to build, fast for them to connect, but it's not baseload. Just 100% green and quite competitive. The second product is to provide them with clean firm power. What does that mean? That means a baseload profile what exactly they need and what they are going to consume. Supply mostly by renewables so that 100% of the volume of energy, which is consumed is coming from green production, but at the same time, matching their profile of consumption. And the third product, which is new and which is quite specific to data center, actually, is the fact that we can provide them as well with the solution to have access to land, to build their data center and not every land, a specific land, which is close to a grid where we have an access to the connection and where it's going to be fast for them to build their data center and to get the power supply they need. I will give you an example of that.

Typically, the first kind of product is what we have sold to Microsoft and Amazon AWS in '25. Second type of project is what we are, for example, doing with Casa dos Ventos in Brazil. And the first one is what we have just signed with Google in Texas and with [ prospects ] notably in Spain.

Why does that matter? Because with those kind of offers, the data center is able to create more value because they are going to have a faster time to market. And second, they are going to have a lower cost of supply. And when you create value, you are able to share at least a part of it. And that's the way we are able to increase the level of the PPA we are selling, extracting a bit of premium, around 10% of premium of what we sell if we were selling the same electron to any type of industry.

So there is a direct impact, which help us to upgrade our double-digit return on our CapEx. And there is as well an indirect impact because you are bringing consumption locally, which help to develop your pipe of projects. That's one. And second, to raise the price where the power price where you are -- which benefit to your other assets.

So all that is not an ambition. It's not on paper. It's a reality. We have signed, us and our partner through our JV, 4 gigawatts of projects backed by data center demand in 2005 and -- in '25 and '26. You can see the geographic spread, 1/3 was done directly by us, although were done by Clearway and with a -- Casa dos Ventos in Brazil with a variety of type of player, the big GAFA, but as well some specific data center developer. All that will generate $250 million of -- per year of EBITDA when all the projects are materialized.

I'm going to focus on two specific projects. The first one is what we just signed with Google in Texas. It's a deal that come after what we did in Malaysia. So we are going to build the 1 gigawatt farm, that has started. We are going to sell them the 2 terawatt hour produced by that 1 gigawatt farm. So I would say that's quite classical. But in addition, Google has the option and could exercise this option to install a data center close to our solar panel production, so on our land.

And what we are going to provide them with is a direct access to our solar production, direct access to the grid as well because we have asked to be able to withdraw some power from the grid and should obtain it soon and as well the possibility to install some battery, so as to smooth the profile. And with all that, they are going to be able to go fast to the market next year and as well to lower their cost of supply, notably because they will lower the grid fee they are going to pay. So that's one type of example where thanks to that, we are able to sell to Google a PPA at a slightly higher price than the average price in the market.

Second example, which is interesting is what we do in Brazil. Here, we are blending solar, wind we have in our portfolio; hydro, we purchased from the market to provide data center with clean firm power. So 24/7 baseload supply, 100% green. And not only we are doing that but with Casa, we are as well providing to the data center, land near connection where we have secured that connection to the grid so that they can build fast their data center. And in addition, in Brazil, they are going to benefit from a tax-favored situation on one side. And on another side, by participating as well in equity to our project benefit from other subsidy.

So all that make a very, very competitive offer. And once again, for us, what is the advantage? We improve our return, we find the consumption to develop the multi-gigawatt pipe that we have. And we create as well a demand in a region of Brazil, where otherwise, part of the assets would be developed in several years. Now we can develop them now and have a faster development pace.

I move now to my second part on what are we going to do with AI for our own operation. First idea, there is no AI program if you don't have a strong data platform. And so we have spent a lot of time and effort in 2025. [ Namita went ] and spent actually a lot of effort and time on, that was to build the foundation of our data platform with two ideas in mind. One, we want to multiply and we are going to multiply it by 10, the datapoint we have on our assets because AI is really about a lot of data and very precise data. So that's one aspect.

And second, we want to have them real time because we want to be able to act in real time when we manage our assets. And so to do that, we have signed big contract with AspenTech, which is going to deploy in nation on all our -- 40 of our upstream site and 16 of our Refining & Chemical sites. It was already done for the Integrated Power aspect. So that's the layer of how to get the data. And then we have signed as well with Cognite on how to transform, enrich store, expose those data so that we can then add the last layer, which will be based on AI to, at the end of the day, uplift our production and our availability. So that's ongoing and should be fully deployed by the end of next year. That's one aspect.

The second aspect is that when you have the data, you need to do something with your data. And so we have worked on focusing our effort. And this time more on a top-down approach that really -- then bottom-up on the three program. One is using digital for HSE. You had an example with the safety moment, where we are using digital to improve monitoring and reduce emission. There are two other programs, one which is on the digital plant, how to improve the way we run our plant. And the last program is on integrated power modeling. There is a huge revolution on modernization. Just to take an example, with AI you can cut by 2 the time you need to forecast weather in a quite convincing way. You can imagine when you trade short-term power, what that chance to get to where in advance when you make your weather forecast. And that's just the beginning.

Obviously, to do that, we need to increase our capacity, and we have made the choice to do that by betting on India, by building a Global Competency Center in India to be able to develop those programs. I don't have to explain why India, but our idea is one that will be our center with our own staff. Second idea, we want to manage all that, to give them tasks end-to-end, which means that they will be fully accountable for all those programs, and we should reach a critical mass of at least 500 engineers by 2027 that has already started.

And that's the way. So we plan to use AI to transform our -- as the way we act. One [ disclaimer ] though, my presentation was not yet done by an agent. So that's probably for next year. Thank you. And with that, I leave the floor to Patrick.

Thank you, Stephane. Because this week -- next week, each executive of the company will be trained to have at least one agent with him. I don't know which one I will have. It will be difficult for him to follow me, but we'll see. So I will take the last part of the presentation now. Thank you, Stephane. And thank you, Namita, by the way, because the second part is largely led by Namita. She knows very well in India, by the way. So let's move to the 2026 objective. We are not fully on time, but I will try to catch up. If -- I know I like to speak, so I'm not sure we catch up completely.

So '26, in fact, is a very clear continuation year for 2025. The program is a sale -- the same. We continue to deliver our growth. Growth in oil and gas, growth in Integrated Power. This growth, you will see, is also accretive. The new barrels continue and our cash flow from operations will grow quicker than the growth itself. And at the same time, because we think the environment might be more, I would say, challenging in 2026, we have -- as you know, we told you that in September, we launched a cash saving program. So in order to strengthen the resilience.

I would say as well that you will see in the presentation, the Integrated Power business is growing. We reached $3 billion of cash flow and by itself, in fact, because it's independent of the cycles of oil and gas, it reinforced the resilience of the global model of the company.

So word on the market, I will not tell you what the price is, by the way, we are planning everything at $60, now we're at $71 or $72. So things are [indiscernible] [ $72 ]. But the fundamentals, what we think is that, yes, there is a demand. No more -- in '23 and '25, a little less than 1 million barrel of oil per day. So it's a little less than 1%, but it's continuing. We don't see any peak demand coming in front of us at this stage, how much will come. We saw -- and we've seen, in fact, '25, what, in fact, quite stable, around $70. People speak about volatility, the reality is that it was -- it went down, but it was moving quite around the $69 per barrel.

We've seen at the beginning of the year that the fundamentals that we think, which is a good supply and the events in Venezuela, we went down to $60, but then reactions are twofold, and OPEC decided not -- to stop [indiscernible] more oil in the market. And also we begin to see in the U.S., U.S. shale oil producer beginning to reduce drilling, that $60 balance is not yet there.

Additionally, on that, you had other events geopolitically, I think the most important one is maybe not Iran for me, it's the fact that most of the countries are serious about taking -- putting sanctions against Russian oil in the more stringent way. We've seen that. And this is an impact on the market. Today, you have more and more Russian oil on the sea which does not find a buyer. The Indians are not buying, refining -- Indian refiners, Russian crude oil for March, April. So you see as an impact, I think, on the market, remember, but Russian oil export in the market, 3 million to 4 million barrel of oil per day. So it's really a matter.

We still keep a view that fundamentals, good supply, despite what I just say, good demand, but still supply. We plan at $60 per barrel, and this explain a certain number of decisions that I will present to you.

On the gas side, I would say '26 is more a transition year. We were at 400 million tonnes per year of capacity of LNG in '22. '25, we were at 435 million tonnes. So in 3, 4 years, only 30 million tonnes, which was even not enough to absorb the increase of European demand. The European demand went up from 70 million -- 65 million tonnes in '22 to 115 million tonnes, so has increased by 50 million tonnes.

And this year, in '26, yes, there is some capacity which will be put on stream in the U.S., in Qatar but we think an additional 35 million tonnes will come. Transition year, which means we translated it by moving TTF from $12 per million Btu last year to $10, but not yet lower. By the way, today, with winter time, we are still at $12, but we've seen it could go down. I think transition as well because there is one event which is the fact that the EU has decided to ban Russian gas from '27, and this will give an additional demand in the EU from 115 million to 150 million tonnes. We have an additional 35 million tonne per year of LNG coming in '27 which is almost the increase of capacity of '26. So yes, we will see this market will see, for sure, the global capacity moving from 400 million to 600 million by '29, 2030, but the impact on the price, in our view, will be gradual. And '27 will not yet be, I think, the low cycle of this gas price, of the LNG price. Having said that, we know we have taken actions to face it.

'26 objectives. So again, the growth, 5% energy growth globally, 3% on oil and gas. I don't think we'll reach 4%. And by the way, I said to Nicola, if you want, you can reach 4%, tell me now because the market, like the future or not, just the past results, so tell me now, but he did not tell me that, so [ let's see ]. On electricity, net production, we should grow by 25%, about 60 terawatt hour. Of course, there is a link to when we'll close the EPH deal, but I'm comfortable with this objective. Refining utilization rate, the real objective will come back from [ Vincent ] and his team is to stop having some issues on big assets and availability plus 2%. So refining utilization rate is maybe not the best factor to translate it into economics.

LNG sales, we will continue to grow our production 6%. So it will be translated by sales. In the sales of LNG of Stephane and teams, there are some spot volumes. So this is why we keep -- let's keep above 44 million tonnes. And on the renewable gross installed capacity, 34 to 42-gigawatt. This is the road map of the teams of Integrated Power.

Less emissions. In methane, I think we'll reach sooner than we thought minus 80%. We are -- we have put a target of minus 70%. But every year, we do 5% more. So we'll go -- we continue to deploy the whole program. And we are the only company to have deployed 11,000 devices to make a permanent monitoring. So we have a clear leadership. And I think it's a real direct contribution to the climate. The heating power of methane is much higher than other greenhouse gas. So I think this is a good focus for all -- for the company and our capacity to demonstrate results.

For the other parameters, we continue to lower Scope 1 and 2 from operated facilities and the lifecycle carbon intensity of our sales, minus 19% to minus 20%, depending, of course, on the production that -- we are on the way to reach the minus 25%, we want to have by 2030, continuing to deploy the strategy and growing the Integrated Power business.

On the upper parameter for growing free cash, I will come back on it because it's important. I read your comments this morning since some of you were surprised by more than $26 billion. I think I will explain you why we've come from $27.8 billion in '25 at $69 per barrel and $12 per million Btu down to $26 billion. If you take the environment at $60 and $10, you would find more of something like $25 billion. There are some reasons behind why we think we will reach more than $26 billion. In fact, it's linked to the accretiveness of this growth of oil and gas production. In two years, and I will come back on it, we will have, in fact, compensated $10 per barrel of oil price because of the growth, but also because this growth is accretive in terms of cash flow per barrel compared to where it was two years ago.

And last but not least, an important target for all of us and that we discuss on the Board, we want to maintain a 15% gearing, which will lead to the management of the cash flow of the company. And I know we say less than 20%. I saw the reaction. We listened to all of investors in 2025. We have a model, which is to maintain this 15%, and we have ways to achieve it. I will come back on it. We might have some volatility during the year because of seasonality of working capital, but please no panic, we'll end at 15%. We deliver what we say, trust us. We've demonstrated that year after year.

A word on our cash savings program, which, in fact, it's contributing to the free cash of the company directly. We said $7.5 billion in September. We increased it to $12.5 billion because, as you know, the guidance we gave you in September around $16 billion of CapEx has been diminished to $15 billion like we see for '26 because in the meantime, we have announced the EPH deal, which is in share, but at the end of the day, it's an effort of investment. So we will save that cash issuing your shares. It's in fact, an issuance of sort of capital increase we are doing. So we don't want to double count it.

We are also working on the OpEx part. So for '26 because I know that in September, we gave you objectives without some color in it. This is a program, we have $500 million savings. Part of it is coming from Integrated Power because the fact that the farm downs allow us to rationalize part of the assets we are organized and the way we don't organize, so we -- $200 million of fixed cost will be saved on that part, and also, both on upstream and downstream. Many initiatives in marketing and services, reorganization of central services, headquarters streamlining. So reviewing the organization, as we were when the price was done in 2016, '17. In the meantime, the price went up. So we have a -- seems to have a little increase. So we streamlined that, and initiatives all across the board. So that's for '26.

We have also worked to launch new initiatives in order to continue to feed this cash saving program for future years. Some of them are mentioned there. One has been mentioned. So we want the growth in Integrated Power and digital AI to be supported by this Global Competence Center in India, which, of course, will offer competitive cost, but primarily it's because it will give us access to talent and to accelerate the growth, and we need to have, let's say, more people to deliver efficiently these various programs. So that's one initiative.

Second one is that we are reviewing all, which is the non-proximity-dependent services inside the company and move that in low-cost country, I would say. We had a number of service, either in IT and engineering in different areas where we discover -- we're reviewing it. You need to review permanently what you do. Some of them which are not dependent on proximity to [indiscernible] to our own people are still delivered by high-cost service contractors, and we could move them -- we will move them. We think there is more than $100 million of savings, probably more than that. We will apply the same philosophy to all these segments.

Another one, which is we have now established what we call the procurement factories in Romania, which is, in fact, able to procure on some framework contracts. We have negotiated with plenty of suppliers. And this one has been tested, now we'll make it mandatory for all the LBUs. We'll move, when I say all of them, I know it's more we have to be pragmatic, 20 of them by '27 and then more than it. There is quite a good potential to centralize the sourcing of equipment and benefiting from the size of the company. So probably at least 10% of the $2 billion, there is more to come behind. So this is the third initiative.

And the last one is to see how we could mutualize some support services across some LBUs regionally, for example, in Africa or even in France, where we continue to have in different refineries, all support services are in each site and there is probably there some gains. There are not -- probably there will be some gains. So that's again, taking the opportunity of -- to review the way we work to continue to be more efficient and resilient.

CapEx for '26, $15 billion, as announced, $15 billion, where -- the split is there. On Integrated Power, low-carbon, in cash, it's $3 billion. If you add 1 -- I would say, 1 year of EPH shares, the effort is equivalent to $4 billion. $3 billion. And on the other areas, I think it's quite similar to 2025. Let's be clear, there is no reduction of the growth ambition. All the projects which have been launched will be delivered within the budget. It's a question to be efficient on the way we work. We revised it from $17 billion to $16 billion in September, now $16 billion to $15 billion because of EPH.

We are -- in this figure, we are planning to divest $1 billion more than what we will acquire. So just to be clear. And we have a flexibility, which are identified to go down to $14 billion, in particular, I would say, on the acquisition part, if we were willing -- if we were facing a lower than $50 per barrel environment. So that's the program for CapEx.

Growth, I mentioned 3% for oil and gas. It will come from not only some of the growth comes from the start-ups of '25 reaching their plateau of production like Anchor, which is not yet plateaued or Mero 4. So part of this is coming from -- is embarked by the start-ups of last year. New start-ups for this year, we have identified five projects -- or six even. One is Lapa Southwest in Brazil, Mabruk in Libya, they are not very big ones. Ratawi is more important, Ratawi Phase 1. We increase the production from Ratawi in Iraq to 120,000 barrels per day. Then we have Tin Fouye Tabankort, upgrade of production in Algeria, around 55,000 barrel per day. North Field East in Qatar, we plan it for Q3. And Uganda, we were planning it for Q3, now it's Q4. We'll start the first train before year-end '26.

This 3%, and this is probably the most important slide, in fact, will be translated in terms of cash flow by a growth of 7%. So again, as Jean-Pierre told you, in '25, the 4% growth of production was translated in 10% growth of cash flow because of this higher CFFO per barrel of the new projects. In '26, so 3% will be translated in 7% according to our planning, maybe a little more, we'll see. But this, of course, will help us -- and in fact, when you make the math at the end of this combination, we will have a cash flow from operation from upstream at $60 per barrel in '26, which will be equivalent to what we would have done in '24 at $70 per barrel. So we have offset $10 per barrel, thanks to this growth and this accretive growth.

So I think this is a strong message of this presentation. Maybe this was a figure that you didn't have in mind. You were not so clear. I had the question in September. And now in the meantime, we have managed to put all that together.

We don't stop here. We never stop exploring. I know that it's a new music, exploring [indiscernible] site. Since the last 10 years, we spent $1 billion per year of exploration appraisal. We had done two big, nice discoveries in the last 10 years, in particular, GranMorgu and Venus, on which we will work to sanction the project, as Arnaud explained to you, in '26.

We have been quite active to have access to new licenses in '25, the U.S., Algeria, Liberia, Congo, Nigeria, Namibia, Malaysia, Indonesia. We have a program of interesting wells, I would say, for '26, in particular, Nigeria, Congo, Namibia, but also in Malaysia. And then some, I would say, more frontier wells like in PNG, Indonesia, which will be drilled this year. So the efforts continue, and Nicola Mavilla has taken the lead of all these teams in order to maintain, I hope, the success rate of the company in exploration.

On Integrated LNG, we will face a year where, on one side, we have a growth of production of LNG, 6%. We have two projects starting up, by the way, in '26. One is North Field East in Qatar. The other one is the famous Energia Costa Azul in Baja, California. We are waiting for it, it's a little late, but is planned for Q3 as well with quite a good offtake, by the way, of both. Those will contribute to the growth of the sales of Stephane's team.

So on one side, we have this growth. On the other side, we have lowered the assumption on the gas price, TTF down from $12 to $10, so of course, this has an impact, I would say, on the -- and also the LNG price. If we were at $60 per barrel and TTF of $10, the average energy price of our sales will be $8. We have announced $8.5 or Q1. So that's the math which gave us compared to $9 in '25. So when you make this 10%, 12% decrease on the sales and on the other side, 6% increase of the growth. We are planning to have a cash flow from operations from Integrated this year around $4.5 billion. This year was $4.6 billion, $4.7 billion, I think, so more or less stable -- stability, but the growth being compensated by a lower environment.

On Integrated Power, of course, the year, but -- I will not come back, will be dominated by the closing of this deal with EPH, which will provide us -- its figures have to be remembered. On a yearly basis, 15 terawatt hour per year of net power production and $750 million per year of available cash flow. So it's -- of course, these figures have to be integrated, and it's a major step for us with potentially capacity to grow beyond because there is a pipeline coming with the 14 gigawatt gas-fired power [ fields. ] It will be translated for 2026, production about 60 terawatt hour. The cash flow is expected to be above $3 billion.

As we plan to have net CapEx $2.5 billion to $3 billion, normally, '26 should be, for the first time, contributive to the dividend, free cash positive activity. As in normally because we have an uncertainty on the date of the closing. We are not completely in line, but we are, for sure -- if it's not '26, it will be '26, but '27 for sure, this business will be free cash positive. And I think it's a turning point, obviously, in the way you could valorize the business inside the company. It will contribute to the dividend.

Refining & Chemicals, I reported to you in September that we had three bad pupils, which were Port Arthur, Donges and Normandie. Now, this one, the good news is that bad pupils are in better shape, if I say, both of the problems have been identified on the reformer and steam. There was a big -- large turnaround, which was delivered on time and now Port Arthur is back on track with positive performance.

The Donges refinery has suffered during several years. We will start up this famous Horizon project, which is investment in order to be able to produce gasoline on spec and not on the export market. So that's February, March, that's coming up. So again, we reached a much better utilization rate in November. We can consider that Donges will be back on normal availability. And the cracker problems in Normandie has always been repaired. And so again, this platform in Normandie is back to, I would say, good availability.

By the way, you've seen in the fourth quarter results, that Refining & Chemicals are really being able to capture that were -- very good margin, $11 per barrel. So good news is that we have captured it, which means that, yes, the plants are now available, and that's, I think, a good news.

The global program that [ Vincent ] and his teams are implementing, which is called Boost27 is to increase the availability by 2 points, and we'll follow that these KPIs very carefully along the year, and we report to you.

Unfortunately, now margins are lower back, but you know very clearly this is the integration when price of oil is going up at $72. We -- our margin today are around [ 4 to 5 ], so we have less [ environment ]. But again, it's part of the -- we'll gain on one side. We have less on the other side. This is why we think it's good to be integrated.

Marketing & Services is very -- growing steadily, $100 million of cash flow per year. So $2.3 billion in '24, $2.4 billion in '25. We plan to $2.5 billion in '26. Despite the fact, I remind you that we have streamlined some of the networks in Europe and in Africa. We have a special focus there on lubricants. We have reorganized the lubricants business unit in a sort of, I would say, independent business unit company. There is no -- I don't think there is any plan to divest it. We love lubricants. It's very cash -- it's a super cash cow, very little capital employed, good business, stable market share. And don't try to rush to gain market share, better to manage your margins and keep your good margins. So we are good.

And I think the focus on these units is giving us ideas on how to develop. We are very focused today on the auto market to have more emphasis on the industry markets. That's the idea behind this new organization. On the networks, the focus will be done to really move forward on developing the nonfuel revenues, which is a source of potential cash.

So the global picture for '26, to conclude, is that -- so we will generate, as I said, at $60 per barrel, $10 per million Btu, refining margin at $5, about $26 billion, we will invest $15 billion. So we have a free cash of $11 billion. Dividend more or less [ EUR 0.8, EUR 0.85 ], depending on the exchange rate, [ $3 billion ] of buyback. You see the equation there.

The news that -- what we want to illustrate is that between '25 and '26, if you rebase '25 at the same environment price, we have an additional free cash flow of $4 billion, $2 billion coming from the CapEx. And the other $2 billion are coming, a little more than $1 billion from the upstream, growth accretiveness, $1.1 billion; around $500 million from Integrated Power, then Marketing & Services for $100 million. And so you will -- and then Refining & Chemicals which is planning at the same environment because of a better viability to have an additional $300 million to $400 million.

So that's why we'll have, again, this resilience and we'll be able to have the same free cash at $60 in '26, but we had a '25 $69 per barrel. That's what I said. Company is more resilient and able to distribute dividends. So the dividends coming on the dividend. So borders decision has decided yesterday to come back to what was a traditional way in TotalEnergies. And to be clear, until '22, where we were the last -- I mean final dividend because it's not a quarter defining French way, it's a final dividend. We have inter intermediate dividends in the French system that we distribute quarterly. A final one is equal to the 3 previous ones. We have departed from this tradition last 2 years because we had a clear visibility on high oil price, so we are confident. The Board prefers to be a little more cautious, but there is no signal on it.

It gives, by the way, growth of the dividend of 5.6% per year in euro, 13% in dollar. When I compare that to our peers, we are in good position in terms of growing the dividend. And we will, of course, announced what would be the growth of the quarterly dividend by end of April. Board decided to have a better view of 1 quarter, see the market. So -- but no message, but I will be -- the idea is not to keep it at the same level. It's just a question to come back to the traditional manner to manage this dividend. So that's the point. And I think the 5% there is probably a good guidance.

On buyback, we have announced you 3 billion to 6 billion, again, at between $60 and $70 per barrel in September. We reset that buyback guidance. We are adding -- because I had a lot of questions during my road show that at $50 per barrel, there will be no buyback. So the answer is quite easy. I don't try to make -- in between, don't ask me, there is no mathematical formula. And today, at this stage, the Board has taken the same magnitude, and we want to be able to buy back 3 to 6. We don't know where we learned the price of oil crude oil. So we took, I would say, a flexible approach by starting first quarter at the bottom of the guidance. And then if we see that the price remains around that $70, we'll have opportunity to, I would say, increase it. But I think it's better to increase than to decrease my view and live markets, good news are better than value. So we'll skip in the guidance. We took the low range because, again, we don't have a full visibility on it.

I will also say that the second message is important is the one on priority to gearing. We have listened to investors loud and clear. So this 15% has been clearly is an anchor point. And you can see on the map that it's matched with more or less at $60, it's much more or less with $3 billion of buybacks. But this will be, I would say, the idea that we don't increase the net debt to finance buyback will be part of the equation of the way we will allocate the cash flow in 2026 coming forward. So that's, I would say, again, we have -- the CFFO is resilient. We have a clear investment and we will execute the $15 billion. The dividend is now -- will be even, we have a little uncertainty, of course, on the exchange rate, even if I may, is that it will continue or to weaken, but we'll see. It has an impact on us. And again, as I said, keep in mind the gearing sustainability, which could go up to 3%, 3 billion of working capital. We anticipate 2 million to 3 million for the first quarter. That represents easily 2% to 3% or 2.5%, 3% of gearing. So again, I say no panic.

So to finish this presentation, you know this slide, we just updated it. I think we offer and we continue to offer a clear and consistent strategy, which is, yes, differentiated from our peers, but differentiated in both ways. On the oil and gas, we deliver growth and accretive growth, we keep, and I think it's important the medium and long-term view. Again, we have renewed again, by more than 100% of proven reserves. I remind you that last 3 years, 140%, 150%, 120%. So the capacity to continue to identify new resources to sanction projects is there. And I'm very confident with the pipeline we have in front of FIDs to be taken in '26 and '27, but we'll maintain this track record. I think this is probably one of the best foundation for the investors within total energies. And the other differentiation is about this integrated power pillar, which is again benefiting from good demand for electricity even in our Western countries. And also benefiting from this growth, and it will contribute to dividends, if not '26, '27, for sure.

Thank you for your attention, and we're ready to take your questions.

So let's go to the Q&A. [Operator Instructions] Biraj?

It's Biraj Borkhataria, RBC. First one, just on Namibia as you visited there. We know for Venus, you were looking for an extension to concession. Could you just talk about [Mopane and whether the fiscal conditions today are sufficient for you to take FID and whether you're looking for any improvement there? Any comments that would be appreciated. And then the second question is just on your energy portfolio and specifically Yamal, you were quoted today around sanctions and the lack of ability to divert the cargoes. In the past, I think you said that you could divert some to Asia or keep some. So what's your latest understanding of how those sanctions will be enforced?

Okay. Namibia. First, again, the good news is that because we made this transaction with GAAP, the authorities know us -- perceives us, as I would say, unavoidable. So we are there, and we will be the one the company which will help them to establish the oil and gas industry. So the dialogue even on Venus was much more, I would say, engaging it's a new administration. It's a new country to oil and gas, so they had to learn. But they see us as the engine of capacity to deliver it. And I would say, we explained them that we have an opportunity because now we have received the tenders. And honestly, we are within the ballpark for the CapEx we were anticipating, which is good news because there is also more appetite from contractors to transact with TotalEnergies again.

So this deal has generated a lot of, I would say, a good virtuous circle for us. So maybe I'm optimistic, but we have in front of us as well, the name authorities organized themselves now in order to be able to engage with our teams. So we are working team. So the idea that we could sanction by middle of the year, we see if we can deliver. But clearly, it is on the program placed by the President, and we'll see if we can reach the point where we can sanction that. On Mopane, it's very different. Mopane as a permeability, which is much easier. Again, we are facing a development, which is, I would say, more or less a sort of grand more good development. So no -- and again, it works with the CapEx we have in mind in the fiscal, it works without having to negotiate plenty of elements.

The point on Mopane is more that we know it's big. We don't know if it's very big or big. So the idea of the presale program. Is it 800 million, 700 million, 800 million barrel? Or is it 1.1, 1.2. So we need to -- because in fact, the last wells they drilled going on the Southwest discovered clearly an extension. So we need to see up to which point is going this extension because this could influence the way we develop the field. So we don't want to make some -- that's the idea of the 3 wells, which have been completely by the way, pay in line with the help of the program. So again, the idea is that we'll be able to win it. And if we do that, we should be able to sanction that by '28 and then moving forward. So the idea is to have 1 project and the other one moving behind. And there are, obviously, synergies.

And for TotalEnergies, by the way, it will also help to discuss all this business discussions because we have the perspective totally to our Venus, which was a little constrained, but we have more than that. So in terms of the way we'll approach this fiscal discussion. It helps everybody. And I think we have engaged in a smart and good way. So '26 for sure for us focus on Namibia will be important. And again, we have the opportunity to deploy our competence there in a very efficient way.

Yamal, first '26 will be '26. So '26, there is no sanction short term, but no, we don't have short-term deals with them. We make only the long-term contracts. So '26 will be as per it. For '27, there are -- one thing which is clear, no more import of in the EU. So this contract will be debated. In fact, today, legally, we have a question mark because the way it's written, there is a question mark, is it only import to you or is it import everywhere in the world? That means is a European company like TotalEnergies forbidden to manage any Russian LNG. The intent was not this one initially what we understood from the text, but there is -- the way it's written today, we are obliged to have entered. We have engaged with, I would say, the French treasury and the commission in the new commission. So a clarification. And so I cannot fully answer to your questions. Maybe we'll be really have to just give up the marketing of any ocean LNG, and we'll have to obey, obviously. It was not our understanding, but the way it's written, would have that understand, so we are willing to clarify that point. So at this stage, I cannot tell you more on this one.

What will remain is that even if we cannot market, we can remain shareholder of Yamal, which is another issue for us because Yamal for us is a source of business being a shareholder of the company itself, plant, even difficult to get some dividends, but as an activity and then we are marketing part. The second only covers today the marketing part. So there is no force measure, there is no, I mean, rules, which would force us to exit from Yamal. So that's where we are for Yamal.

Matt Lofting at JPM. Two questions, please. But first, you talked several times about the benefits of the higher-margin barrels and that's sort of bridging apart of the $10 per barrel '26 versus '24. No barrels are born equal. So I wondered if you could just expand on that a bit, geologically, fiscally size of assets, et cetera, when you think about the growth versus the base portfolio?

And then second, I just wanted to ask you about M&A. I noticed during JP's comments, you do referenced that the U.S. listed shares and that potentially being a sort of a source of supporting M&A in the U.S. in the future is obviously a province that historically, the company has often been pretty prudent on the view on valuations around. So any thoughts there would be appreciated.

You have no surprise. We have in there, but we want to increase our gas upstream gas in the U.S. So it's quite clear. We have done different deals. We still have, I would say, a gap of almost 1 Bcf. So we can do it by many small deals, so we can do it in other ways. So we are studying that. what GP don't tell you we will do it. I just told you that we have a currency we could make some M&A in the U.S. And when you look to -- in the U.S., it's better to make deals with shares. the upside is over 10%, you can do a deal in cash, it's much more expensive because of fiscal regime. So that's one of the idea. So we'll see if it works or not. We have no more comments on that.

But the idea to continue to find access to upstream gas in the U.S., that's a clear priority for us. It was in '25, it still remains to be clear. And then on the high margin, yes. You can take -- if you go to Slide 10. Where there was the famous [indiscernible]. I was sure about the question. I will not give you all the details, but you have some oil fields and you have some gas fields. Generally, the margins of the oil field is much better than the gas fields, I can tell you. And the oil fields but which are there are 2 in the U.S. Gulf of America. So no surprise. Growth of America is delivering quite high margin because fiscal terms are low compared to others. And you have Brazil, which is also giving some good cash part. So that's the 2 was. So I think -- and then the gas generally are lower or more traditionally one.

It's also true that in the mix, it's not there, but we are replacing barrels from the North Sea or barrels from Nigeria, SPDC, which honestly don't have a big -- have a low margin. So we replace this type of barrels by barrels, which are much lower, even the gas barrels have a better margin for some of them than what we had in the portfolio. So that's also, I would say, a mix of barrels, which we grow in the portfolio.

Irene Himona, Bernstein. If I go back to the cash accretive barrels, -- if we think about value as not cash flow, but cash flow, is there anything we can say about the CapEx of the new barrels and combined with legacy oil and gas, and therefore, the free cash flow generation of the new barrels. And then my second question on integrated power. I mean, obviously, it will be a major, major milestone to turn a relatively young and very fast-growing business into free cash flow positive this year or next year. When I look at the renewable subsector of utilities, they're all cash negative, and they remain cash negative, perhaps with one exception. So I wanted to understand what it is that you have done so very differently to companies that are -- have been in that business for far longer than you, some of which are much, much bigger than you are.

I can reverse the question, why don't they do like us? I don't know. But I know my figure, I don't have a huge experience and we are -- our Board is asking us permanently to make some benchmarks on these big companies, but the size of the business makes it quite difficult for us to do it. Honestly, I mean, maybe Stephane has a recipe. It's a mix of -- I mean, again, the integration delivers a global cash. In '26, the 3 billion, we consider it will be 6% coming from the up what we call upstream is renewables and gas-fired power plants and 40% from the downstream, which are customers, B2B B2C and the trading. So just to give you an idea of the source of cash.

It's on the renewable part, we continue to invest. But in terms of free cash, the fact that we recycle the CapEx, you know we recycle a lot. This year, we have sold for 2 billion of renewables which allow us to finance, in fact, almost -- not all, but 70%, 80% of the organic CapEx. So we are in now the 8 gigawatts is stabilized. We are now more growing construction every year. The flow is 8 gigawatts. We have a sort of permanent mode where, in fact, we more or less finance 80% of the renewable CapEx by the recycling of the CapEx. And that helps a lot because I mean that's more like $500 million, and we generate more than that with our renewable portfolio. To be clear. So that's, I think, the discipline. I know that the question is, can you really recycle, and here we have managed to do it in quite a own way. And now I think we are beginning to establish some platforms, for example, in the U.S. with some large partners for [indiscernible] maybe on which we begin to see if we could follow up and follow on, I would say. And that's the farm downs of 2026 could be done with one of these platforms. So we begin to industrialize this part of the model.

But again, it's because we have a view, a long-term view, we stabilized at 8. And maybe my peers have -- I don't know we have other ideas to develop. I don't know if this is the way we look at it. But I take your point on free cash generation more globally. We didn't look at that way, but this is what happens on the renewable. So at the end, by the way, this year, we have -- we didn't spend 4 billion. We spent only 3.5 billion. Part of it, but on the renewable part, the CapEx, the projects have been a little slower but we were able to manage it and to manage the growth with less. I think we are also more selective in the -- more focused. I know we begin in '26, one of the plan on the renewable part is to get rid out of regenerated many geographies with small products. And that, honestly, when you have plenty of small projects in many countries, it's inefficient. We have difficulty to follow. You have too many teams per megawatt. So we now, I prefer to concentrate on less countries, but I think teams which are more efficient in, I would say, megawatt per people first half. So that's also the variety.

I want to ask 2 questions. We've seen in opening out several countries or at least better fiscal terms hotel has operated in the past from Venezuela to Syria, Kuwait, et cetera. We've already seen the success you've had in Iraq and Libya leading to new projects. How do you think of these opportunities? And then I wanted to ask you on Tilenga. It starts up at the end of this year. It's a major part of the growth next year. When do you expect it to reach at own phases?

The plateau should be raised by mid '27, to be clear. First when being started this year, [ second train ] in the first half, so plateau by mid '27. There is a delay, to be honest, it's not a strong performance instead of construction.

Now I'm sure, honestly, it's true that it's quite complex to -- the main difficulty we faced was to mobilize people on the ground. There was not so many, I would say, poor with the right competencies locally, and we have been obliged and one of the main contractors as this core part of its business to one of the subcontractors to find people, to bring people. So we have much more Chinese on the ground that we were planning to have it and all that makes -- we lost some -- I think, we lost for me a year there in all the mobilization on the ground. So now it's down. The progress is back on track. Nicolas is following that every week itself. So we are back, but it's -- there is a delay, it's a charge. We have other sources of growth, so it will feel next year.

On the first question. First, we are -- we like what we've done in Iraq. We can do more in rack. We have opened the door. Some of those are following. But from the Iraqi authorities, they remember that we have opened the door. So we are welcome, and we will work with them. New government will be put in place. I think we have a strong partnership with the Qataris -- Qatar as well with QE. And we have established and the teams, honestly, to have been able in 2 years to sign all these contracts in Iraq. It's a huge performance for teams to have been able to go through the whole system and also good relation with the Basrah Oil Company. So all that is an ecosystem, which -- so let's look continue to Iraq. Libya -- it's more -- it's not Russian mountains, but I don't know, live in mountains. We manage together with Conoco to have these new fiscal terms. So now we can -- we have better terms in loading, which will be applied to the existing production. But we have an incentive to invest. So we want to invest in the North Gialo project, where the main challenge will be to mobilize contractors because Libya is not yet, I would say, a fully stable country.

I see a lot of enthusiasm, but it's still -- and so we need to convince good contractors and strong contractors to come and to -- in order to build in Libya. But again, in both cases, it's very cheap oil. So renewing reserves, there is a big potential there. It's good. Waha production today is around 400,000 or 350,000 oil per day. We can easily increase that to 500,000, 600,000 oil per day. There is a huge potential, which is identified to matter not to execute projects in this beyond it. You mentioned some interesting countries, very different. Kuwait, was in Kuwait. So I have an interest for Kuwait. I have one dream, which is to put TotalEnergies in each country of the Middle East. So I'm continuing. They have announced that we will be open to international partner to develop offshore or not, we'll see. We will look at it. They need some competence over, as we look at it. Obviously, we are not the only one, but it's an opportunity. It might be. What are the fiscal terms? I don't know. I need to see if at the end, it's because all that it's a matter of risk and reward.

This area, the stake are maybe not so high, in fact. And so our teams explorers are looking with others together to see what will we think about the quality of the rocks and I don't want to judge about it. We ask them to review. But we know onshore, we were producing, but the stake we are quite small, I would say, at our size. So it's a question at the end also for us. We don't have infinite resource, human resources and competencies. So we can -- we cannot go everywhere. And now we have this new media. Clearly, I see much more potential of profits in Namibia today then in question as well as potential for the future. And Venezuela, I already answered, it's not at the pile of my fines. Because we are consistent, we have said in the past and -- but we concentrate our investments on oil, which is lower than $20 per barrel, low-cost oil, oil in Venezuela does not fit with that because it's not only upstream, it's also upgrading in the whole system. We are there. So I think we -- it's not a priority. And I think all that needs to be stabilized before to reaching to all that. That's what it is.

Chris?

Two questions. the presentation, Patrick. I've noticed the CFFO payout link has disappeared. And I wonder with free cash flow inflection coming from integrated power, whether you're considering how that changes your linkage in terms of payout policies as we move into 2027? And finally, integrated power actually helps finance some of the buybacks and dividends. That's question number one. And number two is again on M&A. I guess, EPH was a great example of a noncompetitive deal. But then Namibia was very competitive, and it seems you should be in a good position to tell us what the M&A environment is like today for let's call them undeveloped resources. Where are you seeing the market there?

The mention of more than 40% payout was in the last slide, if I remember well. So it did not disappear. It's just -- it's 40. Again, I think it will be clear that this year Jean-Pierre said 40%, 55% payout, it's too high. This is a few of the board. 55%, we reach a point where we are high. And in fact, the payout has been high, and we finance it by the debt. Fundamentally, when you look to the financial of 2025, buyback has been financed by the debt, which is possible. For me, the view I have on it is that in '22, benefited from incredible high cash, which have by the way, lower the net debt gearing down to 7%, 8%. So having a year where somewhere we give back part of this extra cash that we get in '22, '23 through this buyback in '25. It's a nice way. We've done it through a special dividend. We do it for buyback.

We come back to, I would say, what is a normal gearing around 15%. We cannot repeat that. Cannot repeat it. So the 40% guidance was probably good when we gave it to you, okay? We'll see integrated power is a good news because of EPH, we will accelerate the year-end might be '26 where will be net cash positive. So this will change. In our plans, it was not fully clear that we'll reach it. We accelerate. We are more and more confident even if I understand the doubt of Iran, what did you find? Is there something which a magic which could disappear suddenly. That's why I'm cautious. I'm still continuing to monitor that step after step to observe the results, the cash flow and then we'll be more confident. So I cannot just change the guidance just because we have a perspective. I want this to be delivered and then we'll be able to build on it with you and to see -- to give you more guidance, including this integrated product business.

And developed resource is fundamental. We have to have access to developers always looking the way we have managed to renew our reserves for the last 3, 4 years. When we look to what we've done, part is coming from more exploration from Morgu, Namibia, Kaminho. But of course, there was 2 other big sauce, one, the LNG part, the Qatar deals, obviously, are giving quite a large results. And also from the Emirates part or UAE concessions that we bought in 2015. In fact, we are planning to produce 4 million barrels per day. Today, we are going to 5 million barrels per day, which is a huge increase. We benefit from that event. If we have only 10% to 20%. Beyond it, you have quite a large resource. And so I think this is a lesson by the way. When you acquire a license in this type of country, you should not just look at what to obtain immediately, but the potential to grow beyond.

And so yes, we continue to work on this ID, like we've done in Iraq, like Libya and that's part of the business. And you could have access to that to very, I would say, cheap costs. On [indiscernible], we managed to get it. I don't know if it was competitive. It was a long competition, which at a certain point, and even know where we are going. At the end, we had one hedge, to be honest, we were the only one to be able to offer a swap somewhere this position in Namibia on Venus. And this was very attractive to them. So it's thanks to our exploration, but somewhere we have embarked in the deal with Gal. So there are implications. I think that's what -- today's, the market is still high, still expensive. So you need to be smart. You don't want to pay in cash. Held expense -- people still expect $70 per barrel. The deals in M&A are quite expensive. So this is not what we have done. You need to -- but I gave one constraint to Arnaud when he came from me if we got but okay, it's nice, but no cash. So find a good idea. You find the idea of the swap. No cash.

Let's continue.

Okay. Lydia?

It's Lydia from Barclays. And 2 questions on both AI related. On the idea of like selling to data centers, how much of the -- anything about 60 terawatt hours going to 100 terawatt hours, how much of that uplift do you think you can sell to data centers? And that 10% premium, is it actually enough because ultimately, the value that data has to get having power straight away, it should possibly be -- you should be able to get higher premiums? I'm just challenging on that. But -- and then the second one of TotalEnergies own AI. Patrick, you talked about getting agents next week. But that idea of what surprise here? Is it increased production, the 1%, 2% a year? Is it recovery rates? Just what -- just -- and I don't -- I'm not going to hold you ways but just that ambition around it.

Okay. I learned that you have an agent, so you need to teach me. No, clearly, but I will let the floor to Namita and Stephane to answer the question. On the second one, more -- yes, we are looking to availability of the plants. I mean, recovery rates maybe. I mean on the subsurface, it's still -- I'm not -- we are not too clear. There is a work, but it's not too clear. It's more really on the way we run on these machines to be more efficient, to gain 1%, 2% of additional availability because we have a better maintenance. But than really on the subsurface, I'm skeptical on this one. But again, we are working. So Jean, you take the first question. Namita, and you can complement, and Nicolas, the first one? The other one?

So on the first question, what is the potential, it's clear that in the U.S., we see that on notably in Texas, where we have our production. That's 1/3 of the growth of the market. So then -- I mean, that's an indication of what we could imagine for us in the U.S. has yet to materialize in Europe, but we see the Brazil, the ongoing discussion of the first deal. So I believe that's going to come. And in Europe, it's clear that it could be even more because we don't see the same industrial demand coming. So it could be even larger than that. Then we have to be cautious to the premium because they are -- as I try to explain, they are resource of revenue.

The first one is the addition, additional premium you can sell through your PPA. That's one. And honestly, I don't expect to get that much higher than what it is today. But second, the fact that you are able to provide land, the fact that you are able to give them access to connection grid can be sold. And that's not included in the PPA, and that can be a value yet to matters that can be a size value. And the last point that we need to realize, especially in a market like Texas, for example. We all know that the price are linked to the node. So where you are. And there could be some difference between the price at the node, the price at the known and the price globally. If you're able to bring additional demand, you are going to improve the supply-demand balance of where you are. And that's at the strong implication on not the contract you are selling, but if you have a bulk of assets, then you are going to improve not only what you sell, but you improve what you sell on the rest of your asset. And that indirect part is as well very important.

One of the reasons why we see so many big combiners and where we try to attract them is as well to improve globally the level of the market. So if you start to accumulate the idea then that a significant improvement of your profitability. Namita, you want to comment?

Yes. So I agree with what Patrick said, our main goal is, of course, to increase production. And I can give you some concrete examples. The first is just digital in general, if we look at something like just process control, which was something that we did a lot in our refineries, but now can be done on our exploration and production assets with some of the tests we've done, even an increase of between 1% to 2% of production on our assets is, of course, just enormous. But then if you add to that things like less breakdowns, again, we focus traditionally on very large pieces of equipment like our turbines.

But what we realize is that we have a lot of breakdowns with very small pieces of equipment, and the idea of getting connections to over 70% of our equipment is to have less breakdown. So that combination is something that obviously increases production. On the subsurface side, is probably in the very early stages of whether we can do more recovery, but where it can really help is accelerate. That means acceleration of FIDs, if you can analyze quicker. And if you can drill faster and with more precision, which means quicker tiebacks as well and not just on large projects, but on smaller ones. So I think those are 2 sort of main focuses where I think in exploration production, we can use AI effectively.

Okay. Alessandro?

Alejandro Vigil from Santander. The first one is I'm interested about your regulation in Europe. Now you're going to be one of the largest generators in Europe after the EPH acquisition. I understand your thoughts about the system, it needs some changes, et cetera. And the second question is we are also seeing a consolidation process in all services and drilling and looks like there is a new wave of investments in the upstream business. Your thoughts about potential inflation cost in the investment in the upstream.

As a point, it depends on the market. It depends on the market. But if you have a market which is already limited to 3 players or 4 and you go to 2, this has become a problem. No, I'm clear on it. So there are some conciliation we don't support because at the end, we see the impact. By the way, today, I think -- and we observe it in the tenders, which the offers we just received for Namibia, we see a stabilization of the market. We -- I think it's linked to the oil price. We are now more at 80 down to 70, it could go lower.

So I think it has an impact actually on the service industry. But -- and to be honest, even some companies, some service companies have tried to combine their offers by linking wells and subsea. We didn't see, honestly, in the offers we received any advantage of it. So they try to promote to us an integration. Maybe it's good for them. But as a customer, we didn't see a lot of value of this type of approach of integration, I would say, on subsea and wells or things like that. We worked a lot. And even if we are ready to look in particular on drilling, we are developing today an approach where we give more integrated contracts rather than ourselves taking the different bits and pieces to give it to one company. We've done that in Iraq for obvious reasons to be more efficient. We are looking to do that as well for the wells in Suriname. There we see an added value for us to select one which will integrate, it's good for them, but it's good for us. So on this one, the demonstration has to be done, but we, as customers, are really benefiting from this type of consolidation or integration. So I like competition, fundamentally. It's better to keep competition. By the way, it's normal in [ liberal oil ] world. CO2 regulation in Europe. It's an interesting question for Stephane because Stephane is a guy which permanently told me you must promote the CO2 price because of renewables. Now he has some gas-fired power plants. So let's see what he will -- we will arbitrate between the two parts of it. So the question is for you, Stephane.

No, I think that there are several questions. One, we have the ETS One system, where there is a question mark on how fast are we going to reduce the level of Qatar, and what's going to be the consequence on the CO2 price. So as mentioned, Patrick, we are buyer of CO2 for our refining industry. And at the same time, the power price are linked to CO2 price, got CCGT, which are more value when CO2 price is higher, got renewable, which has more value when CO2 price is higher. So it's clear that the integrated power part will benefit from an increase of CO2. There are question mark today on where that market is going, given the balance between the speed of the decrease and potentially the increase in demand. We are quite happy with the way the market is functioning today and with this balance. And at the end of the day, if we want the transition to take place, it will have to take place with a higher price of CO2. At the same time, we need to be cautious on what's going to happen for the industry because we need as well to maintain the demand of the industry, that's one aspect. Then you have the ETS 2 system and so on, but that has marginal consequence, honestly, on what we do. So we are more focusing on the ETS One, on which, as I said, we are quite satisfied with the current situation.

So fundamentally, we like the price of CO2, just to be clear. Otherwise, there will be zero transition. So up to Europe to decide what they want. Then if you want to make an exception for the high emitters or your heavy industry, you have waste to do it if you want to support these industries without necessarily doing it through the price of CO2, which are two different topics. The debate mix both, but you can have other ways to support your heavy industry than just lowering the CO2 or stopping the decrease of quota, et cetera, et cetera. I think this is a real fundamental question for the policymakers. And today, the debate is difficult.

[ Matt with UBS. ] Two questions. The first one is on FIDs for '26, '27. You mentioned Venus for mid-'26, which other projects do you see as perhaps more likely to go ahead over the next couple of years, which ones are more challenging across oil and LNG? And then secondly, on LNG, during the presentation, you mentioned the risk of new project delays in '26. What do you see the risk for the projects in which you're involved in Qatar?

Again, I was on the one for us on the NFE in Qatar. We were in Doha, the whole industry was in Doha last week. And we discussed -- again, I discussed not only with Qataris with Technip Energies, which is a main contractor. They say second quarter, we put third quarter. We are a little cautious. So third quarter is probably more reality. So I see that progressing well on the ground. We'll see if the finalization. But again, I don't see that as a risk on this one. On ECA, I think we have been long to wait, but now it's again, so Technip is transferring the installation by May, I think, and we said third quarter. This one, we could face some quality issues. We have a concern about the quality of the work which has been done. So this need to be checked. But again, third quarter for both. The sanction in '26. So we have Venus. We have a project in Nigeria called IMA, which is gas project to continue to feed this Train 7, famous Train 7. So we have progressed a lot. Now we launched the tenders. We had a meeting last week on it. So we said go. So the idea is to sanction the projects in '26, and it's important. It's an easy project, but in Nigeria, even if easy, it's always a little slow. We face some hurdles, local hurdles, but it seems to be this one. Then we have the question of Papua LNG. So either we sanction or we have an issue. So the plan is to sanction in '26. We'll see there is different work stream together to put together because it's a CapEx, it's fiscal -- CapEx, financing and marketing. So you have different work stream. We should converge all of them by middle of the year, I would say. It's not done. But if we don't manage to do it, now that we have, I think, optimized the CapEx, we don't see what we could do better than what we have. We are around $14 billion, $15 billion, not at $18 billion, but not at $12 billion. That's why I speak this call. So we have a clear discussion, a clear engagement with the government and with the partners. We see where we land, and we'll have to take the decision in '26. But I would say what else do you have? Nicolas?

We have the gas cap in UAE.

Yes, but that's a license to be obtained, so it's not yet a decision.

[indiscernible]

Oh, it's business development. No, no. You are going too quick. No, no, no. No way. That's the optimism of the upstream. No, no, no. I have no way to get the FID on Marsa Train 2 in '26, '27, no way. You have to drill a well to appraise. Okay, so I know our process. But it's good to have some good momentum from the president of Upstream, but after that, I will just ask us to report on it. So no, no. It's still business development, this one. We are working with [ Omani ] to say beyond the first train, we could build another one, benefit from it. We have identified some gas. We need to be sure that we have enough gas resource. I will not -- we will not build a train without be sure to have the gas. That's for me just fundamental when we speak about LNG. Okay. What else?

It's Kim Fustier for HSBC. Two quick questions on the upstream, please. The first one is on Mozambique LNG. You've now restarted construction. Could you talk about the revised time line for the project in terms of remobilization and first LNG? And secondly, maybe just a word on the NEO NEXT+ transaction in the U.K. North Sea. What's -- I guess, what's the impact there on production, CapEx, maybe future growth? And do you see a similar structure elsewhere in the world potentially being applied?

The second question, sorry?

NEO NEXT+.

Oh, NEO NEXT+. Okay. First one, we have been clear. We have restarted. Today, I visited -- I was with the President of Mozambique on the -- in Afungi. So we have almost 5,000 people on the ground already, 4,000 local, 1,000 expatriates. We need to reach 15,000 to be at full speed. So the ramp-up will take off. In fact, again, I would say all the engineering is done at 90% or 95% procurement of all the long lead items has been done. So now it's a matter of construction on the ground. So the plan is to deliver the project by '29, maybe in '28, but let's say, '29 to be sure. This is a plan that we -- on which we work today. And again, the remobilization, no contractors are aligned. So let's do it. And it -- and I think it's really a matter of construction. Most of the procurement, everything is ready because, in fact, we spent some -- we were not quiet during the years. We try to advance as much as we could in the project. On the North Sea transaction, so yes, there is -- at the end, we have an impact -- positive impact on the production, 47.5% of the global production is more than what we have our share, around 10,000 barrels per day, I think. We have a positive impact on the CapEx because we have some synergies there. So we lower the CapEx by $100 million or something like that. And then we'll see what we will do together. I think clearly, there will be synergies on OpEx it's clear. They are doing it today between Hitech and Repsol. So we'll bring our teams. And again, we want to optimize. It's mature. It's better to do it free together than alone. There is another positive impact on the deal on the abandonment cost on the CapEx side because the full idea is to have a sort of abandonment factory, I would say, in an efficient way. However, in each company, and by the way, from this perspective, I'm not sure our engineers are the cheapest one on the planet to abandon wells. They are very cautious. So I think having that -- and there are a lot of works to be done and to plan it, including with the authorities in a smarter way than if you are alone obliged to do it. So there is also a gain from this perspective. Do we want to develop the same model elsewhere? No. I don't see where. I mean, I know we have that opportunity. And honestly, all that was led as well, as you know, because of the fiscal hike in the U.K. We were looking to that and the maturity of the assets, obviously, the assets becomes mature. And when we are looking at these assets from a pure TotalEnergies' point of view, when I look to the business plan of Nicolas' team, I said, but we have nothing more in 3, 4 years. So we'll have a huge organization, not much to manage, or do we make this slowdown and the abandonment cost. So we realized that it was time to look to, I would say, merging with the larger groups, more efficient on the cost, again, than staying alone, which we don't have honestly that in another, and I don't see that situation at all in particular of the neighboring country. If your question was about Norway. Norway, not at all. It's not mature at all. We continue to grow and to deliver cash, and it's fine. I'm happy with the Norwegian assets. So we -- this is to answer specific questions. As you know as well, I didn't pronounce the word fiscal synergies, but there are some. U.K. government knew, that's a consequence.

Henry Tarr from Berenberg. Two, please. One is just on the EPH volumes when they come into your portfolio. Are they already presold, if you like, or how are you looking to market them when they come through? And then the second question is just on the net CapEx guidance, $15 billion for the year. Is there -- is that a sort of an organic number? Are there acquisitions and divestments beyond what you've already sort of mentioned in terms of farm downs that we should think about in that number.

Your second question is for integrated power or globally?

Globally.

Globally, I mentioned that the net between acquisition and divestments is minus $1 billion. $1 billion more of divestments than acquisition. So the organic is at $16 billion, and the net is at $15 billion, to be clear, which is feasible. I mean we have -- we know what we have to deliver. What will be the exact amount, I don't know, but we calibrate at the end. We have always a large menu of divestments. If we want to reach divestment, if you want to reach $1 billion, you need to plan $2 billion, $1.5 billion. Otherwise, you can have some -- closing is always sometimes difficult. So it's better to have a large pipeline of divestments ID in order to reach it. So then we monitor the acquisitions related to what we anticipate on the divestment. Divestment program is today well engaged on upstream. I see at least $1 billion, $1.5 billion, which are very clear on which is a matter of closing the deals, including in Nigeria. And honestly, on the [ farm down ] on your side, with what we've done and capacity to follow on. We have also quite a good idea on the way to progress it. EPH volume presold, the answer is no, but you can explain...

No, they are not presold. And actually, what's going to happen is after closing, we will offtake 50% of the production. Usually, those volumes are sold on the wholesale market. So you don't have to find a customer to do that. And EPH wise not [ tolling ] to a third party, it's a CGG. Then there is a normal program of hedging forward of those assets. It will move with EPH volume, but nothing different from normal -- what the normal player would do. And as I said, after the closing, we will be the one off taking those volume and ending notably the hedge program of those volume.

Lucas Herrmann, BNP. Firstly, Patrick, I mean, every time or all of you every time, you don't leave us with that much scope for questions, to be honest. And congratulations on a much better year than many of us anticipated. Lydia said all what we want, so we continue. I was pleased when I read the title, she's right. On a serious note and probably two end of day questions. One thing that hasn't been mentioned at all is chemicals, and you're a big player. And I guess the question I've got in part is really thinking about what the scope for upside may be if the chemical cycle were to normalize at a point, together with your thoughts on when that normalizes, if that -- if we're seeing any signs that we may be moving to a point where players are saying, okay, it's just enough pain. We've got to start shutting in because this can't go on at this level forever. And the second, before you answer that, thanks very much, maybe towards Stephane, it's just on LNG. In terms of contracting and building the portfolio now, you've pretty much achieved the 8 million to 10 million of length that you wanted in Brent. Are we broadly done in you fixing contracts? I know that's a silly observation because it's an ongoing process. But just are you comfortable with where you're at?

Stephane will answer you. Just for all of you, we plan to propose you to make a visit of Rio Grande during the CERAWeek, like we've done last year for [Alpha ] Day and to dedicate this [ Alpha ] Day to LNG because I know you have many questions. So if some of you will be there, we will embark you, if you accept, with us, from Houston....

Invitation was sent, yes.

Ensuring the transportation, but the idea is to dedicate, I would say, like we've done last year on renewables and power to dedicate this [ Alpha ] Day to LNG. So Stephane will have plenty of time to explain you everything about our portfolio. But I think it's time. We have many questions to try to have a specific point. But Stephane will answer you. It's not just -- on the first one, chemicals. On chemicals, on our side, when we speak about chemicals, we are mainly -- we are only -- we are big volumes, but we are not a real chemical company. We are just a polymer plus 1 cracker plus 1. We make the big polyethylene and polypropylene. So we don't have the whole story behind it. It's clear that today, it's facing large overcapacities coming from China. Everybody knows it, which puts, in particular, our platform in Korea, which was one of the best 5 years ago. Today, it's facing huge difficulties because the natural market of Korean platforms were exported to China. And of course, this is closed door, which is a topic, by the way, as well for all these U.S. crackers, which are built with the idea -- not for the domestic market, are built with the idea, we'll export to China. I don't know why everybody has made the same mistake. Nobody have seen or understood that the Chinese -- and it's a real problem probably because suddenly, last year, we discovered that the Chinese have built so many capacities that they to be almost self suppliers, in fact, to be a self their own autonomy. And themselves, by the way, because I think you have an issue of the domestic demand in China, all the civil real estate, all that is going down. So they face themselves overcapacity for their own market. So you have a situation which is not good. Having said that, I see in our portfolio two types of petrochemicals, to be clear, I'm been constant. I have the one in Europe based on naphtha. This one, you can take it wherever you can want, you can be the best. It will never be competitive against petrochemicals, polyethylene done on ethane, either in the U.S. or in the Middle East. The gap of competitiveness, it's impossible to close. So this one, it's a matter of managing the pain, I would say. So either you have some crackers, but we have decided this year to shut down the cracker in Antwerp. Others have decided to shut down a cracker in Normandy, not us, but next to us, which is a good news for us. It's really a matter of -- so today, we are left in terms of crackers with Antwerp and with Normandy. We have a small one in Feyzin, but it's very small and which has a dedicated, I would say, market. But we left Lavera, selling it to INEOS. We shut down the cracker. So I'm quite happy to exit step by step, to be honest. And it's really a problem. The company is big. When you have the integration of the cracker to the refinery, you can see some ways to manage it. But in terms of polymers, we lose money on the polymers. Then I'm looking to the global pictures because if I'm running my crackers, I need to have an outlet for the crackers. And nobody will take my ethylene today in Europe. So I need to transform my ethylene to bring it to customers in order to capture the margin of the cracker. If you don't see it as an integration, then you are -- if you just have a polymer business, why do you continue? No, we have a business unit of polymer and Vincent tried to convince me to merge it with the crackers, I said, no, no, no, I want to know the business. Otherwise, we will not know exactly we'll make the losses, but I want to know what we can fix, and what are the pain. That's the situation. Then we have the other petrochemicals based on ethane, either in the U.S. or in Saudi Arabia or Qatar. This one, honestly, is competitive because we have an advantage on the feedstock. So this advantage on the feedstock absorbs, I would say, even if you lose again on your polymer, the absorption is even easier to be done. So when I see on this integration between the crackers on ethane and the polymers, I would say it's okay. We are okay.

Does it make money or just...

No, no, it makes money. It makes money. It makes money.

Money as in profit.

Money, profit and cash. Means profit and cash. No, otherwise, I would not tell you that, Lucas, I will say you, it's a disaster. We need to fix it. No, we are not yet in a -- not in a panic mode to be clear. I'm sure that we will have to take. The question for us is a European part. Is there a way or not? And that's true. That's why, of course, Vincent is not very happy when Stephane say I want a high price of CO2. For him, it's just -- how do we -- what can we preserve from this business. So on my side, I mean, what I think is that no way to invest in any capacity on naphtha crackers and all that with a question of how do we go down, surely, but it's not easy because I think other players have the same view on us. Even if some players like INEOS bought Lavera cracker because they had an overview on the market, fine. I mean, I'm fine. I mean, if we find sometime to have good opportunities, I'm ready to do it. We have a third polymer, which is polystyrene on which we'd like to, in particular, in the U.S., we try to -- we will put it for divestment this one. So that's the way I'm looking at it. It's ethane, so it's Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the U.S., but even the U.S., I think we have one. I'm not sure we are ready to make another one. We'll be cautious on it. You have to absorb these overcapacities. It could take time. So -- but again, I'm not as a chemical company, I don't see all what is happening behind in the value chain.

Yes. As you mentioned, Lucas, we sold around more than 8 million tons between '23, beginning '25 on the Brent basis in Asia. So we are happy with what we have done, and I consider that the portfolio is well balanced until 2030. After that, it's an ever-going job because you've got contracts that expire, you have additional production that will come from LNG growth. So we have to work on the portfolio post 2030. We've got time to do so, and I'm not too concerned by that. But you should expect additional sale of LNG on the Brent formula on that time horizon.

Maybe can we take a question online.

I will reveal a secret to you. The net result of chemicals in '25, in net results was $500 million, positive, globally. It's only a small share of the net result of Refining and Chemicals, but it's positive globally. It's not too bad compared to what I listened when I'm reading the newspapers. It's not too bad.

Okay. Doug, you can go ahead with your question, if you are there.

Sorry.

We lost Doug?

We lost Doug. He prefer to be with a competitor in New York.

So maybe we can take another one online. You can go Jason Gabelman. We have a problem maybe with...

[ You are not lucky enough. ]

All right. Okay. Question in the room, then, so Anish, go ahead.

It's Anish Kapadia from Palissy Advisors. I had a question on the outlook for global gas. Clearly, some of the strategic moves you've made over the last few years are on the back of your view that there's going to be somewhat of a narrowing of global gas prices and Henry Hub. So I just wanted to kind of get your viewpoint if gas prices do fall further from here, you're below your 10 TTF assumption, what are some of the measures you put in place? And how can the integrated power business, such as the acquisition you made in Europe help to mitigate some of that fall in TTF pricing?

As I explained, we have tried to balance the portfolio so that we are selling our gas more on the Brent formula than spot. So to that extent, we are not that exposed to decreasing on the TTF or TKM gas price, that's one. Second, it's clear that with gas price, you will have two effects. One is that you are going to find back Asian demand that would limit that trend. And second, you are going to improve the competitiveness of gas in Europe for power production. And so we should have a kind of partial effect, thanks to our CCGT fleet and should be able to benefit from that move on -- thanks to the full integration in Europe with -- along the value chain between gas and power. That's the way to -- for you, actually, we have mitigated that possible decrease of the gas price.

Okay. Other questions in the room? Jean-Luc?

Jean-Luc at CIC Market Solutions. I had a question on the new exploration acreage you just took in Namibia. It's a different basin, probably higher risk and less explored. How do you compare the potential or your geologist compare the potential of the basin with Orange Basin

I mean, again, it's Orange Basin. It's out of the Orange Basin, so it's a basin. Clearly, it's an exploration. It has been positive. We find low carbon in the Orange Basin. So the idea is we should not stop in case more probability of success is lower. Obviously, we had the opportunity to enter that license. The explorers love it, but we -- not only the ones from TotalEnergies, the one of Petrobras as well because, in fact, we joined forces. In fact, we are competing. So we decided it was better. That's why I like the competition up to a point. Sometimes it's good to partner together in order to have access to the license. I think both teams of explorers, geologists have seen the same potential, I would say, interest. So it's good to make seismic and then potentially to do it, we'll see. But again, I think there is a certain logic. And I think the fact that we -- again, that we are establishing a strong presence in Namibia, encourage our teams to look to other license which might be available. Okay. Are there questions?

Yes, Maurizio.

Maurizio Carulli from Quilter Investment Management. First of all, congratulations for the good results. I have a question about the electricity business, including renewables, of course. You have been able to grow it very well and with a better profitability of most of the traditional utilities companies. And the question that I have, as long as you can continue to have good opportunities, for expansion, good profitability, good return on capital and good free cash flow. Do you have a strategic cap for the expansion of your electricity business long term?

No, it's a question which will be a debate at the Board, exactly the question, next strategic seminar because now we are -- in fact, after the 5 years, we have more conviction about the model. We have -- so we -- in 2020, we said let's engage for 10 years. Otherwise, we will never manage. If we don't keep it horizon, I said to the Board, either you gave us 10 years to do it, or it's better not to engage because this type of business will make, obviously, diversification. We can make some mistakes, but we need to see if we establish a business. No, we are more confident. And the last strategic seminar when we review integrated mobile, it was more about to increase the profitability. Let's demonstrate the question of Irene. Why do you do that, et cetera? No, we have a better idea. So then I said, well, it's time to discuss between us where do we go beyond 2030? How much would we want to grow this business or not. So this is, I would say -- and I know that I have a good question from you. Of course, it's linked as well to the capacity we'll have to see the value of this business within the global company, I would say. And as it was said by 1 or 2 of you very well by, Irene, I think there is a turning point when it's becoming free cash positive because then your perspective will be different as long as it's a sort of cash sink, why do they do that? If you begin to deliver cash, and we think that even if it's positive by '26, we could go quickly to $1 billion to $3 billion per year, then the appetite might see. I see also, to be honest, more and more strong integration between the gas and the power. And I think to answer to next part of the question is also the integration gas to power is a way to -- if you have a lower gas price, you could recover part of the value along the chain on the electricity part. So I see some value. And I think, by the way, I agree that the market clearly has better reacted to the EPH transaction because it was gas to power and not just renewables. So I'm open my eyes, I'm clear, which, by the way, is helping us to discuss that the Board, these are elements of very important -- it is important. So the Board is more and more looking to that in a way. And I will be probably more able to answer to your question in 1 year, but today. But we are clear that we want to reach a sort of size of 20%. What do we do beyond at which pace, that's a debate. The opportunities might continue to come, in fact, in this business. And I think there will be a time the debate we have in European countries about the budget. I'm advocating in France today to stop to have all the CFDs, which are giving. It's incredible what happens today in 2025. The states are taking the market risk. You secure revenues for developers, so it's very strange system. Why the states should take the market risk of power value of power and not the developers and the investors. In the U.S., we are taking the market risk. We have some fiscal incentives, but fundamentally, it's very different as a philosophy and a regime. So these technologies are mature enough today, at least for onshore solar field to go to something else. And then if this type of evolution happens, you will see the competition will not be the same because then you will see larger players will find back an advantage compared to plenty of smaller players, which today, in fact, are in infrastructure business with no risk, which, honestly, I don't think the European governments will be able for long to continue to finance a zero-risk business, which is, of course, the return is not very high because there is -- it cannot be. So again, this is a debate where I'm not able, but this will come now. It's time to have it, and the Board, they had their independent session, it was the main topic. So now we work for them.

Okay. So we have a technical problem, but I will take the question from Duke.

Yes, I want Duke to be satisfied.

Yes. So he sent me an e-mail but our technology does not work. No AI in Total, I mean, in TotalEnergies.

The first one is on Namibia. You are carrying Galp, but do you receive Galp's share of coastal? This is the first one.

Of course. Otherwise, I don't do it.

The second one is what is the current dividend breakeven post the EPH deal and after the EPH deal is closed?

Dividend breakeven, but it's quite easy. $3 billion represents $10. So it's $50 per barrel. It's $50 per barrel is the dividend breakeven. Post EPH, EPH will not change dramatically everything. So it will be $1 billion. So it's $1 billion is $3 to $3. So it's $48 or something like that. $48, $47 per barrel. Costal share, yes, of course, we take 50% of -- in fact, we more or less -- we had a scheme in Suriname, which one this one, to be honest, is a little better for us. But no, it's -- yes, we take the coastal share.

Okay. Do we have questions in the room? No more questions in the room.

So if you are satisfied, thank you. Thank you for your attendance. Thank you for your comments. And thank you to all the teams of TotalEnergies who have delivered these results, including, of course, the different executives present in the room. And so the next meeting with you potentially might be in Houston for the ones who want to participate to this field trip on Rio Grande. And again, with a focus on LNG and the portfolio, and how we manage all these times which are in front of us. Thank you for your attendance.

Good afternoon. Thanks for joining this webcast about TotalEnergies' acquisition of 50% of EPH flexible generation assets in Europe. We will start with a presentation with Patrick and Stephane here. And then we will move to Q&A for about -- I mean, the presentation plus the Q&A should be around 1 hour. Give the floor to Patrick for the presentation.

Good afternoon to all of you for so -- this short presentation on this acquisition, which is quite sizable. That's why we decided to make this call and to explain it. So of course, you have not been surprised. I think it's very -- this acquisition is first fully consistent with the Integrated Power strategy that we described to you, and it's a gas-to-power integration. And it's, again, growing on the markets in Europe where we plan to grow. And second characteristics, and I think you have -- will clarify it is cash accretive for Total Energies shareholders.

So first, it's a slide -- the first slide. It's just remembering you of one of the slide that which we presented to you by Stephane, by the way, in end of September, in our update of the business plan on September 29. So we focused and we told you that we will focus Integrated Power on major regulated markets, in particular, in Europe. There are some fundamental drivers behind this strategy. First, it's a growing electrification, growing market for Europe, EV penetration in pumps, et cetera. Secondly, the wholesale price in Europe is supported by gas and CO2 prices, which we plan, we anticipate us continuing to grow for the CO2. There are some also strong, I would say, some tailwinds in favor of gas-to-power. Coal exit, which happened, which will happen in Germany, like it happened in the U.K., like it's happening, it's planned in Europe. And also, of course, energy security focus is more recently, which obliged governments to realize that they need to have a 24/7 electricity system and gas-fired power plants are there. Clearly, their share of, I would say, growing share in this mix, like batteries, by the way. And because, again, the more you put to cope with the intermittency of renewables. It's perfectly true in Germany, in the U.K. So you have a capture price and the markets on which we will speak to the -- but which we will speak today, the capture price for CCGT BESS is quite good utilization rate, and we will come back on this one. So that's, I would say is the fundamental supporting the strategy and this deal fit with the strategy.

So what is the transaction? So it's all stock transaction which consists to create a JV, which will be owned 50-50 by TotalEnergies and EPH. So who is EPH? EPH is a [indiscernible] company, which has led by Daniel Kretínský, which is well known, I would say, investor in Europe, which has established for since, I would say, 2010, quite a large power platform. First, on coal-fired power plants, which are not at all in the scope of this JV. But then moving to gas-fired power plants and batteries, I would say, since in the last 10 years, he moved to expand to more flexible assets. We had some experience in the past with EPH. We have made the first transaction with them, by the way, in France, in [ Carling ], where we acquired from them a gas-fired power plant and they kept a coal-fired power plant. By the way, EPH was more willing believing in coal than gas. They have moved after that. And we made another transaction more recently in West Burton in the U.K. when we acquired West Burton gas-fired power plant last year. We made it 50-50 with EPH. So we know these companies. They are very experienced in, I would say, flexible assets, electricity and have been quite successful. And so they propose us to engage in this transaction, which is the one where we don't take all their assets, but only, I would say, some identified in 4 countries on which we'll come back. So Italy, U.K. and Ireland, Netherlands and France. Stephane will explain you why these 3 -- first 3 countries are very relevant from, I would say, electricity market point of view. In these countries, they have around 11 gigawatt of gross capacity already installed, and they are just building 3 gigawatts, the new ones being mainly in Italy, I think, and some batteries of more than 4 gigawatts, so we'll acquire 50% of it, which will represent a net power generation of around 15 terawatt hour, I would say, in '26 on a full year basis, which will grow because not only there are some new plants being built, but also, there is a plan to refurbish some of the U.K. plants in the U.K., so 2 20 terawatt hour net.

The JV will be operating through a tolling scheme. What does that mean? We will bring our gas. So for us, there is a gas integration. And this 15 terawatt represent more or less 2 million tonnes of LNG. So it's quite, again, a nice integration to add value to our LNG business to Europe. And then we'll get out our share of the production to commercialize this 15 terawatt hour per year either for marketing or trading. So it will move to the portfolio of our company. So that's -- and that will create another source of adding value. What we estimate as a valuable cash flow, which means in this perspective, the JV will finance most of these assets through debt, in fact, so there is no equity injection, the $750 million per year. And it's a JV, which, by the way, the portfolio which is brought by EPH has also some assets under development around 5 gigawatts of gas plants on batteries. We can come back on that. So for all these package which we'll gain, we will pay EUR 5.1 billion. The EV has been discussed and agreed on EUR 10.6 billion. We have a debt of around EUR 300 billion, so EUR 5.1 billion. It will be paid into TotalEnergies shares, which was the request of EPH because EPH, in fact, is willing for this transaction as a second objective, not only to share this platform to be able to scale it, but also to become TotalEnergies' long-term shareholder, as it has been in the court of Daniel Kretínský. They see that as a diversification of their own business. Investing in a global company like ours in the energy business, and they consider that the energy transition we are leading is interesting. So where we get -- we agreed on the share price was the last 2020 quotation. So it makes almost EUR 54 per share, so EUR 95.4 million shares will be allocated. So this number is now fixed since yesterday evening, whatever will happen between today's signing and the closing, this will be shared. And if there is some adjustments, it will be done in cash. This represents a multiple of 7.6x EBITDA '26. I would say it's in the market. This market is dynamic, it's cheaper than in the U.S. market on the European side. but there is more appetite. It's of course, cheaper that if we had to build all these plants by [indiscernible]. And of course -- and it will allow us again to access and to commercialize more terawatt hour also to data centers in Europe and all this. This development of acceleration of demand in Europe.

So that's for, I would say, globally the deal. So I just say, of course, for us, it's allow us in net gas-fired capacity to more than double our net gas-fired capacity. Today, we have around 4.7 gigawatts net. We know that sometimes we're communicating [ growth ], but in net 4.7%, and it go to 11%, I think around 6 point -- immediately 11 gigawatt, which could position us among the large largest player, I would say, in Europe.

And again, as I mentioned, so -- and we will unlock, I would say, some additional value. First, by -- it will help the team of Stephane to boost and their clean firm power sales from renewables and flexgen integration. And it will also, of course, give a new dimension to our trading business across different markets in Europe, which is, of course, another source of revenues. Again, as I said, for me, it's very -- also very important. The strategy electricity strategy is based on the gas-to-power integration in that case. Again, with the view we might have on the LNG business and the LNG markets in the coming years. It's a form of edge, I would say, but for 2 million tonnes of LNG through the integration to the -- to these gas plants. And last but not least, for this introduction, coming back to the accretiveness, I would say, of the transaction. There are 2 elements. The first one is that as an average, we'll receive an annual available cash flow of $750 million per year. What we will spend, I would say, issuing these 95 million shares is an equivalent of dividend, as let's say, around $400 million. So there is some cash available. That's the first source of I would say what we can say as accretiveness. And the second source is that as you have understood, for this transaction, which is around, let's say, $6 billion, a little less, depends on the euro rate, but EUR 5.1 billion. We are front-loading some of the CapEx that we had announced end of September. We told you that we will spend in Integrated Power, EUR 3 billion to EUR 4 billion. There were some inorganic, some M&A around, I would say, half of it. And so we are using part of it immediately for this transaction. It accelerates the growth of Integrated Power. But of course, as I would say, very logically, we will diminish the CapEx cash spent in Integrated Power for the next 5 years to $2 billion to $3 billion. So globally, the guidance for the whole company is revised down by $1 billion, which is again some free cash, which will allow us to firm up the return to shareholders in the coming year. So that's for, I would say, the main elements of the transaction. And I leave the floor to Stephane to give you more insights about the portfolio.

Thank you, Patrick. And I will now describe the EPH portfolio that will be brought to the JV. So as Patrick mentioned, we -- the JV will have 14 gigawatt of top-tier flexible assets across Italy, U.K., Ireland, the Netherlands and France. The bulk of those 14 gigawatt will be CCGT with 12.5 gigawatt of CCGT of which 10.8% under operation. And if I go country by country, I will start by U.K., where we'll have 4 sites, 4 CCGT, which are between 15 and 20 years old, already well placed in terms of merit curve in U.K. But in addition, all those CCGT have gone, are going or will go under refurbishment in the coming years which will have 2 benefits: one, to benefit from capacity contract, which are secured revenue and which will boost the investment in the refurbishment; and second, to improve even further their situation in -- and the rank in the merit curve. That's for U.K. Then you have Ireland, where we have 3 sites, a very strong presence in Northern Ireland, which is very specific niche market, but very, very interesting and one site in Ireland. That's for the U.K. part. Then you have Italy. In Italy, we have 7 units with a bit more than 5 gigawatts with 2 competitive sites in the north and some to other sites in the South, which are must run because, as you know, in Italy, you have different zone. And in some of those zones, they are not that well connected. So we have here OCGTs that are must run plant with high load factor. The most interesting part in Italy is the fact that we will have 2 new plants, brand new plants that are coming on stream now and will ramp up next year and which are -- will be one of the most competitive and the most efficient plants in Italy. To complete the picture, we have as well 4 sites in the Netherlands with 3 of them, which are 15 years old and quite competitive. So that's for the gas-fired power plant part. In addition to that, we have 1.3 gigawatts of battery in construction, mostly in Italy and U.K., but as well a bit in France. And some biomass assets, biomass in U.K. and in Italy, a very big site in U.K. with 0.4 gigawatt. And here again, very profitable as they are benefiting from CFD system. So they have secured all their revenue over the next at least 10 years. That's for the existing portfolio. And then you have 5 gigawatts of new projects, both refurbishment of existing CCGT, debottlenecking of the capacity of some CCGT on the existing site and obviously, development on battery. Why those 3 markets? I just want to come back on a few characteristics of those markets and why we like them. In Italy, first, Italy is a power island with power price, which is linked to gas and growing CO2 price and the gas price in Italy is actually quite expensive, as it is mostly imported and you have high transport cost. That's one aspect. The second aspect is that you have a high capacity, an attractive capacity remuneration mechanism that CPH has been able to secure. And last but not least, that the regional system with a specific dispatching regulation, which lead to the fact that Italy is the highest market in terms of spark spread and of CCGT margin. So that's one aspect for Italy. Then you have United Kingdom and Ireland. Once again, Power Island with linked mostly to gas as it's a marginal capacity to be dispatched and high CO2 price, the CO2 price is even higher in U.K. that is actually in Europe. That's one. And it's clearly a country that is focusing a lot on the energy security, which leads them to put in place a very attractive capacity market, as well a market where there is a strong penetration of renewables, both onshore and offshore. And so a very profitable balancing market which is adding value to a dispatchable asset on the intraday market, as well a market where there is a great grid congestion between North and South. And again, it's adding to the profitability of flexgen.

Last but not least, the Netherlands. So Netherlands is a bit different. It's pretty much the contrary. It's very in a core position in the European grid because it's connected to many markets, starting with Germany. And it's clear that CCGT in Germany are going to be key with the decommissioning of coal-fired plants that is coming and in the reduction of the dispatchable assets. At the same time, it's a country, as you know, where renewable is progressing fast. Hence, high volatility due to the renewable intermittency that the CCGT is able to capture. And then Netherlands CCGT, we'll capture. Just to mention as well that we will inherit from a 5 terawatt hour of B2B business. So all in all, assets in 3 key markets where we have, at the same time, strong price, strong margin and boost by capacity mechanism. If I look now at the growth of the JV. So as Patrick mentioned, in '26, the JV will produce around 30 terawatt hour and that production will increase by 33% in the next 5 years to reach 2030, with the ramp-up of the power plants that are currently under construction and will come on stream very soon. That's one aspect. And the second aspect is the refurbishment of all the U.K. plant. And so both new plants and refurbishment will lead to that 33% growth.

Now if I look at the gross margin, so the gross margin of both the JV and of the commercialization aspect, it should generate around EUR 2.4 billion of gross margin. 40% of it are secured revenue from the capacity contract, the CFD system, the capacity remuneration that I've described before. And the remaining part, the 60% is coming from the marketing production. And it's interesting to note that the secured revenue are actually above the fixed cost of the JV and will be notably useful to raise the debt, to finance the growth. All that obviously will be useful because we are going to offtake the production and integrate that production in our global portfolio of trading and sales and it will allow us to notably boost our clean firm power sales as well as scaling up our asset-based trading. And cross border opportunity as we'll have a strong portfolio now in France, the Netherlands, U.K., Italy and Spain.

Last but not least, I want to show you what will be the result of the integration of our current portfolio with 50% of the JV. So as you can see, in terms of flexible generation in '26, we will be at 25 terawatt hour per year. The transaction added 15 to our current 10 terawatt hour of production. And that will continue to grow both within the JV, as I've explained, and as well because we continue to plant for some growth in other countries. That's one aspect. The second aspect is on the renewable side. We have 6 gigawatts today in Europe of growth capacity. And with the [ pipe ], we have actually built, that should grow to 20 gigawatts by 2030, and that's the same for storage where we have today 0.7 and with the transaction 2 gigawatt, and that will continue to grow to 7 gigawatt, means that we have our own portfolio in Germany, and we have now a portfolio in U.K. and Italy. So that's for the production. If I look now at the full value chain, that production is using gas. And actually, there will be that integration with 50 million tons of LNG that we are delivering in Europe in addition to our North Sea gas production. As Patrick mentioned, the gas supply of the JV will represent 2 million tonnes of LNG. So that's for the integration with the gas. And if I look now downstream, that will obviously enhance our capacity in terms of trading and especially in terms of asset-backed trading. The asset-backed trading will represent in '26 around 70 terawatt hour coming from our own portfolio today, CCGT, renewable plus aggregation, and the 15 terawatt hour that will add that transaction. And finally, to go to the end of the value chain. Supplying our own B2C and B2B activity, notably in U.K. with 60 terawatt hour of sales. And I hand over now back to Patrick.

So to end on this presentation, just from a few updates on the guidance of the company level resulting from the transaction, which is again front-loading $6 billion of inorganic CapEx. So first consequence, as I said already, the net CapEx guidance is revised down to $14 billion, $16 billion, and we are planning, we see in February but '26 at $15 billion, very logically. So for those who're asking us, some flexibilities are coming from. You have one already there, $2 billion to $3 billion for Integrated Power.

Second one is, again, for Integrated Power. It's an acceleration, I would say, going to a positive free cash flow. I know that market is impatient to see this new business becoming free cash flow positive. With this transaction, it will come as early as '27 instead of '28, so -- and contributing to shareholder returns. And then secondly, this transaction is also contributing to, I would say, the trajectory to increase the ROACE of Integrated Power from 10% to 12%. So it's positive. It gives some comfort to -- not to accelerate, but the trajectory is, I would say, firm up by this transaction.

And last but not least, as I said again, this is cash accretive. So both point of view. And I would say, again, this transaction is accelerating somewhere and firming up the trajectory of the free cash flow per share growth that we have announced end of September, we told you 20% per year between '26, 2030. Again, there, you can see $1.5 billion coming. And that will help, of course, the trajectory, including, and I would insist as these revenues will come out of the oil and gas cycles. This will -- for -- in case we see some, I would say, mild markets in '26, which will give even more comfort on trajectory. But again, that will -- detail to you beginning of February.

So that's, I think, the main message that we wanted to deliver today and we are ready to take your questions now.

Okay. So we can open the line for the Q&A. So I see that we have a first question from Biraj. Biraj, go ahead, please.

Just 2 quick ones, please. The first one, just on the free cash flow guidance. You've provided the average, $750 million, how should we think about the cadence of that between 2025 and 2030? Any color there would be helpful?

And then secondly, are there any details you can provide around the lockup for EPH on the TotalEnergies shares?

Honestly, we gave you the average and to detail it around the 5 years, it's -- I think let's keep the guidance as an average. It's better where we need to implement all that. And -- but let's take it as an average around 5 years. As the addition -- because the available cash flow against for TotalEnergies is coming from different source as you understood from the JV itself, which will give some dividends, some revenue capacity and from the tolling system. It is also coming from our own business, I would say, which is a marketing of the electricity where we will generate our own gross margin on these ones. And this should follow, obviously, the growth. But again, I prefer to keep it as an average. And that $750 million is a good starting point from, I would say, full year '26.

Second question, there is a lockup of 1 year on the -- to be transparent with you on the shares, knowing that, again, and -- if you read in the press release, there is a quote from Daniel Kretínský himself, which speak about our long-term investments. So clearly, for him investing in TotalEnergies means a long-term investment. So I would say, the 1-year lockup was more a cautious -- I would say, a question of cautiousness to We avoid any change of mind, I would say, change [indiscernible] but fundamentally, we are entering into that business with a long-term view. To give you also some ideas, we have, I would say, a lockup on the JV itself at least at 5 years. Then we have planned there are some mechanisms of, I would say, of [ put and call ] in case we -- I would say, we would diverge from the strategy. Strategic partners would consider that it's a strategic, we would like to -- we prefer to go not together. But again, the idea is to keep this platform. For me, it's a scalable platform. It's a growth platform. We are fine. We have -- of course, in the agreements, all the ways to manage the different situation like this type of transaction.

Okay. We can go for the second question. So we have Bertrand Hodee. Bertrand, you can go ahead, please.

Yes. Two questions, if I may. Can you explain on the tolling agreements in LNG. So that we can understand not only the benefits to TotalEnergies as a seller of LNG, but also to the benefits of the JV.

And then the second question is on Italy. To my knowledge, you have very little exposure in terms of renewable power here. So what makes Italy in terms of integration, a key market for TotalEnergies?

The first one, maybe there is a misunderstanding. So we will provide -- the 2 million of energy are all share of the JV of the gas to the JV. So for us, there is an integration. There is no specific benefit for the JV. The JV, in fact, the tolling mechanism will be based on a remuneration of, of course, the OpEx and a decent remuneration of the CapEx of the JV. It will be the same for both partners. So the JV will receive these revenues. We'll run, I would say, the industrial business of the assets. And then we will take in nature, I would say, or electricicity -- or share of electricity. So from this [indiscernible] there is no specific benefits for JV. The integration is giving us, I would say, a short and a hedge for total energy position. If EPH wants to buy from -- gas from TotalEnergies, we'll be happy to sell some gas to EPH, but at this stage, it's still open to us to be competitive. Italy, can you explain Stephane to take the question of Italy?

Yes, true that for the time being, we have a little exposure in terms of renewable power, even though we inherit form the portfolio of VSB acquired and from [indiscernible], we acquired some assets and a nice pipe, and we want to grow that we want to grow that business. That's one aspect. And then in terms of integration, even if Italy is a power island, it's clearly connected as well partly to France and to Germany and to core of Western Europe. So there is clearly an integration between Italy and the rest of our portfolio. So I would say that's one, an integration within the country with battery as well and with gas because it will allow us to develop our gas supply to that country, which is interesting. So that's integration along the value chain in Italy and as well integration within the European grid between Italy and the neighboring country.

And to complement, Hodee, I thought you understood very well, but today, we have 300 megawatts. So of course, Italy will become another area of interest to grow our renewable business. There are not so many opportunities, but when you look more carefully to any country, we had some, to be honest, until now we were considering the market as from a pure renewable power, quite complex. The view will change today with, of course, this nice position because it's quite an attractive electricity market, like described by Stephane. So we'll have more interest to see how we could -- we'll have enough gas plants, if we could, I would say, balanced renewable part in Italy.

So we have a question from Irene Himona. Go ahead.

And congratulations on what appears a very material deal. First, I wanted to ask, what is the gap you still believe you have in terms of CCGT capacity that you need in Germany and perhaps in the U.S?

And then secondly, as you said, Power will turn free cash flow positive a year earlier. You have lowered group CapEx by EUR 1 billion you referred to the intention to use the extra free cash to firm up returns to shareholders. On your recent share buyback guidance, it would take over 2 years at [ $6 Brent ] to buy back shares you're issuing today to pay for the deal. Is it possible at this stage to be a little bit more specific on what Total's other shareholders can expect as the benefit today's deal, please?

Okay. First, on the first one, yes, you are right. I mean to be clear, the only country where there is a gap for remaining in Europe is Germany. I want to be clear, we have we'll have enough gas plants in Europe after that deal, with Germany on which we work. By the way, EPH has a lot of coal plants in Germany, but no gas plants. They plan probably to I'm sure, they are waiting like it's difficult to make a transaction in Germany today because everybody is waiting to see what will be the German government framework. And so everybody is waiting to be able to value, I would say, their assets. They will obviously make some plans. We did not want to be involved in some coal plants conversion. But I think we might have opportunities with EPH. We are looking to other opportunities today. We are working on it. But I would say the figure, which was mentioned to you, if I remember, there is -- there was a slide, yes, this one. In 2030, it's mentioned 25 terawatt hour per year, you can easily make the math. Today, we have -- we are adding -- we have 10, we are adding 20, so it's 30. So it's only 5 terawatt per year, but we are planning somewhere to complement the portfolio from a gas plant. The U.S. is another market in which we are -- you know that we have also some appetite, but today, the deals are more expensive than the one in Europe. So it was quite explicit, I think, in New York telling you, okay, we'll be patient in the U.S. In the meantime, we managed to have access to gas plants here. We'll come back to the U.S. at a later stage.

The other part, I was not surprised with your question. But again, no, I will not change today any guidance on the buyback because, again, you see the market is quite volatile. I would just simply say that this deal for sure, reinforce because I know that some of your colleagues, not you Irene, but some of your colleagues had adopt that we will maintain some buyback at $50 per barrel. This of course, obviously, this transaction, so $1 billion of $50 per barrel is firm up. So there is -- so that's one answer. Then honestly, we'll see -- it will depend again on the volatility of the market. And what I can also say to the other shareholders is that as we have some free cash a little more, that will comfort the dividend that the Board will decide in February in this context, even if the market is mild, we will, of course, take into account this deal, this transaction to consider the increase of the dividend next year.

Okay. So we move to another question. So we have Chris Kuplent. Please, Chris, go ahead.

Just one for clarification. First, that $750 million, you're saying is available cash flow. Can you define that as a dividend that you're expecting to receive? Or is it a different definition between operating free cash flow? So some clarification would be helpful. And secondly, I wanted to check regarding the EBITDA outlook. You've given us a multiple for 2026, considering one of your slides, Stephane, about the 33% growth outlook into 2030 for volumes and the fixed costs, would we be right in assuming that EBITDA grows faster than that, along with that trajectory?

On the second question, if we had applied that to the EBITDA of 2030, we would have find a multiple of [ 6.5x ] just to -- so you can make the math. So it's growing year from 1.4% to something like 1.8%. So more or less. So that's just the second question. But we thought it was better to be fair to consider what we have in our hand in '26, we were anticipating on a longer term. On the first one, no, it's not only dividend, again, because it's equity company. So as we explained to you, it will come from different sources. It will come from dividends, from the JV itself, with the tolling mechanism and the remuneration capacity, which are in the JV, so we'll get that share. And then we will have also some cash flow coming from our own marketing operation, and so that's a sum of it. That's why we say available cash flow to be -- so it's -- you cannot just use the EBITDA from the JV on which we gave you as an indication to explain how it works from the, I would say, acquisition point of view. Cannot translate it immediately into available cash flow. Again, I insist that the JV itself will be self-financed, in fact, because thanks to the stalling mechanism, we can -- which will be catering contracts, which are signed with total energies and EPH. We can have some leverage at the JV level, which will finance the construction. There is some CapEx, again, as Stephane told you, the end of the construction plus the refurbishment in the U.K. and potentially in the future part of the development. I think we just took into account 50% of the 5 gigawatts to be safe, but that will be self-financed on this side. So I hope it gives you more clarity on this guidance of $750 million as an average of available cash flow available for TotalEnergies as a company to consider it to return to shareholders.

So we have a question from Alastair Syme. Alastair, Go ahead, please.

You might have actually asked my first question-- answered my first question, which was about the, can you get full integration from the sort of marketing and trading with only 50%. So I guess you're saying there's a tolling arrangement. Can you get visibility on where you need to trade being a sort of a 50% joint venture partner?

And then secondly, can you -- obviously, as you look forward in this forecast, can you talk about the capture ratio and combined cycle. I mean you're taking your view here that these assets are going to be used more frequently? Or do you think there's going to be more power price volatility?

So the second one, I think Stephane will give you -- in fact, it's a matter of cost merit curve and positioning of the gas plants. And again, he will give you more indication on it for -- it depends on each market. It's even -- and on the first one, I think -- so each partner, EPH [indiscernible], we have our own trading team. So each of us will trade or share of the terawatt hour, I would say. So it will help, obviously, for us, it's an increasing on the asset-backed trading. As Stephane explained, it's increasing the size of our trading activity in power and increasing the geographical footprint because we'll have more asset, our trading teams will have access to electricity in different geographies. So that will be, if I understood carefully, if I understand correctly your questions. So we -- for us, it was very important to be honest, not only to have access to acquire some assets but also to develop our own marketing of these electricity -- of electrons because it's not only for trading. It's also for making this clean firm power offering from being able to combine some intermittent renewable assets with some gas plants. It will help us to -- we signed recently some deals with data center in Spain, and we have other to negotiate to discuss in Europe, having access to this type of, I would say, electrons as a value. So on the capture ratio, maybe you could explain where we are.

So on the capture ratio, as Patrick mentioned, it really depends on which CCGT and which market. And so we have a full range of let's say, an average of 35 for the less competitive to up to 60, 65 for [indiscernible] CCGT. And one of the characteristic of the portfolio is to have at least 3 big new CCGT, which are the most efficient in their market. That's one aspect. There is no underlying assumption of an increase of the load factor in Europe. We have not taken that into consideration, even though that's a subject that could be discussed. And it's true as well that we can expect an increase of the unit margin of the CCGT with the increase of the intermittency and the volatility of the market. But in what we have shown that's not taken into -- as an assumption. The energy margin that is planning to grow as volume and the volume are coming from the capacity growth that we have shown.

So Stephane, if you could just clarify the trading profit assumption you're using there is just based on current market conditions, more or less?

Yes, they are.

Okay. So we have the next question from Lucas Herrmann.

Congratulations to -- it just looks like a really interesting deal. Two, if I might, just one in terms of balance and I mean everything to do with clean power strategy. How far or how much renewable do you need relative to relative to carbon, in order to execute on the strategy you will make sure that you don't go too overweight one source of electricity relative to the other. So that was one question because you're pushing clearly quite aggressively here or you're uplifting significantly on the source of electrons from CCGT.

And the second, Stephane was really to ask you about the U.K. position because you've already expanded or have built positions in the U.K. Is there a conflict in any way there between the wholly owned? I know you're --- I guess effectively, you're just buying electrons. But is that going to result in prioritizing one source of electron relative to the other from CCGT? How does that work? Does it matter? I hope that was clear.

Okay. I will let Stephane think to the second one. On the first one, okay, look, you are right. It's what is the right balance. I would say, if I'm considered by 2030, we will have more or less 35 terawatt per year from flexible generation, 30 already secured, I would say, I would say, in renewables, when you convert the gigawatt, it depends, of course, and I would say, on different assumptions, the capture rate and the capture, the curtailment, the battery system that we are building, it will be more or less the same size, let's say, around 30 terawatt or 25, 30. So it's more or less a system, which will be 50-50 at the end between gas and renewables. I'm very comfortable with the gas to power position because, again, for an oil and gas company, which is producing gas, which is leader in energy developing and going into this integration of the value chain and I would say, adding value to the gas by electricity, in particular, in Continental Europe where you have an increasing cost of CO2. That's for me, a nice way to integrate the gas chain. Then as an electricity player, we need both sources. But I would say, the figures that we mentioned on this page, Slide 11, that -- which was explained to you by Stephane by 2030, I give you the -- I would say, this is what we have in our portfolio and that we will develop for the renewable side and the battery side. You have time to think to the U.K. position. you've Competition between the assets.

In U.K., as you know, we have already our shares in West Burton, but actually, it's good because it's with EPH. So by definition, within the various CCGT, there won't be any conflict of interest. That's one. And then the second question could be, is there a conflict of interest on competition between renewable and CCGT? And the answer is no. That's for me, that's quite the contrary where the value is going to be created by the integration between both because usually, when renewables are producing, they've got the priority because marginal cost is 0 and CCGT makes the complement. But when they don't, then CCGT are producing. And it's because you are matching both at the same time. You've got the -- they are complementary that you can create value.

But to be honest, I'm very pleased as the CEO of the U.K. West Burton plant. Today it's running with 25% --- almost at 50% [indiscernible] the time, which is, by the way, with the CCGT, which is running the most. So I don't know if there will be competitions between the CCGTs, but this one, if they are all like these ones, we'll be happy in terms of delivering some nice good results. So I'm -- and again, on the renewables, there is still in the U.K., we still have to develop, in particular, the offshore wind farm fields on which we are expecting some good pricing in order to develop the project.

So we have the next question from Matt Lofting. Matt, please.

Two, if I could, please. I think you talked earlier about the load factors, et cetera, on the portfolio and the range around it. I wondered if within that, you could just talk a bit about the operational track record of the assets in the portfolio given that quite a lot of it is operational already, the consistency and sort of how you've seen underlying asset availability trends through time on the data that you've reviewed?

And then secondly, just on coming back to gas value chain integration and the value there, there's various parts and benefits that you've talked about in terms of marketing, LNG integration, et cetera, which aspects do you see as most valuable perhaps to TotalEnergies?

On the first one?

On the first one, it's an experienced team. We have been developing CCGT now for many years. And when we look at the figure and made our due diligence is no specific point to report. What is more important is that on West Burton, they are actually -- they have the technical lead of what we are doing within the JV. So we have been able to test in real life the way it works in the last 6 months. And we are well satisfied with what we see. Again, it's a very experienced team. We have been quite successful to develop that business. That's one.

And on the second one, as we say, so there will be a potential integration as the supply of the CCGT is creating a 2 million tonne short. So that's always a good thing to have an outlet for LNG because that creates additional optionality. What is interesting as well is that when you think about clean firm power in some countries in Europe, it's not always that easy to come with a fixed price. Here, we'll have the chance to have the full value chain from gas shale production in the U.S. to selling clean firm power in Europe with all the steps of that chain. And the fact what CCGT in Europe is adding another outlet to the full value chain. And we are convinced that we will extract value from that additional optionality.

I understand that Lydia is traveling. So Nash from Barclays. Sorry, Sorry, Alejandro first. I'll have Alejandro, first. sorry.

Congratulations for the deal again. Now I have 2 questions. One is if you can elaborate about the investment proposition of this acquisition versus a greenfield development. My understanding is that it's very tough now to acquire gas turbines and greenfield permits, you can elaborate about this. And the second question is about data centers. You explained before this deal in Spain, if with the new portfolio, there are more opportunities for data center agreements and in some cases, dedicated plant for some of these projects?

Greenfield development is around EUR 1.2 million kilo -- per kilowatt hour -- per megawatt hour. This one, if you make the math is more around EUR 700,000, EUR 750,000 per megawatt hour. So first, it's obviously much cheaper. And by the way, to make a portfolio of 14 gigawatt or 7 gigawatt net. It will take us years to get the permitting. So it's a huge acceleration. So in fact, when you consider on one side, the acquisition price, on the other side, just the opportunity to build a sizable position quickly in these markets. No doubt, but it's, for me, a very interesting and attractive investment proposition. Honestly, when EPH came to us to propose such transaction, it has obviously ring a bell in our heads because we are not having that possibility in our mind, even if we have engaged with them, not on the global portfolio. But clearly, we were thinking immediately with Stephane, okay, it's a unique opportunity. It was a direct negotiation there again. They've done it with us because they were considering us as a good partner. And also, by the way, a nice place to put their money in with the shares of TotalEnergies, from as a CEO, I was quite pleased with his proposal so that's the investment proposition.

On the data centers, obviously, we are adding excess data centers, they need reliable and firm power, reliability is important. So we made some first deal to have access to more electricity coming from gas plants will help the Stephane teams to develop more opportunities. This is what everybody is thinking today. So today, people are looking for more energy for more capacities, managing to capture part of this capacity will help us to develop the business, but maybe Stephane will elaborate on that.

As we mentioned and what we are seeing in the U.S. today and that we will see that it's coming in Europe now and will develop further, I'm sure, in the following quarter. So the area that we can use more CCGT and increase the load factor of the CCGT to supply specifically data center is there.

Okay. We have a question. So now, Nash, you can go ahead now. Please go ahead.

Perfect. I have 2, please. The first one is, I think, Patrick, you mentioned about the dividend is around $400 million. I wonder if Total has upgraded any kind of new dividend policy with EPH. And how is it? Is it for Total to influence your dividend going forward?

Then the second question is on EPH portfolio. I think there's about 10 gigawatts operational CCGT assets. Could you provide a bit of color on the age of those operational or legacy assets, please?

Okay. The age, I think the average age is around 15 years and Stephane can elaborate on that. On the legacy assets, around 15 years, you can take it. Some are very new, like you said, the average is around 15 years. So we have quite a lot of time and all [indiscernible] U.K., we plan to refurbish with access to capacity markets, which will enhance the revenue. So I would say we are comfortable with, say, the legacy assets that we inherited. And when we position them on all the [indiscernible] curve country by country, and I was looking to this page, and we presented that to our Board and honestly, in Italy, I think we have 5 out of the 6 are, I would say in the top first, second quartile in the U.K., all of them are in the first, second. And in the Netherlands, of -- 2 of them are more marginal, but the others are fine. So that's to position them. No, there is no new dividend policy with EPH. Now the [ EUR 300 billion ] I just mentioned to you is 95 million. I don't -- there was no announcement today, just a rough is 95 million shares multiplied by the dividend. But you know today, which in euro is around EUR 3.6, I think per share. But again, I don't want to make a mistake. In dollars, it depends on the euro -- dollar-euro exchange rate. But there is no policy agreed. No, there is no -- they are coming as a shareholder. They know they just have observed that, as you know, we never cut the dividend for 40 years. So they don't expect us to change our policy when they became shareholders for sure. So that's -- it's a good support for all the shareholders, I would say.

Again, in [ France ], no, there will be a 4% shareholder. It will be -- the largest shareholders are the employees. Then we have BlackRock at around 5%. We'll have 4% with them. Maybe and that's, I would say there will be a and there will be a shareholder. We obviously, will entertain a dialogue like with all the shareholders. But I'd say it's a matter for -- as they declared us clearly that they are there for the long term, I think we'll -- the dividend will grow together with the growth of our free cash flow. I think the main import, the main factor for me. And again, this is the advantage transaction, is this trajectory that we have of growing the free cash flow per share of around 20% per year for the next 5 years. I would say this part, this deal is firming up part of the -- what was coming from the electricity, the integrated power business. Maybe some shareholders add some doubt of it. I would say the transaction is just on the contrary, firming up this trajectory. The rest of the growth of free cash, which will feed the dividend coming from the upstream in particular.

Okay. I apologize if I wasn't clear. Could I ask on the dividend one, it's not dividend from Total. It's dividend from EPA, from the JV to Total? Can you make any influence over there? Sorry.

Sorry, that's a very clear policy. All the -- we just -- all the cash has to come to the shareholders on both sides. We all agree. We leave a certain -- adjust the minimum cash required by the -- by, I would say, the operations of the JV. But then there is cash both for shareholders agree that the cash must come to the shareholders quickly. So there is no friction there. No friction. Sorry.

So the next question is from Henri. Go ahead, Henri.

I have 2 quick questions, please. The first one on the -- just wondering because you mentioned that it will help to get to 12% ROACE from 10%. Are you able to share what level of ROACE did business generates at the moment? And if you were see how much of your comes from these integration benefits?

And then secondly, to come back on the topic of the buyback and the dividend. So just wondering to what extent the fact that you'll be issuing 95 million shares has an impact on the balance between dividend and buybacks, i.e., would you be maybe more leaning towards buybacks to basically offset the issuance of shares? Or does that not matter?

So on the first one, I would say this JV has a ROACE above 10% immediately. And going up to a little above 12%. So that's -- it's giving the trajectories firm up, as I said, for sure. So it's positive.

Second one, I would say, no, we'll stick to a policy we gave you. It's part of, let's say, again, I answered the question previously, and I think the -- we draw some lessons with the Board. So recently, we gave you some guidance on the buyback. I just confirmed today that this deal will -- I'm confirming that at $50 per barrel, we will maintain a buyback, which is logic because first, we have the $1 billion of CapEx. Again because part of the deal, of course, is to here to, I would say, to bought back the shares. But there is no specific acceleration at this stage. I mean we -- this has to be monitored as well more globally according to the oil and gas markets and the volatility of it. So I don't want to make any commitment on this part. But again, we -- as we've done it when we issued shares to make the Maersk Oil deal in the past. This time, we have a buyback program in place, so it will be -- it will come quicker.

So we have a last question from Jean-Luc Romain. Go ahead.

It relates to the capacity payments in Italy and U.K. airlines. Is it increasing over time? I think it was a little less than EUR 300 billion in 2024. And how much could it be rising?

Yes, it's increasing a little. The answer is, yes.

Yes, it's increasing as the refurbished plant or the new plants are coming on stream or the biomass is coming on stream as well. So the answer is yes, it's increasing.

I think we have no more questions.

Thank you. And I think as one of you said, it's a material transaction. So we felt that it was the right time to have this exchange with you. And again, you will see the impact of the transaction. So the -- we planned the closing, I would say, second quarter, we need probably 6 months between today and the closing, so maybe May, June. Honestly, for when you will present you the road map for '26, we will take first of July, half of the year, just to be cautious about the guidance we'll give you in February. But again, we don't see many obstacles on the road. It's more processing the different European regulations. And so again, I'm -- from a -- the Board point of view, we are quite satisfied. I would say the Board was satisfied because it's, again an opportunity to execute the strategy, which has been consistent and what we expose to you. And secondly, welcoming a long-term European shareholder, I think, is also valuable for the company and reinforcing the trust in our strategy. So I I'm not planning to have you again on the call before year-end. Even if there is one important event coming for TotalEnergies' in December, as I remind you, but normally, on the normally, and we are progressing. So we should -- we will confirm it. On December 8, we'll transform these ADRs into ordinary shares on the U.S. listing market. So I hope it will also give a good momentum as this transaction to our stock. Thank you for your listening, and see you soon.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to TotalEnergies' Third Quarter 2025 Results Conference Call.

I now hand over to Patrick Pouyanne, Chairman and CEO; and Jean-Pierre Sbraire, CFO, who will lead you through this call. Sir, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, good morning, everyone. Before Jean-Pierre goes through the details of the third quarter results, I would like to make a few opening comments.

Almost exactly 1 month ago, we updated you our strategy during our Capital Markets Day in New York, and we had 4 key messages: consistency and resilience of our 2-pillar strategy, strong and secure production growth in our Oil and Gas business, accretive cash flow generation and capital discipline. I believe that this company strong results -- for third quarter results, but again, Jean-Pierre will detail with you, perfectly illustrates these key catalysts and highlights the value proposition of our consistent and profitable growth model.

Strategy is clearly in motion and is translating into more cash flow even in a more challenging environment. Indeed, despite oil pricing dropping by more than $10 per barrel year-on-year, the cash flow for the third quarter increased by 4% and adjusted net income for the third quarter held steady. Why? Primarily for 2 reasons. First, the hydrocarbon growth -- production growth is a reality and is highly accretive.

The new project barrels coming online, such as Mero Fields in Brazil, deepwater projects in the U.S. offshore, going for oil, Tura and Phoenix for gas have an average cash flow margin, which is roughly twice higher than the base portfolio, and they have contributed 170,000 barrels per day during the first 9 months of 2025 compared to 2024.

These new barrels have generated around $400 million of additional cash flow year-on-year. So growth volume around $200 million and higher margin, another $200 million. And so they have contributed to absorb the equivalent of $6 per barrel of decrease in the Brent in terms of cash flow. So that's, I think, a strong demonstration that of disciplined investment framework that includes strict sanctioning criteria, less than $20 per barrel, technical cost of $30 per barrel breakeven for E&P projects is delivering its fruits.

And we expect, of course, that this cash flow tailwind from new high-margin barrels will continue as we work our way through our deep project queue. As a reminder, starting from '25, continuing in '26, the company is growing upstream production by 3% per year through 2030. And what is the differentiation factor that the standout of our business model is clearly that more than 95% of this production by 2030 is already either online or under construction and largely under lump sum EPC contracts, which seems to significantly derisks the cost.

So our projects are in hand, and we are executing them. And again, this year and this last quarter demonstrate that we are well in the delivery mode. Some people think we are borrowing, but we are borrowing for the good. Cash is growing.

The second pillar of these good results have been the recovery of the downstream, which contributed to the company's resiliency with cash flow up by almost $500 million. It is true that the refining margin were better. It's also true that we managed to capture them, thanks to a good availability of our assets. We -- and in particular, there were several turnarounds during the quarter, but they were executed in time, in schedule and in budget, and it allows us to reach our objective.

And of course, Marketing and Services continue to deliver consistent results and demonstrated by the priority given to value over volume in this segment is the right approach. In addition to highlighting the strength of our consistent strategy, this third quarter demonstrates as well that we are delivering in the short term, specifically on the second half of 2025 plan that we laid out during the July earnings call, which included 4 key elements.

Again, the accretive production growth, giving more cash flows, the downward inflection in our net investments coming back to the capital discipline, which decreased by $3.5 billion quarter-over-quarter, a reversal of the seasonal working capital as we have released this quarter of $1.3 billion. And lastly, of course, all these elements improved the gearing that is now close to 17% compared to next to 18%.

So the end result is that during the third quarter at $69 per barrel, the company generated excess free cash flow. With cash flow, including working capital variation, more than covering net investment plus $4.5 billion of shareholder returns in the form of dividends and buyback.

It's leading me to shareholder returns. The company, of course, continues its strong track record of dividend growth. The Board of Directors decided to increase the first interim dividend of close to 8% in euro and more than 10% in dollars as compared to 2024. On the buyback side, as announced on September 24, the Board of Directors authorized up to $1.5 billion of share buyback for the fourth quarter of 2025.

And therefore, assuming annual cash flow between $27.5 billion and $28 billion, in particular, supported by the better refining margin that we observe currently, the 2025 payout ratio is expected to remain around 56%.

Looking forward, we expect to maintain a strong momentum for the fourth quarter. Upstream production is anticipated to grow more than 4% year-on-year like this quarter. The net investments are expected to decrease quarter-over-quarter, in particular, because we will deliver the disposal proceeds, $2 billion are expected. And at the end, the net of acquisition will represent $1.5 billion of inflow -- cash inflow in the balance sheet. And that with another anticipated positive contribution from the seasonal working capital, we anticipate to continue to strengthen the balance sheet with gearing forecasted further decline to 15%, 16% at year-end.

Last but not least, we have -- Board of Directors has approved the road map to transform our ADRs into ordinary shares. And we're happy to announce that we ordered today, JPMorgan, to launch the termination process of the ADR program with the objective that ordinary shares are expected to begin trading on the New York Stock Exchange from December 8. This is, of course, an important milestone for the company as it will allow for a single class of TotalEnergies shares to trade with extended hours.

It will be essentially a continuous listing from Paris 9:00 a.m. to New York 4 p.m., 10:00 p.m. Paris time. And we hope that this ordinary shares listing will be a clear catalyst for the stock in 2026 in both Paris and New York markets, and we intend to market these ordinary shares on the U.S. market even more actively than today.

I will now turn the call over to Jean-Pierre, who will go through the details of the third quarter financials.

Thank you, Patrick. I will start by commenting on the price environment in the third quarter versus the second quarter.

Brent averaged $69 per barrel during the third quarter versus $68 per barrel in the second quarter, up 2%, but down more than $10 per barrel compared to the third quarter of '24. ETF averaged $11.3 per MMBtu versus $11.9 per MMBtu, down 5% and the average LNG price decreased to $8.9 per MMBtu versus $9.1 per MMBtu, down 2%. On the other side, for refining, the European refining margin significantly improved to $63 per ton compared to $35 per ton during the second quarter, up close to 80%.

In this price environment, the company reported strong financial results with third quarter '25 cash flow increasing by 7% compared to the second quarter and adjusted net income increasing by 11%, thanks to the continued positive impact of the new attractive upstream barriers and strong downstream results that reflect the company's ability to capture higher refining margins in Europe. Overall, profitability remains strong with return on equity for the 12 months ending September 30 at 14.2% and ROACE close to 12.5%.

Moving now to the business segments, starting with hydrocarbons. On a year-on-year basis, third quarter hydrocarbons production exceeded expectations and increased by more than 4%, making it the company's highest growth quarter so far this year. We anticipate that this trend will continue with fourth quarter hydrocarbon production expected to grow more than 4% compared to the fourth quarter of '24, notably benefiting from the restart of Ichthys LNG in Australia.

Turning to the quarterly results and starting with Exploration and Production. This segment generated during the third quarter of '25, an adjusted net income of $2.2 billion, up 10% quarter-over-quarter in a similar price environment and outpacing quarter-over-quarter E&P production growth of around 4%. Similarly, cash flow growth was strong at $4 billion, up 6% quarter-over-quarter. Importantly, our project portfolio is delivering new low-cost, low-emission oil and gas production that is accretive with an average upstream CFFO per barrel that is roughly 2x the base portfolio.

Regarding the E&P projects, we are progressing on all fronts. On the project side, we achieved first oil at the Begonia and CLOV 3 offshore fields in Angola, and we sanctioned Phase 2 of the redevelopment of the Ratawi oil field in Iraq, which is part of the GGIP project. As we have now launched all phases of GGIP, we are looking forward to the first oil for Phase 1 of the redevelopment early '26.

On M&A, the company is consistently high-grading its portfolio. During the last earnings call, we mentioned that we are expecting several E&P divestments in the second half of the year. And during the third quarter, we divested 2 international blocks in Vaca Muerta in Argentina, which closed this quarter and 3 satellite fields in Ekofisk in Norway, out of our strict investment criteria, which is expected to close in the fourth quarter.

And lastly, on exploration, we continue to reload the hopper to complement existing opportunities. And this quarter, we announced new license awards in Nigeria, in Republic of the Congo and in Liberia.

Moving to integrated LNGs. Third quarter LNG sales of 10.4 million tons were essentially flat quarter-over-quarter as third-party purchases offset lower sales from equity production. Cash flow of $1.1 billion was in line with the second quarter in a stable price environment with an average LNG price of around $9 per MMBtu. Adjusted net operating income of $0.9 billion was down 18% quarter-over-quarter, primarily due to the planned turnarounds at Ichthys LNG in Australia that impacted production by around 50,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day for the quarter.

On the price outlook, forward European gas prices continue to be sustained at around $11 per MMBtu for the first quarter of '25 and winter of '25, '26 due to anticipated winter demand.

Given the evolution of oil and gas prices in the recent months and the lag effect on pricing formulas, the company anticipates an average LNG selling price of around $8.5 per MMBtu for the first quarter of '25. On the advancement of our LNG strategy, we are pleased to continue to grow our U.S. presence with the recent FID on Rio Grande LNG Train 4 in South Texas, and we enhanced resilience in our LNG and gas to power strategy by acquiring interest in shale gas assets from Continental Resources in the Anadarko Basin in the U.S.

Turning to Integrated Power. Net power generation increased 9% quarter-over-quarter to 12.6 terawatt hour due to increased output from flexible generation capacity in Europe. The value of TotalEnergies unique integrated model is illustrated in the third quarter financials. Total cash flow from operations was $0.6 billion, up 9% quarter-over-quarter and in line with annual guidance.

To provide more granularity in the Integrated Power financial performance, this quarter, we disclosed the split in cash flow between production assets, renewable and gas-fired power plants on one side and sales activity, B2B, B2C and trading on the other side, showing that each contributed equally this quarter.

During Q3, Q4, sorry, sorry, during the third quarter, the company has executed well on the farm-down side of its integrated power business model, which contributes capital recycling and will generate a tailwind for free cash flow in the fourth quarter.

The company signed an agreement for the sale of 50% of the 1.4 gigawatt renewable portfolio in North America and closed the sale of 50% of 270 megawatts renewable portfolio in France. These deals have a combined cash impact of around $1.5 billion. And in this deal, TotalEnergies retains a 50% stake in the assets and will continue to be the operator after closing and to offtake 100% of the [indiscernible]. This is in line with our business model.

As an important reminder, our attractive upstream growth is not the only contributor to the company's resilience. Integrated Power will take the key role in this too, since it is differentiated and growing cash flow stream that is outside of crude cycles and with strong demand fundamentals.

Moving to Downstream. As Patrick mentioned, during the third quarter, Downstream efficiently captured the high refining margins in Europe and contributed to the company's resilient financials. Third quarter adjusted net operating income of $1.1 billion, was up more than 30% quarter-over-quarter. Cash flow of $1.7 billion was up 11% quarter-over-quarter, thanks to good availability of assets that allowed us to successfully capture improved European margins.

In terms of free cash flow during the third quarter, downstream cash flow from operating activities exceeded net investment by over $2.5 billion.

In Refining, the European Refining Margin Marker strengthened during the third quarter due to the tension on the diesel supply chain in the context of low inventories. Utilization was 84%, which was towards the high end of the guidance range of 80% to 85%, and it reflects efficient operations and planned turnarounds at Port Arthur in the U.S. and HTC in Korea.

In Marketing & Services, results remain consistently strong with high-margin activities, offsetting lower volumes. Looking ahead, we anticipate refining utilization of 80% to 84% in the fourth quarter, which accounts for scheduled turnarounds at Antwerp and SATORP.

Moving now to the company level and starting with working capital. As expected, we benefited from the working cap release during the third quarter, which was a $1.3 billion positive contribution to cash. Furthermore, for the fourth quarter, we anticipate another positive contribution. On net investments, they meaningfully decreased to $3.1 billion in the third quarter, which includes $0.4 billion of divestments, net of acquisitions.

In the fourth quarter, as mentioned by Patrick, disposal are estimated to total $2 billion, including the closing of Nigeria and Norway divestment for exploration and production as well as farm-down of renewable assets in North America and Greece for Integrated Power, and we reiterate full year of '25 net investment guidance of $17 billion to $17.5 billion.

Based on anticipated net investments and working cap, we expect gearing to decrease to 15% to 16% at year-end compared to 17.3% at the end of the third quarter.

With that, Patrick and I are now available to answer your questions. And the operator, so please open up the line for questions.

[Operator Instructions] The first question is from Lydia Rainforth, Barclays.

Two questions, if I could. The first one, can I just get your clarification on where we are on the tax issues in France. I've seen headlines this morning about tax on share buybacks, what that actually means?

And then the second one, I think, Patrick, this comes back to your point around the growth in production is obviously doing quite well, but also the growth in cash flow numbers. So when you're thinking about 2026, can you just -- can you give us an indication as to how much more cash flow might grow than production for next year? And just remind us of that.

Okay. Good morning, good afternoon, Lydia. Well, first, as you observed, there is quite a huge -- quite a big fiscal creativity in the French parliament these last days. And clearly, the full recipe will not work, and we don't know, and so be careful not to overreact to the night news. There was a super tax on multinationals, which is completely out of the rule of law. France has signed 125 fiscal agreements with many countries. The principle is no double taxation, and this is very anchored, and as the government reminded to the parliament, this is the right rule. So we will not be touched by that.

And there is also in the constitution some already decision when you want to tax above what is reasonable, then there is this type of taxations are not approved or canceled. So honestly, the situation -- political situation in France is not very stable. There is a huge debate, making a lot of noise. But I trust that at the end of the day, we will land to a reasonable avenue. And as you all know as well, we -- TotalEnergies does not make a lot of benefit in France, so I would say we'll follow this debate.

But again, I'm comfortable with the fact that at the end of the day, government will take the right decisions to maintain, in fact, which is fundamental, what we call the supply policy to you know if you want -- before you redistribute in a country, you need to create wealth. You need to produce. You need to create results, revenues and then you can speak about distribution, and we will come back to that.

So I understand that -- and I think, by the way, that this situation in France is weighing on the share price of TotalEnergies, but I remind you as well that we are a global company. And that again, largely 90%, 95%, I think, of our cash flows and our results are not coming from our country where we have the headquarters. So again, I think we -- from this perspective, the profile of TotalEnergies is quite different from other French companies, and that market should integrate it.

For 2026, honestly, Lydia, you are asking me a question to which I will answer more precisely in February. As we know, we have a meeting for annual results, and what is the plan for '26. So I mean, my -- as I told you, in New York, we anticipate a growth of 3%, more than 3% for '26 again. For the cash flows, I don't have all figures. Of course, it's related to the new production coming on stream. But part of the, I would say, new production of '25 like the Brazilian production will have the full effect in '26.

So I anticipate another accretive effect on our -- accretive effect, the size of it, I mean, you have to be a little patient. But again, clearly, we are in a delivery mode. We delivered the production growth more than 3, then this year, probably it will be next to 4, in fact, at the end of the year 3, 3.5 to 4 for '25, next year, at least 3. And then let's deliver the, okay, the accretive cash. But this is a road map, not only '25, '26 for the next 5 years. And if they miss, we reminded you and we, I think, gave you comfort during the New York presentation that we will deliver this $10 billion of additional free cash from all our segments from -- in the next 5 years.

The next question is Michele Della Vigna, Goldman Sachs.

Congratulations on the strong growth. Two questions, if I may. First, I was wondering if you feel like you're able at the moment to capture the extraordinary refining margins we are seeing, and how the improvements to your Port Arthur and Donges refineries are progressing?

And then secondly, I was just wondering what you're seeing in terms of disruptions of the Russian volumes following the latest sanctions and if you start to see an impact on the physical market through your trading and optimization division?

Thank you for this question, Michele. To be honest, when I read again our press release, I think we are a little bearish on the oil price and the refining margins. The refining margins that we captured since the beginning of October for the last month is around $75 per ton. So when we guided you it's above $50, I think we are a little shy.

And in fact, it's fundamentally linked because we begin to see real impact in the market of these last Russian sanctions. I think the market is underestimating what it means when you have U.S. sanctions, 2 large Russian company, which are at the core of trading Russian oil, by the way. And when Europe say that we are targeting countries which are considered, I would say, dangerous like India, Turkey and China. But if you trade oil or products from these countries, you could be under sanction.

The reaction today in the market, and I shared some views with some of my colleagues, including in -- I was in Riyadh last 2 days, I can -- clearly today, trading hours as well are more cautious. And we see that everybody is taking this risk very seriously, including secondary sanctions, which might become. And so I see some impact. And I think clearly, the refining margins today instantly is more around $100 per ton than the $75 as an average. And it is linked clearly to, in fact, this sanction will oblige to reroute some volumes and to find a way to bring, I would say, products and crude oil more expensively to the different locations of the planet.

So I think this is clear. That also could have an impact, by the way, on the oil price. I mean, the crude oil price. We've seen a reaction whatever announced today, it's still $65, but $65, I think, is a good assumption for this quarter, maybe a little more. So I would say, more bullish, that's what we wrote a few days ago because I begin to realize that these sanctions will have a real impact in this market.

And most of the players are becoming -- are taking them seriously, which is good, by the way. TotalEnergies, we stopped trading any Russian oil for -- since end of '22, somewhere we penalized ourselves compared to other practice. But I think it was the right way to comply and to be strict on the Russian sanctions.

So capturing the refining margins, for sure, the good news of the third quarter is that we managed to do it. We had a turnaround in Port Arthur, which is done. So it's fully back online now. Donges as well is running. So let's not fully -- not the last equipment we are waiting for by the end of the year, but it's running. So we deliver results.

The third quarter -- fourth quarter, we have 2 turnarounds, one in Antwerp, one in SATORP, which are 2 big machines in our results. But I expect -- I would -- I expect that this will be, I would say, compensated again by the other assets and by the fact that the margins are higher. So I'm positive.

And when I gave you a guidance of $27.5 billion or $28 billion, I was maybe too bearish by stating $27 billion in New York. It's because as well, I integrate these elements, which again and the duty and all the organization of refining chemicals and rest of Total are dedicated to capture these margins, which are good. So this is where we are, and I'm bullish on that.

The next question is from Doug Leggate of Wolfe.

I wonder if I could start with your upstream margin. The volume guidance is, again, pretty strong for Q4. But what we're -- I guess what we're observing is that your upstream margin seems to be moving up as well as the volumes. And I'm trying to understand what happens as the mix changes going forward. So for example, Iraq never historically had great margins. So how do you see the margin mix continuing as the growth trajectory sustains over the next several years? That's my first question.

And my second question, if I may, is a quick one. Oil appears still to be in a very technical market. So we all see the oversupply, but it seems to keep bouncing around that 60 level. I guess my question is, if you ended up with better cash flow than you thought when you reset the buyback, what would be the first call on cash? Would it go to the balance sheet to continue deleveraging? Or would it go to the higher end of the buybacks?

The second question is clear. It will go to the balance sheet. So the second answer, I would say, is clear, will go to balance sheet. It will go to the balance sheet because I observed that -- and I have spent quite a lot of time with investors in the last month and clearly, I would say, long-term investor, deleveraging balance sheet is important for all of us. And if you want to be -- the best buyback policy would be to countercyclical. To be countercyclical, you need to have a strong balance sheet. So that's the position I would take and give you.

So consider the guidance we gave you, we gave you quite a good guidance, and we told you [ $0.75 billion to $1.5 billion ] between $60 and $70, $2 billion at $80. But -- and I'm answering for '26, to be clear. If we continue and we see the plan to deliver more and more free cash on the road map to $10 billion, then we might revisit this scheme. But today, in '26, if it's coming, in your case, if we are above $60 in '26 or above $70, then we will continue to deleverage.

Upstream margins, no, Iraq is a good contract. So I know historically, but it's not at all the case. As we always -- I mean, as I told you, we are far away from the historical service contract. We have -- when we came back in Iraq, it was clear that either we had a good contract, a strong contract, it was a matter of risk and reward and in particular, the Iraqi contract is quite reactive to the oil price. We capture some upside on it, which, of course, is important.

We benefit in Iraq from quite low-cost production. So the breakeven is low. And so it will contribute. The Iraqi barrels, don't make a mistake, are contributing to the increase, are accretive. And again, I can give you -- but I think we gave you in New York and in fact, the base barrels at an average around $19, $20 per barrel. And today, these new barrels are more between $30 and $40 per barrel. So it's why we have an excessive growth in upstream. So I think you will continue to see, again, the free cash flow from upstream will move quicker than the growth of production.

The next question is Biraj Borkhataria, RBC.

Firstly, nice to see that production growth being -- the accretion coming through. That really is a differentiator. Two questions. The first one is on the divestments for the year. I know you mentioned Nigeria in the $2 billion. I believe there was -- there were 2 deals that you're planning to do, one of which wasn't approved. So could you just outline whether the SPDC side, that sale was -- is that in the $2 billion, or is that on top of the $2 billion?

And then secondly, recently, you signed a letter with a number of other CEOs around European competitiveness. I was just wondering if you could talk about whether that letter has actually catalyzed any kind of response on the policy front? Any color there would be helpful.

What is the second question? Sorry, I didn't catch it well. Oh, okay, I understood. I know, I know, I know. Okay, understood. European competitiveness. Okay. First, on divestments, I will be very precise with you. The $2 billion, I will give you where it's coming from. We intend to close, and we have already closed some of them, but we are intending to close. And all I think we have signed, and we are in the process, and it's a matter of closure.

The Bonga divestment in Nigeria, Norway, the satellite Ekofisk field, some renewable assets in the U.S., renewable assets, which we announced in Greece and as well, we have another project where we will -- but I cannot yet disclose to you guys, another $300 million, which will be announced soon. So it's a $2 billion. This but does not include to be precise, the SPDC JV divestment, not only because of what was approved, but because we -- in fact, we were not able to close. There were some conditions precedent on our side. And we consider that it was not reasonable to close with, I would say, the supposed buyer.

So we have relaunched -- not relaunch, we are discussing today. We have advanced discussions with 2 additional -- 2 new buyers, which are, I think, serious ones. And so -- but we will not be able to be clear to answer your question, to close it before this quarter. So it's for next year. By the way, it's good because it's part of the plan for next year. So from this perspective, what we have observed is that divestments of E&P assets generally takes time. It takes more time even if we have demonstrated with our divestment in Argentina that we were able to sign and to close in the same quarter. So sometimes it's going quicker.

But -- so the plan is clear. We will -- and we have some interested buyers and serious buyers on it. So we are working on this one. There are others, like I mentioned to you, other IDs for this year and next year that I mentioned in New York on which we work as well.

On the European Competition letter, the answer you probably follow that some tweets are linked in. European leaders are not really -- I mean, are listening to our request. They have been, I would say, we had some calls, we had some discussions with some European commissioners who took the letter seriously from 40 CEOs, to say, look, probably understood. I think we are maybe asking them too much, but I think it's a sort of wake-up call from these 40 CEOs. We, myself and the Siemens CEO, we are the spokesperson. Let's be clear, we were just reflecting what people expressed during our meetings between French and German CEOs.

I've seen that on some topics, which are, I would say, more -- giving some more poly mix. There have been some calls that were not only from European CEOs, but from U.S. Energy Secretary and Qatar Energy Minister to call to revisit some of this legislation, which seems to be, in fact, against competitiveness. And again, for some of them putting at stake the security of supply of Europe. So I think this is something which is serious.

And we are European CEOs, and we, of course, want to continue to contribute to Europe development and growth. But to do it, I think it's also our job to speak up when we consider that conditions are changing and it might be difficult for us to contribute to European prosperity. So it's a moving -- it's a continuous, I would say, fight, but let's contribute to it.

The next question is from Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley.

I've got 2, if I may. First of all, what I thought has been sort of really surprising this year is the strength of new LNG FIDs. Already 1 year, 1.5 years ago, many of us were writing reports about the surplus in the LNG market in the second half of the decade, and yet 2025 has been a near-record year of new LNG capacity to be commissioned. And Total still has a few projects that needs to decide on.

I was wondering if you perhaps could share with us your thoughts on despite the outlook, the number of new FIDs being as strong as they are and also how it impacts your own decisions in terms of future LNG FIDs?

And the second one I wanted to ask is about the shares and the equivalence between sort of the Paris shares and sort of U.S. shares and so consolidating this into one single class of shares.

I was wondering if this could impact the execution of your buyback program in the sense that I was wondering if this is in place from December 8 onwards, as I now understand it, if some of the buyback program could be executed in sort of New York listed shares. And of course, the context behind the question is then also like if that could then be a way to avoid some of the proposals that have creatively been floated as I think you put it in the French parliament over the last couple of days.

Okay. The second question on ADR. No, it does not impact at all the execution of the buyback program. I remind you that the ADR conversion is about around 9%, 10% of our shares. So obviously, the buyback program will be executed on the Paris Stock Market to be clear and so -- and not on the New York listed because it will be strange for us to buy back from New York where we want on the contrary to give more life to the New York market. So I prefer more activity and finding more -- we will buy back shares in New York when we will see we'll have much more active shares on this side of the Atlantic, I would say, so first point.

And honestly, no, it will not -- by the way, it would not avoid in any way tax proposals. And again, the tax proposals are funny proposals. Again, there are some principles. When the President, Aurelien tried to impose -- by the way, he tried to impose a 3% tax -- extra tax on dividend, which was canceled by the European Union and by the French Constitutional Group. And all of us have recouped the money they took during 3, 4 years. So again, there are some principles.

We are in a rule of blue continent and a rule of blue country. And this is the reality. So you must make a split between the political debates which are quite vigorous, I would say, and very creative and the reality of the rule of law, and we know that there is some limit. And when I see the figures, and I will tell you what I'm thinking, the higher it is, the better it is because then I'm sure it will not go through the system.

So I mean I'm -- that's the reality. And there is -- you can -- in the constitution of -- French constitution, you cannot deprive people unreasonably to their -- rest of their profits and the results. And buybacks are not at all a profit. Buyback, it's just a matter of distribution. And by the way of investment in the company. We invest in the company.

So I mean, I'm ready -- again, I think it's a topic on which I'm ready to continue to explain to parliament members with our buybacks. But I think we'll -- again, don't overreact to this type of, I would say, news. And I'm afraid we'll have all the news during the next 30 days coming from the parliament. At the end of the day, I trust the government.

And on FID?

First question, FID, sorry, FIDs. Okay. I mean I'm not sure. I mean, there was a lot of announcements. I'm not sure about how many FIDs exactly because between the announcements and you have a flows of news of projects being revived because they get the permitting, or they get the approvals for non-FDA countries export from the U.S. administration. So you have a news flow coming. Then FID, I know Train 4 and 5 in next decade, yes, I know them. I know that 1 or 2 competitors are serious and are progressing because as I said in New York, all these projects, they need to find the financing.

To find the financing -- and again, an acceptable -- a good financing, a good financing, not an expensive one. Otherwise, you will destroy the value on Train 4. We managed to put in place a project financing at Rio Grande 6.4% around 6.5%, which was good -- good project financing, which has the leverage on it. Other projects does not have the same good finance, I would say, Rio Grande and Rio Grande LNG. So then, of course, I agree that we need to take that into consideration. We have a strong policy, a clear view. We decided to transfer most of our exposure on the GKM, I would say, LNG spot market to the Brent formulas, and we have been active.

I think we are very right to do it. I'm more bullish on the oil price, as I explained that on this one by the end of the decade. So of course, then we need to assess and to take into account that we postponed Cameron '24 because the CapEx were too high. It's not the time to run again on Cameron '24.

And the other decision we have, in fact, in our portfolio is Papua and New Guinea. You know that we are working on the CapEx, to lower the CapEx. And it's clear that lowering the CapEx is of utmost importance in a market which could be from this perspective, weaker when we launch the project. So that's a topic on which we will have to work. And we have demonstrated already that we now have to be disciplined in that market, giving priority to, I would say, first and second quartile projects in our portfolio.

And that's an element of -- which will have to be taken in consideration. By the way, we have announced that we lifted the force majeure on Mozambique. There is a funny figure, which is in some press news agencies, which speak about $25 billion. We are not at all, and I want to be clear and strong on this news, I don't know people are playing games, which is not acceptable. They have access to -- some people have relinquished a letter that I sent to the President of Mozambique. It's clear, it's written $20 billion in the letter, out of which $4.5 billion came from the -- what we spent in the last 4 years.

So the budget in '20, when we left in 2021 was around, it was approved $15 billion, $16 billion. You add $4.5 billion, you are down to $20 billion, $20.5 billion. That's the reality of this budget. And by the way, this cost -- real cost, what we've done is that we spent -- we've done all the detailed engineering and all the procurement has been done.

And so today, when we -- as soon as we fully remobilize everybody, we are purely in a construction mode. And that's why we said we are able to deliver the project by 2029. And so I've discovered some people were surprised. But in fact, we spent some money in order to, I would say, recapture part of the time, which was under force majeure.

So the budget is not a total $25 billion, and I want to be strong, it's $20 billion, $20.5 billion as we will restart. And again, I can confirm it because we had long discussions, of course, with contractors. And so we have put all these figures together with them. And so -- and including on the delivery in '29, we have strong commitment. So we have realigned the whole system in order to be able to execute properly this project.

Our next question is from Kim Fustier, HSBC.

A couple of weeks ago at an industry conference, you mentioned that the LNG market is getting more competitive and it's harder to make money in trading. I guess that's not exactly a secret, but I was wondering if you could provide any more color on this.

And I was wondering how much of the decline in LNG trading profits would you ascribe to heightened competition versus the more normalized conditions, lower volatility, lower spreads, et cetera?

And then I also wanted to come back to the EU sustainability rules. I mean, I suppose let's see if the EU rules could be amended, but if they broadly stick, then how would you ensure compliance with the CSDDD rules in practice? And then hypothetically, what would be your options if some LNG supply is deemed to be noncompliant, would you be able to redirect it?

Okay. First question. I mean, to be clear, I think we made a demonstration in New York, the message is not that we have a decline of LNG trading. We told you that there were exceptional trading profits in '21, '22, '23 and that we are back to a normal environment with lower volatility. And that by the way, the results of '25 on integrated LNG are in line with '24. So I'm just that we don't benefit from the growth on this part at this stage. Later, we'll have a growth of volume, but this stage is stable.

And in fact, they are quite related to the results of 2019 before this crisis. So I cannot -- what is also true is that you have observed, like me, that there are more trading hours, which came to this LNG business because maybe we were considering we were making good money. But today, answering your question, no, it's just -- my view is that today, we have to -- we came back to, I would say, more standard revenues.

And I hope, of course, the main growth for LNG trading profits from TotalEnergies will come from the growth of volume of assets. So we have a volume impact on our trading business, which will generate additional profits. And we made a mistake when we were planning 2025 because we were thinking that we could replicate the last quarter '24 in full '25, which is not the case. So I have to -- and again, because that's clear that the volatility in '25 from the gas, the European gas price moved between $11 and $12 MMBtu. So it's not a big volatility.

By the way, I'm not unhappy because $11 or $12 per MMBtu from my Norwegian gas and my British gas and my Danish gas, it's a very good price. So I'm maybe -- so I mean, people -- we should not give an overweight to the trading business. Trading business is adding value, but the base business is in fact, our upstream and our production. So I'm happy to -- I prefer to gain $12 per MMBtu of profits on my North Sea gas and maybe a little lower volatility on the trading. So let's be -- we never -- we -- maybe because there was exceptional years, incredible years, '22, '23, again, '21, '23, you consider it was the new normal. We never said it was a new normal. We even told you, be careful. There are exceptional results each time we -- exceptional means exceptional. So that's what I want to comment.

And again, I remind you and why I'm linking back to our growth volume is that the trading within TotalEnergies is trading around assets. It's an asset-based trading. It's not -- we don't take casino. No, it's not the case. So that's the base of what we do.

There are more competitors. But again, we have more assets than others. So it will help our trading business. And I think this is the idea. This is fundamental idea of integration. It's because we have more assets, more volumes, but we have more medium and long-term contracts with Asia. This -- what we signed in the last year, these brand-related medium- and long-term contracts offer some optionalities to our traders. And the optionalities that we included in these contracts have a value. And this is why I'm linking that to my assets and my business. This is the base of it.

And some competitors do not have the same assets and contracts. Then about the competitive sustainability rules, I mean, the question is not to have energy noncompliant has not been -- the CS3D does not define the compliance. The CS3D is a matter of putting in place some rules, but you have to have a duty of vigilance on the way on the supply chain.

Some countries have been strong in the letter. I invite you to read the letter of the Secretary, Wright and Minister, Al-Kaabi, if you didn't read it, they sent a letter to the European leaders telling them if you keep that in place, we will not deliver -- we will not take the risk to deliver LNG to Europe. I would say, it's -- if we don't have LNG coming neither from the U.S. nor from Qatar, we have -- my European North Sea assets are taking a lot of value. So I'd say it's not. I mean -- so it's not a matter of compliance, a matter of legal risk because, in fact, while you may be compliant is that in this CS3D if you were found guilty by a judge, your penalty could be up to 5% of your worldwide turnover, which is just crazy. So the sanction size is completely disproportionate to, in fact, a rule which is against, of course, basically, we are all -- we are for human rights, but you can ask efforts to company to control the supply chain, but we don't control everything.

But if you transform, supposed not enough vigilance in such penalty risk, then it's completely disproportionate. And this is a call coming from these 2 countries. So for me, so again, we'll -- and I consider to be honest, that what we -- when we produce LNG in the U.S. as we are the largest exporter of U.S. LNG, we are fully compliant with the duty of vigilance law with all what we produce in the U.S., in Qatar as well, by the way.

The next question is from Matt Lofting, JPMorgan.

I wanted to follow up on your earlier comments on the refining portfolio, 80% to 84% utilization in the fourth quarter looks towards the lower half of the historical range. Obviously, from a near-term perspective, planned turnarounds and maintenance need to be done and undertaken. But when you look forward into 2026, how do you see the normalized throughput of the business now? And has there been any deterioration in that normalized level versus what you saw and how you saw it, say, 2, 3 years ago?

Yes. I think -- so maybe we are cautious. Again, we were cautious on the $50 per ton. Maybe the 80%, 84% is just as I told you, we have Antwerp and SATORP, which are 2 big machines we have entered into a large planned turnaround, so they execute. But of course, it has an impact on the global, I would say, delivery from our portfolio.

Let's say, you can keep -- if you take 82% this quarter, I think we were at 84%. Maybe the 82% is probably the mid average of the guidance, probably the right one to take into account. But I told you that it will be more than compensated with capturing better margins on all the other assets.

For next year, we are more in the range of 84%, 86%, I think, for our budget. But again, I don't -- I didn't begin to look to what our colleagues are planning. So I'm waiting to see, but I think there are less turnarounds next year. So we should have -- from this perspective, it should be a better year.

And as well -- and again, as we mentioned to you, there were some, I would say, difficulties before the turnaround on Port Arthur, turnaround is done. So we expect to have a better survivability. And on Donges again, we intend to put into service these new units, which will enhance the margins on Donges by beginning of 2026. So from this perspective, the perspective, if the refining margins remain at quite a good level, we will be able to capture even more than this year.

The next question is from Irene Himona, Bernstein.

My first question is on marketing, if I may, because your unit margins were up this quarter. And I wonder if you can talk around the drivers of that margin improvement, whether it is structural or temporary? And then my second question, I noted this quarter, you signed some partnerships on the deployment of AI and a global data platform.

I obviously don't have the context of your ongoing digitalization effort. I wanted to ask whether it is correct to look at these partnerships perhaps as an effort to speed up and widen the digitalization you have been working on for a number of years.

Yes. I'll take the second question, first. As I told you -- we told you, yes, we have -- and I think it will be a topic on which we could focus more on what we are doing. In fact, since 2020, we put in place a digital factory in a bottom-up approach with 300, I would say, data experts or data scientists and at a very high level, a good team. But what we observed is that if we want to deploy these new technologies, which are speeding up on a worldwide basis, going from a bottom-up to scale up is difficult. So we decided that it's time now to have a broad effort, a worldwide effort on organizing all these data because there are plenty of data on platforms in refineries, but all that is not connected.

And if you want to really, for example, enhance your linear program in refineries, it's the best would be to have access to all these data to develop new tools in order to enhance another additional percent of, I would say, use of the refinery and better margins. So we have engaged with 2 large programs, which are quite an investment, an investment on the platform with Emerson, which is called, I don't remember the name now -- with Emerson in order to -- Inmation - in order to connect all these physical data to, I would say, a large database all physically, and it will take 2.5 years, 3 years to deploy because we need to go on all the sites.

We know where the data is, but we need to connect them and then they will be available. And we have also engaged in a very large worldwide program on the E&P side with Cognite, which is, in advance, I would say, from digitalization, and we have made some different pilots with them. Now we are all convinced. So another big program to equip, to deploy this Cognite software, which obviously will help us to really accelerate the use of AI. So for me, 2025 will be the year where we have really decided to scale and to go from a scale and to take some large worldwide program to give us the capacity to take the most of these new AI tools.

It will take a few years to install all of that. But if we want to be efficient, and I'm sure -- and it's not cost cutting in our case. It's more additional revenues. If we -- if I can with advanced process control tools, thanks to AI, produce 1% more of all my oil fields and my refineries, I can tell you, it's quite a lot of free cash. So it's worth making the investments, and this is where -- what we have done.

On marketing, so I think there is different drivers. But again, fundamentally, the strategy which is put in place in marketing is value over volume, which means not chasing the additional growth, even it's difficult for marketers. They love to show you more tons. But what we discovered is that it's quite mature markets. They are mature markets. Whatever in European market, it is mature, the lubricant market is mature. So it's very difficult to gain market share.

The only way to do it is to do it at the expense of margins. And what we have decided is to enter into a policy, which is a bit higher margins and not less volumes, but not to sacrifice, I would say, the margins at the expense of the volume. And this is why, by the way, if you observe our results, we have sold our network in Germany and Netherlands and half of Belgium. There is not much impact.

In fact, because we have managed to absorb it, I would say -- so it's also because fundamentally, in marketing, we have decided to divest or to stop when -- not divest, but to stop a business, which was very low margin, which was, I would say, sharing some logistics assets with which we were creating a lot of pass-through volumes, but with a minimum margin.

So this has been reduced because it was not really adding money. It was quite using a lot of people. So structurally -- so answer to your question is that structurally, we are in a mode to enhance the margin on Marketing and Services. That's where we are. And this will continue. I hope I am clear.

The next question is from Christopher Kuplent, Bank of America.

Patrick, I wonder whether we could talk about another area of French creativity. There is an idea floating around that we should remunerate electricity or wholesale power prices differently. What can you tell us, is current appetite for signing new PPAs? How has that market evolved considering that rather interesting regulatory backdrop?

You've recently signed a project deal with RWE in France, but also have some considerable CapEx left to go in Germany on the offshore wind front. So maybe you can put things into context and give us the risk reward behind taking that regulatory risk.

And then you've mentioned it already. I just wondered whether you could give us an update on how quickly we should expect news from Mozambique on the ground now that the force majeure has been lifted.

On Mozambique, as you -- again, we have lifted the force majeure. We are now expecting the government to approve our new plan and budget, and we are remobilizing the contractors in order to be able to execute the project within this schedule with time work -- time table of 2029, and that's where we are.

So I think, consider we are moving on. On the first question, it's a complex question because I'm not sure to have fully understood. Let me be clear, I'm not in favor of regulations and regulatory approach. We are more merchant people. We like the market. So for us, that means that signing PPAs is the best way to commercialize, I would say, our assets.

And so -- and we know that we need -- in Europe, you need to sign when you develop, I think you were referring to offshore wind. We signed a contract in France at $65 or $66 kilowatt or megawatt hour, which is a contract, by the way, which the price can be adapted if the CapEx are higher. So the price, the CapEx risk is, in fact, covered because we could -- we have -- not only we have given the price, but the CapEx linked to the price. So that's a protection.

It's also partly inflated through the OpEx. So -- and at this level, honestly, we can develop an offshore wind project in Europe because it is projects where, in fact, the connection is developed and paid by the TSO, not by us. So we are only in charge of the plant itself. But again, we follow that. I think today, there are many creativity there again in different circles.

All that we are in a European market, European market, is a unique European market, which are some -- fundamentally driven by some market rules, in fact, -- and when I discuss with European authorities, I see little appetite from -- in the commission to put into, I would say, even in some countries like Germany, we believe in the market to change the rule of this, I would say, electricity market. So again, that's a debate.

But I'm -- and you know, by the way, in France, the same people who were complaining about the famous system of nuclear commercialization, which was called RN 2 years ago, now are complaining of the new system. So people will never be happy.

What they want is electricity for free, but that's difficult. At the end, we need to invest. And if everything is too much regulated, it will be against investment and Europe desperately needs to invest more in renewable gas-fired power plants, grids if we want to ensure security of supply, but the reality, so you cannot get both. So I think I would say I trust there again the political leaders, which are spending a lot of time on this energy story to take the right decision and not to be complacent.

The next question is from Lucas Herrmann, BNP.

And another slightly generic question, but I just wanted to ask for your sort of thoughts on the one part of the complex, which is really having a difficult time, chemicals and the extent to which when you talk within -- when you look at the industry, look at where margins are, you're starting to see better signs of movement to try and restructure not necessarily your own business, but business across the industry so that we might actually move to a place where profits start to improve.

And as ever, I mean, if you could give us some indication of the extent to which the associates line within -- well, the profit within the Refining and Chemicals business, what proportion of profit actually comes from chemicals now given just how difficult the environment is?

Okay. I'm not a chemical company. We are refining and petrochemical company, and we make crack ethylene and polyethylene basics of...

Sorry Patrick, that's what I'm referring to.

No, no. But just to tell you, the truth is that you know the situation. The situation is that, in fact, in terms of cracking capacity, ethylene capacity, China in the last 5 years went from 50 million tons of cracker to 100 million tons of cracker. And so they have, in fact, almost self-sufficient. So if they were moving from a large importing country to almost self-sufficient, even exporting. So of course, that changed the world patterns.

By the way, Chinese companies also suffer from the situation, but other places suffer from the situation. For me, I've always been very clear with you. If you want to invest in petrochemicals, you have the fundamental matter or fundamental competitive factor is feedstock. Either you are an ethane, cheap LPGs in the U.S. or in the Middle East, or you will face difficulties. So that's the situation.

So we know that our naphtha crackers in Europe are facing competition, which is super difficult, either from the U.S. crackers or from Middle East. By the way, TotalEnergies, since I'm CEO, we have invested in 2 crackers, one in Port Arthur, with [indiscernible] one with Amiral in Saudi Arabia. So consistent with that's what we -- I think fundamentally.

And we are shutting down some crackers like the one we have just decided in Hamburg. So that's my view. To come back on the proportion, I don't know, it's not big. It's not good. I have no miracle recipe compared to my competitors on this one. But again, it's not a major part of our downstream results and cash flow. So most is coming from refining and trading rather than -- more than chemicals. But again, it's part of the integration. When the margins are good, we are happy to capture them. But again, the fundamentals, let's invest in the U.S. and in the Middle East. That's all.

The next question is from Peter Low, Rothschild & Co. Redburn.

The first was just on integrated power. The ROACE has been below 10% for a few quarters now. How confident are you of hitting your 12% target? And really, what are the steps to get it kind of up to that level over the coming years?

And then perhaps just a follow-up on the kind of proposed EU ban on Russian LNG imports from 2027. I think you said in the past, you'd expect, you'd be able to divert your Yamal cargoes to alternative markets outside of the EU. Is that still the base case? And what you expect to happen?

First question, I think Stephane Michele in New York gave you some answers to that. We never told you we will hit 12% tomorrow, we told you it's a 5-year plan going by the way, from 10% to 11% from 11% to 12%. Part of it, as I told you, is that today, we have a sort of burden on our capital employed because we have, I mean, acquired a large pipeline of projects, which are, of course, nonproductive, I would say, capital employed assets, which will be because we continue to grow.

We have a growth of 20% per year, and we will execute, which will, of course, as we don't intend to make large M&A on this part, not which will transform, I would say, nonproductive assets into productive assets. So part of it is that.

Then the second part, that's 1%, the other percent will come from, I would say, rationalization, better use of the assets, industrialization, and this is what we are doing. We also, I think, framed, in New York, a clear road map by concentrating most of the investments of Integrated Power on some major markets, the oil and gas countries, which are in E&P. And then the rest, we are clear, but where we don't see potential to contribute above 12%, there is no future for them in the portfolio.

I mean, so that's -- I would say, in a way, what we told you, it is a recipe to go to 12%. So honestly, today, we are a little lower than 10%, but we will recover from it. And don't forget that the contribution from farm-downs, they will come in fourth quarter. So all that will give you color. But I would say I'm there for -- we will raise the 10%, and it's a 5-year journey, but I'm happy with the development of this business.

The next target is to be for me net cash positive. As soon as we are net cash positive, I'm sure that the valuation of this part of the business will be better because when I will tell you, this business is contributing to your dividend, it's a way to have a better leverage on this business. And we plan 28. If we can do 27, we are working on that.

EU ban on Russian LNG, honestly, there have been a new regulation, which needs to have some clarification because there is some language there we need to understand what it means exactly. Like by the way, when EU banned oil in 2022, '23, it was the exact situation. There was a regulation and the LNG regulation is copy-paste of the old one. There was what they call FAQ where you need to have answers to clarify what is the real scope of ban. For sure, the ban is not going any more Russian LNG in Europe, but we want to be sure that the ban is not larger than that. So before to answer your question.

And otherwise, yes, in this case, we have a commitment. If there is no further, I would say, ban, I cannot choose a force majeure to cancel the contract. If I don't have force majeure, I am committed to offtake some cargoes. We are looking to that, precisely today, our lawyers are working, to be honest. We have -- which -- because, of course, for us, the rule is to be sanction-compliant to be clear. So our lawyers are working on it. It's a fresh regulation, so I don't have the full clarity.

And I don't want to make more answering longer because I could say something which could become wrong if the lawyers -- and again, if we have to be -- we are always at the Executive Committee on the cautiousness side, I would say, from this perspective. And so I'm waiting to see the report and to understand exactly the scope of the new EU regulatory.

The next question is from Paul Cheng of Scotiabank.

Two questions. I want to go back, Patrick, in your answer to the question of adoption of AI, you think that is fairly sizable investment. Can you quantify how big is the investment over the next couple of years and whether you have sufficient talent within your organization to really adopt or that you need to go out to hire?

And at this point, it seems like it's pretty difficult to get the good talent in the AI adoption area. And what is your target in that what you aim to get from AI over the next, say, call it, 5 years? The second question is Yes. The second question is on Iraq.

Move on with your second question, sorry.

Okay. Sorry, Patrick. Second question is Iraq. Can you tell us that how is the situation on the ground? I suppose that the security is good enough for you to deploy your people. So what's the bottleneck or the barrier for Iraq to significantly increase their production at this point?

You and some of your peers that are rushing in and signing contracts. And if you think that those contracts, the terms are good. Is there a concern that Iraq could turn into a major production growth area, which in turn is going to depress oil prices over the next several years. So just want to hear how you think about that.

First question, AI is the program I mentioned when I -- represent more or less EUR 300 million, so $350 million, I would say, worldwide. So it's quite an investment in these data platforms at the worldwide level, first comment. Second comment in terms of people, we have some assistance from the Emerson guys, AspenTech or from Cognite. But remember that we have 300 -- digital factory with 300 people. And of course, we are using part of these people to help to deploy the program. They are there, they are available. They know about it. We have built these competencies in the last 5 years, the second answer.

The third answer is that there is a nice country in order to get access to good, very high competencies with not so high cost, which is called India. So it's also a way for us to, in fact, grow in the digital. For us, we are looking today to -- we need to grow, I would say, our technical competencies and in terms of people to have more resources in the side of electricity of power and in the area of digital.

And today, we are seriously thinking to enhance or to grow our presence there, and we speak about -- we are discussing about competence center in India. It's part, by the way, of our way as well to contribute to the, I would say, cash saving program that we mentioned. So this is the area. So I know it's a point. But in fact, what I've observed is that we have been able to attract people in this field with a reasonable price. We are -- because we offer them some real, I would say, use case. We have very interesting use case. In the field of energy, you can use AI in many areas, so it's good.

Iraq on the ground, it's okay. Otherwise, I mean, we just signed the full contract -- EPC contracts. If we were in doubt, we will not have done it. honestly, in the Basra area, the situation is good. I don't -- I can speak only for the areas where we are. And we have deliberately located our teams in the south of the country, in the Basra area because it's a more, I would say, united area, unified area from, I would say, in terms of Iraq.

There are other areas that I would be more careful to be clear. But in our area, we are fine and no barrier. But the barrier partly is still security because you cannot -- what I say for Basra is maybe not true for the whole country, to be honest, and it's not true.

And second, in fact, you need investment. And investments, you know the issue for Iraq, and again, I'm happy to have been the big company which came back first. But we went there in '21. We finalized the contract in '23. We will FID all the phases in '25, and we'll produce in '28, '29. So the cycle is 8 years. So I think we are maybe a little slow. I'm not sure because I can tell you it's -- all that is, in fact, from my point of view as a CEO, quite a remarkable journey in a new country. So I'm very happy with all the work the teams have done.

I contributed myself by supporting them many times there. And I can -- but -- so when people think today that, yes, there is a potential in Iraq, it's clear, but it will not depress oil prices before many years. So it's good for the country. And again, the country -- and I know what will happen if there is more companies to come, the temptation will be to decrease the margins. And then again, it will not work. So that's the history. I hope the country has taken some lessons of what happened from 2010 to 2020.

If we don't have the right reward for the risk we take, there is no investment. So that's a question of capital allocation. So yes, and that's why, by the way, to answer to your question, to be clear, if we decided to move to come back in Iraq in 2021, but we see quite a long perspective. And in my plan, in my view, Iraq will be a growth area for TotalEnergies beyond 2030, and we will work on other projects. So that's what I'm thinking. So I don't see an impact on the short term or short medium term. Thus potentially...

The next question is from Henri Patricot, UBS.

Just 2 on the topic of exploration. I think you have a new Head of Exploration since the start of the month. And I was wondering if we should expect any changes in your approach, exploration? And also on that topic, can you give us an update on the latest plans for exploration in Namibia and South Africa in the next few months?

Okay. Exploration. I've been consistent since I'm CEO, I think there is one thing which did not change, which is the budget for exploration. It was $800 million to $1 billion. I put it as a sort of rule of the game when I became CEO because strongly, I think it was -- it's not because you spend more but you find more. At a certain point, you need to be efficient and oblige your exploration team to take searching.

I'm happy, by the way, that the way Kevin has led this team during the last 10 years. He became Exploration Team Manager and Vice President almost the same time. He has, I would say, developed some ideas. The thing is, it is a long cycle in exploration. So when he told us one year ago that he has tried to do something else, it was fine for us because we thought it was the right time to renew, in fact, having the proper approach because, again, exploration is different business. Again, it's not a matter of dollars, it's a matter of IDs of which to approach.

I'm very happy to have welcome in a company, Nicolas Mavilla, which is coming from a successful exploration company. He has, of course, had different -- himself has been educating in different environments of new ideas. He will have -- I told him that he's free to do and to let the team. It's not a one-man show exploration. It's a team building, quite a lot of people. You need to take the risk to explore, you need to build some consensus, but you can drive your people in different, I would say, directions in terms of concepts and being creative.

So I think it's very good. I hope and I'm convinced that Nicolas will be able to have the same success that we had with Kevin in the last 10 years. But it's not a matter of money. It's a matter of ideas and then to make choices.

And by the way, you noticed that in the last quarter, we have been active on taking some licenses back in Nigeria, which has been unexplored for more than 10 years. It's a pity. It's probably the most potential delta, it's probably the most prolific Delta in Africa. So no license were awarded. We are happy to have the first ones, 2 IOCs.

We went as well to a country like Liberia. It's a new one. Congo is more mature, but we managed to get a license on which our explorers were excited. I hope they were fine. We'll have a nice gift for Christmas, we'll see. And again, we'll continue to explore in other countries. And so exploration, I heard during the [indiscernible] that it seems that some companies are rediscovering exploration.

For Total, we never give up on exploration. I always consider it as part of the value creation. And again, listen to my colleague, not because you spend more, when you will find more. If you spend more, you actually take more risk. And if you take more risk, you have more disappointing wells. So it's a question of finding the right metrics.

And I think it's good for an IOC, a major like us when we can drill 20, 25 wells per year, that's good. That's enough to find some nice wells. Namibia, South Africa; Namibia, that we have some exploration to continue to do, and we look to priorities also to develop business. And South Africa, you follow, like me, the news. There is a legal context, which seems to be more complex than in other countries. Each time we want to drill, we need to go to court. It's a little difficult.

So we want -- but I think that the South African government has made some public statements that they want to find a way to go to ease the exploration. So we hope we will manage because, of course, for us, it's important. We cannot explore, we cannot spend money in a geography, if we have to face permanently courts and being -- and the permitting become really too complex. And because it's not only drilling 1 or 2 or 3 exploration wells, when it will be to develop. And we explore to develop. We don't explore just to find oil. So we need honestly, on the South Africa side, I hope the government will take the right decision as soon as possible.

The next question is from Jason Gabelman at TD Cowen.

I wanted to ask firstly on CapEx trajectory. And it looks like organic CapEx has been a bit volatile the past few quarters. I'm wondering what's driving that quarter-to-quarter volatility. We've seen some other peers that have more stable CapEx that kind of peaks in 4Q. So wondering, moving forward, is this level that you're at now a better go-forward pace to consider? Or should we expect more volatility quarter-to-quarter?

And then my second one is just on the ramp-up in production next year. You've previously guided to a reduction in reinvestment rates in 2027, which I suppose, implies higher cash flow ramping at some point next year along with new production coming online. So how should we think about that production and cash flow ramp next year and into '27? Is it back half weighted? Is it 4Q weighted? Just looking for kind of the arc of that growth.

Jason, you are very quarterly driven there in your questions. But my commitment to you is the commitment of the company is the annual budget of CapEx. And by the way, it's an annual budget of net CapEx. It's organic CapEx plus acquisition minus sales, minus divestments.

I think we have a long strong track record of being complying -- compliant with our budget -- annual budget of CapEx. I think since I've been CEO, I think, 10 years in a row, you don't see that we have not respected the CapEx budget, the annual CapEx budget. And again, what we told you today, and what we said at the beginning of the year, it will be $17 billion, $17.5 billion. And I can tell you, we'll land in $17 billion, $17.5 billion. As we told you that the net acquisition is expected to be at $1.5 billion. You can calculate yourself the organic CapEx for the fourth quarter. I don't follow honestly the stability of the organic CapEx 2 quarters.

It depends on some projects when you put into production as we have done this year, all Mero in Brazil, Tura in Denmark, Ballymore in the U.S. Ballymore -- yes, Ballymore. That this means that this quarter, there was a lot of CapEx and then it's decreasing because you have put into production and some of our CapEx, some of our projects are ramping up.

So it just -- so I'm not at all -- I have no KPIs to have a stable quarterly organic CapEx, to be honest. At the end of the day, my KPI is to be sure that we are within the annual budget. And if we can be a little lower, I'm happy. But it's -- but not so much I'm not happy because sometimes it means that some projects are late. So I prefer to really be in our budget.

So first point. So sorry to disappoint, but it's not a major issue. I'm not in a -- I mean, to be clear, we are not in a company which makes short-cycle CapEx permanently, where you make -- you can maybe make more -- less volatility. The second one, I think the same answer to Lydia, if I remember the first -- beginning of the first question I have. You have to wait for 2026. Let's keep -- you have to be a little patient until February. We'll give you more color.

It's clear that, again, we gave you a point, I think, in the chart of 2027 when we speak about reinvestment rate. So we told you that in '27, yes, I remember, the reinvestment rate will go down from 70% to something like 50%. It was a chart which was in the New York package and slide deck, sorry. And that's the reality.

So that's -- and it's coming from whom? It's coming from, on one side, higher cash flows because we are delivering along the 3 years. So let's be clear, the figure of '27 means by end of '27. So it's a 3-year decrease. It's not beginning, I don't know which quarter. And it's an annual one. So it's at the end, to be clear. It doesn't mean that all the growth is backloaded. It just means that it's an average of the year '27.

And it's coming as well from the discipline of the CapEx because we have your guidance is $16 billion. So it's both, will contribute to this reinvestment rate, which is lower by 20%. So if you have 20% -- if you are lowering reinvestment rate, it's good and it's consistent with the free cash flow per share increase that we have announced. So that's a way to explain why we will be able to increase the free cash flow per share because we have more cash and less CapEx. And that's what we want to -- where we want to embark all our investors who trust TotalEnergies. I think it was the last question. Yes?

There are no more questions registered at this time.

Okay. So thank you to all of you for your attendance. I hope that all the analysis you've done will be reflected in the stock price. It was not the case this morning. But again, we are delivering. This is the message. We are delivering. We have a consistent strategy. We are just executing in. We deliver.

And frankly, Board of Directors and myself as CEO, we are quite pleased with the results of this quarter because that demonstrates and again, that all what we explained you quarter and year after year is on the delivery mode and that free cash flow will increase. Thank you for your attendance.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.

Good morning, good afternoon, if you are connecting from Europe. Welcome to TotalEnergies' Strategy & Outlook Presentation 2025. We are live from Manhattan in New York City. You can also follow us live from our website, totalenergies.com. The program today will start with the strategy and outlook presentation with Patrick and the executive members -- the Executive Committee members for a bit more than 1 hour. And we will then move to a Q&A session where, of course, you will be able to ask all the questions you want. As usual, we have a dedicated line for the people who could not attend the event. We should be moving to the lunch around 11:30, 11:45. The lunch is just next door. Your table number should be on your badge. Remember that this afternoon, starting at 2:00 p.m., we have now our traditional roundtable sessions. You should have all your program with you, in case, just ask.

I think we are now ready to start. And as you know, safety is a core value at TotalEnergies, and we are always starting our meeting with a safety moment. So I invite now Namita Shah, President, OneTech, to join me on stage for a sequence on safety.

Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. I'd like to use the safety moment this morning to talk to you about how we can use technology and technological innovation to reduce the exposure of our people in high-risk situations. As many of you know, a lot of our work involves entering into confined spaces like storage tanks or the hubs of our FPSOs to do regular investigations on asset integrity and in particular, with respect to corrosion.

Technological advances have happened over the past 3 years that we have combined to try to expose the risk that our people have while entering into these confined spaces. As you know, drone technology has advanced significantly, and drones are now smaller, lighter and more easily maneuverable in confined spaces. Camera technology has greatly evolved to be able to take high-resolution images in places where there is probably not enough light. And artificial intelligence has evolved to be able to interpret images that we take in -- via our drones in these confined spaces.

Let's show you a video to show you exactly what I mean by what we've done.

[Presentation]

So as you may have understood while it might not completely eliminate the need for our people to go into confined spaces, it greatly reduces the number of times they need to go in by using remote technology to do the first scans and then to identify the very precise locations where people then need to go in to conduct further investigation on corrosion.

Just to continue on safety. You can see that on this slide, the safety journey at TotalEnergies has been one of continuous improvement, whether or not we want to follow it by the total recordable injury rate or the number of events of primary losses of containment, the improvement that we have made versus 2015, over the past 10 years, has been significant, and we continue to work to reduce both of these incidents. And we can definitely say that we are among the best-in-class with respect to our peers.

As you know, our objective remains zero fatality. Unfortunately, we have had one fatality in 2025, where we lost someone in Angola as a result of some drilling casings that were not properly secured on one of our supply vessels. Two people were injured and one of them succumbed to their injuries. He was 51 years old. He was married, and he was father to a young son. Our objective will continue to protect our people and diminish their exposure to high-risk environments, and technology is definitely one of the ways in which we want to push forward to be able to achieve our zero fatality objective.

Thank you very much. And I now hand over to Patrick.

Good morning, everybody, everybody in New York or wherever you are. So I'm happy again to welcome you with the Executive Committee of TotalEnergies. You have four colleagues on the scene, which will contribute to the presentation this morning, Bernard Pinatel for the Downstream, Nicolas for the Upstream, and Stephane for the LNG and Integrated Power.

In the room are present not only Jean-Pierre, our CFO and Namita, but also Aurelien Hamelle, our Strategy and Sustainability President; as well as Vincent Stoquart, our Refining & Chemicals President, who will participate -- all of them, to the roundtables. I don't participate to the roundtable. So I know they will work this afternoon while we have all the fun. And the only person which is not here today because she just joined the Executive Committee, we'll have the opportunity to meet her, is Catherine Remy, who is now in charge of people and social engagement, so -- and also of global services in the company. You will have opportunity to meet her next time if you join us.

So we are happy to be with you for this traditional strategy outlook of TotalEnergies. Before to engage and to enter into the presentation itself, some few introductory words. We probably surprised you last week because the Board has -- we have made a press release with the decision of the Board regarding the shareholder returns. We've done it voluntarily in advance compared to this presentation because this presentation is about the strategy. It's about the assets, the operations, and we were thinking that -- we didn't want that presentation to be only about buybacks and other elements, which are, of course, very important for you.

We don't minimize shareholder returns, obviously. But we thought it was time to, I mean, answer to what we observed. In fact, in end of July, we made the decision at the Board level to maintain our buybacks at $2 billion per quarter. For the third quarter, the market -- clearly, the share did not react very well. So we have to listen to what the market thinks. The net debt increase was denting, I would say, the shares. So we decided to listen and to adapt ourselves, to adapt as well by providing you the scheme, and I will come back on it. [ We are ] somewhere -- buybacks are linked to the price environment, not only the oil, but also the, I say, refining margin, but also petrochemicals and also the dollar-euro exchange rate, which has an impact on us because the dividend is expressed in euro. So obviously, it's -- when you have $1.2 per euro instead of $1.1, it's an additional -- almost $800 million for us of -- to allocate to the dividend in dollar, for the benefit, by the way, of our U.S. shareholders, which are looking today to a higher increase of the dividend than our European ones. But that, I will come back, of course, on this, and I'm sure we'll have questions about the return to shareholder scheme. Board also insisted, of course, that priority is given strongly to the dividend. You know our long history. We'll come back on it.

But today, I want to insist, in fact, more and of course, through this presentation, so the way we execute our strategy is, the two words I want to use, is consistency. We will not be surprised. It's not a revolution. There are some few evolutions, but we are considering that our differentiated strategy is -- and growth strategy will deliver results. It's beginning to deliver results from '25 with an increase of production of more than 3%. And we have a trajectory, on which we will come back, which is even comforted compared to last year, as almost 95% of the production expected by 2030 is already sanctioned and under construction. So we'll come back on it.

And the other word I will use is efficiency because we are, of course, progressing in the way we execute our strategy. And so we can do the same growth and -- but with, I would say, less CapEx and OpEx. So we have implemented -- we are implementing a cash saving program of $7.5 billion. So same with less, that's the idea. We control, as you know. And why do we do that? We do that because we have some uncertainties about the environment in which we are working. Price of oil is $10 lower than last year. It's still $70, still good one, but there are some few uncertainties, including on the macro environment, et cetera, which we think is good to anticipate and to take actions. So in the company, since I'm CEO, I always say we are -- we must be strong on what we control. It's what we control in this business, in particular, is the -- of course, the use of our assets in order to deliver production and refine productions, but also what we spend. And so that's why we will introduce that. So the news is that we can do with -- around $16 billion guidance of CapEx. So that's the part. So consistency and efficiency.

The other objective this morning, I know that you love 2030, but you have -- sometimes you prefer to know what will happen tomorrow morning. So we'll give you some more -- I received some message, which, of course, we take into account. So for this presentation, we intend to give you some middle points, '27, '28 -- '27, so that you have a shorter-term perspective on the way we intend to deliver. And it's not -- everything is not back loaded. You will see that most of the free cash we intend to deliver will be -- half of the free cash, in fact, we intend to deliver, so $10 billion additional free cash by 2030. Half of it will be delivered in the first half of this '24, '27 journey. So that's the other important message I think we will go through.

So again, no revolution, but some evolutions in terms of how we could deploy the model in a more efficient way. The other message, by the way, is that, yes, we are consistent with our differentiated strategy, including the diversification in electricity because we progress as well on this one. And you will see that we can do -- reach our objective of growth more than 100 terawatt hour, with also less CapEx. And Stephane will come back on the way we are, I would say, focusing our strategy on some key major, I would say, markets in Europe, U.S., Brazil and streamlining what we do in renewables outside, I would say, of these key markets. So that's the global message today. And our objective, of course, is to maximize the free cash flow despite this more uncertain environment.

So the environment first, just to come back on the fundamentals, which drive the strategy. On the oil markets, we continue to believe that there are strong fundamentals supporting bullish prices, I would say, even if in the shorter term, we see some uncertainties. The shorter term, you know it as well as me, we have quite an abundant supply because in '25 and beginning '26, we have some non-OPEC supply growth coming from the U.S., from Brazil, from Guyana and others. And we have also in this market, the OPEC+ countries, which are willing to maintain a certain level of market share, which are unwinding their voluntary cuts step after step, surely but slowly -- slowly but surely in that direction. So of course, quite a strong supply.

The demand on the same time, because of the, I would say, economic uncertainty, the trade tariff, in particular, in Asia is, I would say, more softened. It's quite soft. So -- but in the demand side, you have also an element of -- which has to be taken into account, it's the stockpiling from China and potentially the U.S., SPR replenishment, which takes place. And we also know when the price is going down, U.S. shale oil production is quite reactive.

So that's the short term, and we can see on the chart that we have some -- six quarters in a row of, I would say, inventory builds, even if global inventories still are at, I would say, 60 days, which is not so high. But the fundamentals on the oil market for us are positive because, in fact, this non-OPEC supply growth, we don't see it beyond, I would say, '27. We see -- most of it will be done. And in particular, if the price is softening, we know that the U.S. shale producers, the decline is higher. So if there is -- generally, when the price is lower, the CapEx is also lower. So it does not contribute to fight the natural decline. The IEA just discovered again that there is a natural decline of 5% to 6% per year. So it's good. That's the fundamental of the supply market, oil markets. But I agree, even they increase it. So I mean, I was using 4% to 5%. It's 5% to 6%, so that means that the challenge is even more.

And the other trend, which is supportive of these oil markets, of course, is that what we observe everywhere in the world is that -- from the demand side is that there is a slower shift to low-carbon alternative because customers are prioritizing affordability. This is very clear everywhere. Despite the governmental policies in Europe, in the U.S., we observed that trend. So we are, I would say, quite bullish on the oil market on the medium term, even if on the short term, we have to -- we could face some uncertainties. Having said that, price is still quite stable, in fact, at between $65, $70 per barrel, even $70, I think, today.

On the gas markets, we observed two phenomenon on this slide that I want to comment. The first one on left is, I would say, back to normal, sort of normalized volatility. It's quite clear that '21, you can see there on a yearly basis, the evolution of the European gas price, the TTF along 1 year. And you can see the range of -- I would say, the evolution of TTF in '21, '22, '23. '22 was exceptional, but '21 was strong, and '23 still was strong. And in fact, what we observed in '25 is more back to normal, which, of course, explains that we don't have these exceptional market conditions with high volatility out of which a trading business was, in fact, quite, I would say, easier to make very high margins and very high results. So we have -- back to normal that we have to take into account. Even if in the absolute price in Europe, in particular, we'll have, I think, an average price in '25, $12 per million BTU. The forward is still $11 -- around $11, $12 for next 2 years because, in fact, so we still see, I would say, quite a tight supply.

We will see the beginning of new LNG capacities coming in the market in '26, but some projects are delays in that business. So we are quite confident to have, I would say, to benefit from -- for '26 and even '27, some absolute good price even if the volatility is lower. In particular, in Europe, you observed the political debate about banning Russian LNG from '27, more from '28, which, of course, will add somewhere some tension in that market.

So having said that, beyond all of these projects -- of LNG projects, to which we participate, by the way, in some of them, in Qatar, in the U.S., will come on stream. So from '28, there is no doubt that we'll face a wave of supply of LNG. We experienced it -- and this is a chart on the right. We experienced it, I would say, almost every 10 years in this business and where we are quite high. It's very cyclical business when the price is high, people are planning to new plants. As soon as the price is softening, we stop taking FID of new plants. So we'll have to absorb this wave. It took generally 2, 3 years to absorb it. It's generally, of course -- lower prices are fostering demand, in particular, in Asia. And the gas-to-power -- I would say the coal-to-gas switch for industry in Asia is encouraged by the lower price, and the elasticity to the price is quite high.

So we are optimistic that we'll be able to absorb the industry. We'll be able to -- market will be able to absorb this wave of supplies. We plan 6%, 7% of demand increase per year. You can observe that it was, in fact, higher than that when the price is lower in the previous two waves. So that's the situation, but we have to take into account in the planning. So bullish, I would say, on the oil, a little more cautious on the gas. But again, with no doubt that these lower prices will foster demand and will absorb these new LNG capacities, and the cycle will come back again.

On the power side, I will not comment long because Stephane will comment that slide. Just to tell you that, in fact, it's continued to grow, more than 3%. It was about 3.4% last year. We announced 3.7% for 2025 according to statistics. It's driven by a lot of things, including digitalization of the world, not only decarbonization. And we need to have, in fact, more capacities, including a lot of flexible generation, but Stephane will come back on it. So these fundamentals are there, are strong, and they are supportive of the -- I would say, of the strategy that we have in electricity.

So I told you we are facing, potentially, some uncertainties in the short-term, macro uncertainty. We need to keep agility. So we decided to put in place a plan to take actions in different point of view in order to deliver the free cash flow growth that we have announced and to maintain the strong shareholder returns, but also in the same time, keeping agility, keeping a healthy balance sheet.

So at the center of this slide, we -- of course, we want to deliver, and we have the portfolio of core accretive projects. So we want to deliver the growth. So there is no way for us to, I would say, renounce that growth. These projects are good and all are very resilient. As you know, we sanction a project in upstream if we have CapEx + OpEx lower than $20 per barrel. So they are low breakeven. And we are already -- it's not only a growth for 2030, we are beginning to deliver that growth, I will come back on it, in '25, and to confirm, in '26. So the 4% per year energy production growth, oil, gas, electricity throughout 2030 is confirmed.

We will do it by being more efficient from, I would say, cash spend. So we have a capacity after -- in the portfolio, and we'll come back on that to streamline the CapEx. So the guidance was $16 billion to $18 billion. It will go down to $15 billion, $17 billion, even $16 billion in '26, just to show you that we not just -- it's not [ truest ] word, but we are executing the plan. And we have also, on the OpEx, over the next 5 years, I would say, $500 million per year of OpEx savings in the different businesses, I would say, upstream, refining and chemicals, marketing and services. The only one which is not -- which is still growing is, I would say, electricity business where we are more growing than -- but even if we are serious about OpEx.

So -- and then the last pillar of this action plan is to adapt or to adjust, I would say, the shareholder returns, in particular on the buyback price. Again, the Board considered that the dividend is sacrosanct. I was surprised by -- we were surprised by some comments in July that maybe the dividend could be at stake. In fact, we've never been at stake during 40 years, even during the COVID. This dividend is really -- completely secured. And it will be fueled by, of course, buyback, but also by cash flow growth as we've done it in the last 3 years.

We also want things to be that what means a healthy balance sheet, maintaining the gearing lower than 20%. We plan that to have it more around 15%. But in order to give a guidance, which we didn't have until now, this is what we'll -- I would say, the guidance given to you. And adapting the buybacks. And in $70 per barrel, which is our environment today, it's a reality. In fact, at the end of the day, this year, we'll make cash flow from operation more of $27 billion, than $29 billion as planned. And the difference is coming from one side on the fact that we are expecting a higher volatility on the gas price environment, which is not the case. So there is -- there will be a difference in terms of cash results from the -- but Stephane will come back on that on the gas business.

And we have also downstream margins, which are under pressure, I would say, on petrochemicals. Refining margins are better in the second half of the year, at least the third quarter, but the first year -- first half was quite, in fact, quite, I would say, very low. We are, in this downstream market, facing some overcapacity somewhere, globally in the world. And that's even if you could have some support, for example, for the diesel today because linked to the Russian disruptions, I think it's a normal -- it's an environment we need to take into account.

So that's the action plan. So coming back to the fundamentals of the -- I would say, the next 5-year business plan. First, growing energy production. This slide is almost the same than last year because we are still there. We are -- the oil and gas, we are big in oil and gas, I would say, growing this production by 3% per year. It will be the case in '25. It will be again the case next year with this, obviously, very good portfolio of accretive projects, and Nicolas will come back on that.

On Integrated Power, the business model is confirmed, and we will deliver as well more than 100 terawatt hour, which is more or less 20% of the energy production by the end of the decade. So a global growth of 4% per year of energy production. We'll do it with, I would say, less CapEx. So this is, I think, the important update of this presentation. We are revising the guidance CapEx, reducing by $1 billion, so $15 billion to $17 billion, but $16 billion as an average and $16 billion in 2026. It's not done. This CapEx, it's a net CapEx. So -- but the M&A part is almost neutral, in fact, on the period '26, 2030. In '26, there is $1 billion more divestment than acquisition. And we'll come back on it. So that's important.

We have the flexibility in case of very low prices to go down to $14 billion if we need to do it, like we've done during the COVID period, by the way. So there is -- but again, the important point there is that we can deliver the growth with an average of $16 billion. You can observe that on the low carbon businesses, we are allocating $4 billion per year, mainly to Integrated Power, $3 billion to $4 billion, $3.5 billion as an average, and we'll come back on it. So the revision of the guidance, I would say it's half on the low carbon business, half on the oil and gas business.

So this, Nicolas will come back, so I will not insist on this one, even if I'm insisting on one major point, which is 95% of the 2030 production started-up or is under development, under construction. So it's not just figures. You can see that the pre-FID ones is quite light on the top of it. When we say it's accretive projects, you can see that this project will deliver at $60 per barrel, $25 per barrel compared of our base portfolio of $15 per barrel of cash flow from operations. So it's not only [ scaled ] figures, which explains why we have an increase of a quicker increase, by the way, of the cash flow from operation and the free cash flow at the end as we maintain the CapEx through the period.

It's cost efficient [ against the rules ] of less than $20 per barrel for each project and OpEx -- upstream OpEx will be maintained under $5 per barrel. And it's diversified in terms of geographic thematics. So when we look to the world where, I would say, there are a lot of -- more tensions, geopolitical tension, I think our answer, which is to have a diversified geography, is from this perspective, offering some way to manage these geopolitical uncertainties in our portfolio.

The LNG is also growing quickly. We are strong. We have -- our sales were around 40 million tonnes in 2024, 30 million tonnes coming from our equity or supply portfolio, 10 million tonnes from the spot business. The base of 30 million tonnes will grow to 45 million tonnes in the period -- over the period. You have the list of the projects and some of them will be put on stream, and you can see the beginning of the increase by 2028. ECA, the Qatar NFE, Rio Grande Train 1 to 4, NFS in Qatar, Marsa LNG. And then on the second part of the period, we'll have Ruwais LNG in Abu Dhabi, Mozambique LNG and Rio Grande Train 4 that we just sanctioned.

A word about Mozambique LNG. So we are moving on the -- everything is ready. In fact, we are remobilizing on the ground, but we have the last -- the last piece of the -- I would say, of the decision to officially lift the force majeure is that there are discussions to -- government of Mozambique will approve the updated development plan because we need to have to update it with a new target in terms of starting operations. It will be 2029, but we plan to start up the operations. And of course, updating the budget with the impact of the force majeure. So that is currently being assessed, and we'll move, I think, very quickly on that.

On the security side, we have been -- we had very -- we have been, I would say, reassured by the strong commitment of the government of Mozambique, including, with the government of Rwanda. There was an important agreement signed by both countries in end of August, which is securing -- considering what we were -- considering underground. And we know that on our side, we have moved to what we call the containment mode, which is, in fact, the peninsula of Afungi, where's we will execute the project, which is a very large peninsula. It's completely under control and all the contractors working and all employees working for our projects will be in this peninsula, working, living, transporting, and we'll be able to have a secure construction phase. We assess that, of course, with our colleagues of ExxonMobil as well, and we are aligned in close cooperation on the fact that we can restart the operation quickly. So that's for this one.

Having said that, on this portfolio, not only we have, I would say, an increase of our production and development with very competitive U.S. supply, in particular, Rio Grande Train 1 to 4, we have also -- and Stephane will come back on it, worked hard, and we installed that last year in order to -- as we are more bullish on the oil and potentially on the LNG spot price, linking -- transforming our Henry Hub supply into oil-linked sales. We -- I think we signed for almost 8 million tonnes of contracts. So it's quite a big effort. So we are fine.

And we are also, as you have observed, and we make a new announcement this morning, continuing to, I would say, reduce the exposure to the Henry Hub by integrating upstream gas value chain as well in order to -- in case of hike in Henry Hub because a lot of LNG exports will be protected from this risk. So -- and that's an important piece of our future free cash flow.

Integrated Power, I will -- the message there is that we can do the growth by again, streamlining CapEx. We plan $3 billion to $4 billion. In fact, and Stephane will come back, we consider that now we progressed, and we can see what are the markets where we can deliver not only the growth but also the profitability. The objective is to reach 12% return on capital employed. And these are markets where we can really integrate the value chain like the U.S., ERCOT, PJM markets, like Europe, Germany, U.K. and [indiscernible] France, potentially other countries. Stephane will come back on it.

And so that's the best way to -- and on the other ones, having observed many markets, we know what we want to do on some markets, and we intend, in fact, to streamline some renewables countries and then divesting them in non-core markets. The key point there is, there is a logic in all that, is a gas-to-power. We need more gas-to-power. That's the logic of the integration within the company. We need more flexible energy to cope with the intermittency of renewables, and we need also to accelerate [ BESS ] development. So Stephane will come back on this presentation. We confirm that we'll be net cash positive by 2028, and -- but then this business will contribute to the dividend.

So that's, I would say, the most important slide from investors' point of view. Growth is good in terms of volumes, but at the end, it's value which is important in terms of free cash. So on the left side, you have what we said, the reinvestment rate, which is how much CapEx do we plan to present as a percentage of our cash flow from operations. So you can see that, yes, today, we are in '24, we are reinvesting almost 70%. If we go down to 50% and then 45%, which means that we have more room to, in fact, return to shareholders. And in terms of absolute figures, there you have an intermediate point, 2027.

The growth of the free cash between '24 and 2030 at a normalized price, which is $70 Brent, $8 per million BTU. For the gas is around $10 billion. And by '27 and midpoint, we will deliver almost half of it, let's say, $4 billion to $5 billion. This free cash is coming from one side, of course, from the CFFO growth itself, but also for the fact that we have streamlined the CapEx for $1 billion. So that's, I would say, the figure you keep in mind. So I will come back on it, but there is more room to return to shareholders in the coming years.

The life does not stop in 2030 because there is -- in a company like an oil and gas company, we know that we have to prepare the future and to anticipate. I'm very proud that this company has been able to maintain this reserve life index of -- above 12 years of proven reserves. I think there are only two companies among the majors. We managed to do it. I'm proud to be at the same level -- the large -- #1 in the industry. It's fundamental. We continue to develop valuable optionality in our portfolio. We have Namibia to which we progress on the first development with Namibian authorities. We have also, in our portfolio, some -- if we are so keen on Mozambique, it's because we know that there will be additional phases beyond this Phase 1, and we will work to make it in an optimal way. We have the Papua LNG options.

We are looking to some Canada Pacific opportunities. We have also established a base in Malaysia. And you'll notice that after the first acquisition, and I think Nicolas will come back on it, we have been very active to grow this portfolio, both on exploration and on [ DROs ] in order to grow this new hub. Exploration, by the way, I just mentioned exploration. We continue to maintain these exploration efforts. $1 billion in exploration appraisal since 2015, we're almost stable. I think it's important. Our teams have been quite good, like discoveries with Suriname, in Namibia. So they paid, I would say, these efforts.

We have been quite active to renew our portfolio of licenses either in Nigeria, some new license, the first licenses acquired for 10 years in the Niger Delta. Here, U.S. onshore, offshore, where we want to invest together with Chevron and Congo, Suriname as well and more frontier prospects in Algeria, Indonesia, Liberia. So that's also preparing the future.

On the Integrated Power, the pipeline does not -- we have a large pipeline, but life does not end by 2030. We consider that we'll continue to deploy the strategy and from 100 to 120 terawatt hour by 2030, probably to go to around 150 terawatt hour by 2035, with the capacity and the progress of a better understanding of these markets and to continue to deploy the, I would say, capital for the benefit of shareholders.

2030, what is important for all the execution of all this strategy, it will be my next -- last message is, of course, our people. Because our people are at the end, I would say, of the -- human -- the success of this strategy -- of the execution. I prefer people [ than ] human resource. Personally, it's our people. We are recruiting, continuing to recruit and very -- the company is attractive, I would say, we have more than 150 applications for each position open. We are recruiting all over the planet, more than 40% women, by the way, on our recruitment, including in electricity, where we are considered as a very serious players, and we attract a lot of talent, but also in oil and gas.

So the business model of the company remains attractive. And even we have engaged employees. We have the last survey we've done, '24, '25, at the worldwide level. We are very proud, and you can compare to the benchmark of the oil and gas benchmarks given to us by the people who are making these type of surveys. They are trusting -- they have a good confidence in the strategy. They are engaged. So that's very good. That's, I think, [ really ] at the heart of the success.

And not only they are engaged and happy, I would say, but they are committed shareholders. They are spending -- I would say, they receive more like $600 million of dividend per year, global, all our shareholders -- of our employees, shareholders. And they reinvest more than $500 million of it in the company every year. So in the last 10 years, we moved from 5% of employee shareholding to almost 9%, 8.9% and with annual capital increase. So I think it's a good demonstration of their trust and it's, I think, the best way to align interest of shareholders and employees this -- I would say, employee shareholding that we promote actively.

So I will not be longer. I will give the floor to Nicolas now, which will speak about oil and gas.

Thank you, Patrick. Good morning to you all. So let me now focus on our upstream business. And as Patrick just shared with you, we can confirm our target to grow our production by 3% per year to 2030 in a cash-accretive manner and thanks to our pipeline of projects that is particularly reached.

The growth is already visible today. We've entered this growth trajectory. So we'll grow by more than 3% of production this year in 2025, thanks to the ramp-up of the projects that we started last year, Mero 3 in Brazil, Anchor, but also thanks to new start-ups that we've seen this year. In Brazil, with Mero 4 and again, in offshore U.S. with Ballymore. And the growth this year is also supported by the acquisition in Malaysia that Patrick mentioned and that I will comment a bit further, and by our position -- the position we took in U.S. shale in partnership with Lewis and EOG.

Next year, it will continue. Next year, we expect again to grow our production by more than 3% with basically 3 key start-ups. The first one is the first phase of our integrated gas growth project in Iraq, the first phase of the Ratawi, in fact, oilfield development, expected to start in the first quarter of next year. The second key project for next year is NFE in Qatar, which shall start up mid-2026 for the first train. And the third one, which is rather towards the end of the year is our major development in Uganda, and I will come back to that.

And then you see for the remaining part of the decade, the growth will continue with more to come, both in oil and LNG. In oil, with production from the projects we sanctioned over the past couple of years, Suriname, GranMorgu, Kaminho in Angola, Sepia 2, Atapu 2 in Brazil and the second phase also of our Ratawi development project in Iraq that was launched just a few days ago. Same in LNG with further trains in Qatar, NFE and NFS, Mozambique LNG and Ubeta. And we also have some -- a few promising pre-FID projects that can support our upstream production, which are indicated on that slide, Ima in Nigeria to supply gas to NLNG and Cronos in Cyprus.

So more importantly and moving to the right part of the slide, we are growing for value. We are growing in a cash-accretive manner. And when we look in 2028, we committed that the growth of our upstream production would generate a growth of -- cash flow from operation by more than 8% based on the same price deck as 2024. So outpacing the production growth, and we are well on track to deliver that and to generate a higher cash margin per barrel in 2025 compared to last year.

Now by 2030, the cash flow from operation of upstream is expected to increase by $5 billion compared to 2024 based on the same price deck and even using a lower gas price assumption at $8 per million BTU, more conservative than what we had last year or this year, in line with our macroeconomic expectations that Patrick outlined just before. And importantly, this cash flow growth, you will not wait until 2030. By 2028, we expect to generate $3 billion of additional cash flow compared to '24, again, at $70 per barrel.

So going into a bit more detail on our projects. You can see here the list of our 18 key upstream projects. And you saw the same list last year. We have added 2 projects in that list, Ratawi Phase 2 in Iraq, launched a couple of weeks ago and Ubeta in Nigeria, which is an integrated project to supply -- gas project to supply NLNG. So in upstream, today, our focus #1 is to deliver those projects to support our production growth and cash flow growth, the one I just showed to you before. We operate about half of these projects. The other half is operated by third parties, but all of them by robust operators.

A year ago, when we were here, only 2 of those projects have started. Today, 3 additional of those projects have started, Ballymore, Mero 4 and Fenix. And next year, we expect, as you see on the table, and as I mentioned just before, 3 major start-ups. Ratawi Phase 1. So Ratawi Phase 1 will increase our oil production from Ratawi field from 60,000 barrels per day to 120,000 barrels per day. The project is well on track, and we expect to start in Q1 2026. And I have to say that the successful execution of this project, which was launched, in fact, 2.5 years ago. So it's a project that will be delivered in less than 3 years, is a good demonstration of the ability of the company to deliver projects that bring even in remote location such as Iraq.

The second one in the table is our project in Uganda, a major development, 230,000 barrels per day of production. Progress today, you can see that 60% for the upstream part at 70% for EACOP pipeline. I was looking just before that meeting, we've welded 950 kilometers of EACOP pipeline, and we are doing about 5 kilometers per day. So given the size of the project, today, the plan is that we're going to start Train 1 next year and Train 2 in 2027 and Train 1, second half of next year. And then we need a bit of time, about 2 months, to fill the pipeline on the terminal before first export. So we expect production and cash from that project in the last quarter of next year.

On the third one, which is key for next year is NFE, in Qatar, well on track to deliver first LNG mid-2026 for the first train, which will be the first of 4 trains that will all be producing before mid-2028.

So as I mentioned, we are doing that not for production, but for value. I'm moving to the graph on the right, which shows the upstream cash flow from operation in $1 billion. And you can see in the bars the dollar per barrel for our oil assets and gas assets. And what you can see is that we're adding volumes with margins in dollar per barrel, which are significantly higher than our existing portfolio.

In oil, our current portfolio generates cash flow from operation of $22 per barrel at $70 per barrel price deck. And the new projects deliver above $40 per barrel, so almost double the existing portfolio. In gas, our current portfolio is at $12 per BOE, CFFO. On our new projects, those in the list here will generate above $15 per BOE. So definitely, we have a strong portfolio, but also clearly accretive portfolio with higher margins. And this portfolio, in fact, now if you -- again, if you look at this chart, will represent about 1 million barrel equivalent per day of production in 2030 and not far from half of the cash flow from operation of upstream.

So this portfolio, moving beyond the projects, is sustainable, resilient, diversified, as Patrick mentioned, sustainable because we managed to maintain and even increase our reserve life, and this was commented by Patrick. I would just add that last year, our reserve renewal ratio was above 150%. So this helped us to -- it's behind the uptick in reserve life that you see in '24. And we managed to do that because we kept our focus on oil and gas. We continued exploring, discovering, developing and also capturing attractive opportunities through M&A.

Second, on it's -- I can tell you, it's another area of strong mobilization of the upstream teams in the company. We are keeping a strong drive on our production cost to keep them at the lowest level amongst our peers. Last year, we delivered on our target, which was to keep our OpEx below $5 per BOE, and we expect to stay at the same level this year. We are working every day to offset inflation basically.

And as I explained to you last year, we are working on lean operations and particularly on leveraging AI and digital to unlock efficiency gain, and you've probably seen our recent partnerships with Cognite, to deploy an industrial data platform across all our sites, all our operated assets and with Emerson also for advanced process control, which are all designed to foster efficiency gain and to further improve our industrial performance and decrease our cost. And we're also working, of course, on our supply chain and to adapt the structure of our affiliates and particularly our mature affiliates, adapt the structure to the evolution of the activities.

Diversification, we -- you see here basically the split -- the geographic split of production of various companies in 2024. This diverse portfolio protects us against uncertainties, as Patrick mentioned, related to geopolitics, but also to supply chain or fiscal regime. And as an illustration, the five largest producing countries for our company represent only 50% of our overall production, which is actually the best position among the group.

So let me now share with you two focus -- on two areas where the company is stronger and two areas that will be important in delivering this cash flow growth to 2030. So the first one is Middle East and North Africa. It's one of the regions where we believe we stand out compared to our peers, with not only a strong historical presence, but also very large developments ongoing currently. On this region, Middle East, basically, it's a great combination of low-cost, very long-lasting oil assets such as our assets in the UAE and Abu Dhabi and in Libya, very well positioned on the merit curve, very resilient, ensuring the longevity of operations.

Second, LNG projects with a long plateau, low cost, which are well positioned on the merit curve, with operation of over 25 years, among the most competitive LNG suppliers globally. And third and a bit particular, our contract and our project in Iraq, which is based on an innovative contractual scheme for the region, and which is enabling us to capture price upside.

So in the Middle East, our target is to increase our cash flow from operation by $2.5 billion between '24 and 2030 based on the price of 2024. And this will be coming a lot, in fact, from the LNG developments in Qatar and our gas growth integrated project in Iraq. So this demonstrates that MENA is -- so I'm talking here about free cash flow, that MENA is not only a place with a low-cost, long plateau production, but also a place where we'll be able to generate significant free cash flow.

The second focus I wanted to share with you is deepwater, a strong area of the company. And for us, deepwater is assets and projects in West Africa, of course, Angola, Nigeria, Congo, but also in offshore U.S., in Brazil and now in Suriname. The company has been recognized for its experience, expertise in deepwater for many years. And I think our recent exploration successes in Suriname, in Namibia demonstrate that deepwater opportunities are still there, and that technical expertise is a key driver to unlock those opportunities.

The key characteristic of those deepwater assets is the contracts, generally production sharing contracts, which are attractive with high margins and the ability to capture very largely the price upsides. Our growth in deepwater is based on the developments we've seen in Brazil, in the U.S., in Suriname. But not only also it's going to be based on our ability to capture and benefit from profitable tieback opportunities around our existing assets, particularly in Angola, but also in Nigeria in the future. In Suriname, you saw that we just started two tieback developments in Angola, Begonia and CLOV 3. And these projects, of course, benefit from [ all in ] our existing processing capacities and hence, a very low marginal cost, and they are highly profitable.

So this portfolio of deepwater developments will deliver an increase of free cash flow of $3 billion in 2030 compared to 2024. And you can see if you look at the right part, which is the free cash flow at $50 billion on the orange, which is the free cash flow at $80 billion, I think it illustrates pretty well the price upside of those deepwater assets.

Now third focus is on Malaysia. And let me share with you quickly the status of our development in Malaysia. We entered in 2024 as an operator acquiring SapuraOMV, 4 TCF of reserves. A brand new development, Jerun, that started in the second half of last year, a production of 50,000 barrel equivalent per day for the company, low cost, low emission. But also this acquisition of SapuraOMV for us was the acquisition of a platform for future growth coming from both development of existing discoveries and future exploration.

So now this year, we've materialized, I would say, step 1 of this growth ambition in Malaysia, we acquired 12 blocks -- interest in 12 blocks in partnership with Petronas. On those 12 blocks, they are a combination of discovered gas resources and exploration opportunities. So we have 2 blocks holding 4 TCF with a potential development named Kenyalang, which is expected, in fact, to be launched to [ Feed ] Malaysia LNG from 2030. So this development of Kenyalang will basically double our size in Malaysia with another 50,000 barrel per day equivalent of production in company share.

And of course, we certainly work to unlock more through exploration. We are just setting up an exploration hub in Asia, in Kuala Lumpur, to be close to our stakeholder and partner, Petronas. And all this is a good illustration also of how we can leverage on a partnership -- on a strategic partnership with a company like Petronas, our operator capability, our exploration and development track record to establish a new profitable position.

Emissions, while growing our production, we are continuously working to reduce our emissions. You see here our Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions for oil and gas, so not only upstream but also refining and chemical. And what you can see on the chart is that we've reduced the emissions by 36% last year compared to 2015 through energy efficiency improvement, through a very significant reduction of our flaring, through electrification and use of renewable power when it's possible and when it makes sense economically, and through the optimization of our processes, our operations, our equipment on all our assets. So -- and in downstream with the gradual usage also of green hydrogen in our refineries.

So let me -- I went a bit too quick because methane is a very important area of focus on the company. On methane, we had a target to reduce our methane emission by 50% in 2025 compared to 2020. And we achieved that target last year, in fact, with 1 year in advance. So now we are tightening the objective. This year, we expect to achieve a reduction of 60%, and we've maintained our target to reduce by 80% our operated methane emissions in 2030.

One point of significance I want to mention is that we've decided to roll out a very large program of permanent monitoring of our methane emissions on all our operated sites. So currently, we're installing methane emission detector and equipment on all assets, all sites. So more than 13,000 of this equipment. So that we'll be able to detect immediately any methane leak, any fugitive methane emission and react and fix it.

And last, we are certainly committed to eliminate routine flaring. We're almost there. It was done in Gabon last year, and we are on track to reduce also our overall flaring by 90% in 2030 compared to 2010. By the way, all our new projects are designed for zero flaring with close flare installed and incorporated in the design.

I will now hand over to Bernard for the upstream part -- downstream part.

So thank you, Nicolas, and good morning, everyone. What I would like to do now is to show you in the next few slides how downstream is going to generate and contribute with one additional $1 billion of cash flow from -- free cash flow to the company targets in a new, more challenging environment marked -- as Patrick explained, marked by overcapacities in Refining and in Petrochemicals.

First of all, in downstream, you remember, we continue to execute a strategy, which consists of aligning our refining throughput and oil product sales with the upstream production level. By doing so, we progressively build a more balanced integrated value chain. And you see that we are well on track to be balanced by 2030. Over the last few years, we have done already quite a lot. We have reduced our refining capacity by 15%. We have reduced our product sales by 30% by concentrating on the most profitable part of the portfolio, and all in all, we will be on target by 2030.

How do we grow these cash flows by business segments? I will come back on this. But in a nutshell, in Refining & Chemicals, after the recent years where we have enjoyed, I would say, very good margins, we are back to a so-called new normal environment with overcapacities, as I mentioned. So the key word there is, of course, is going to be the asset optimization, restoring the excellence in our operations in refining, concentrating on growing our most competitive assets in petrochemicals, which are the ones benefiting from the cheap feedstocks in the U.S. or in Middle East, of course. And of course, we keep rationalizing our European footprint. I will come back to this in a few minutes.

Regarding Marketing & Services, the priority is to keep, of course, improving our margins with a strategy of value over volume, which is paying off, and I will come back to this as well in a few minutes. And all in all, for all our downstream activities, we keep a permanent focus on the cash savings in our operations, in our support functions. And of course, we keep a permanent approach being selective in our CapEx spendings like in the EV market, where we adapt our spendings based on the actual market dynamic. I will come back on this as well. So all in all, at the end of 2030, downstream will contribute by $1 billion of free cash flows to the company target.

Let's turn to Refining & Chemical. First, our European operations. Here, the priority is to take the best from our assets. As Patrick explained, we do not control our environment but we control what we do, the way we operate. It means that we need to keep improving our assets availability, and we are progressing on our utilization rate, which is up compared to last year. It means also delivering cash savings, of course. We are streamlining our CapEx to focus on mandatory turnarounds and cash savings.

For example, we're extending for 3 more years the energy savings plan, which we started in 2023 with a target of generating an additional $100 million of annual savings and reducing the CO2 emissions by 1 million tonnes. And of course, we are working on reducing our fixed costs through the digitalization of our operations and by improving the efficiency of our maintenance processes, for example. In petrochemicals, we also have some work to do. The market in Europe is facing an oversupplied petrochemical market. And here, we have taken action, as you all know, by announcing by the end of 2027, the closure of 1 of our 2 steam crackers in Antwerp in our Antwerp refinery.

The second area where we need to adapt is on a worldwide basis, the petrochemical market, where the net capacity increases faster than the demand. I've just mentioned the action we are taking in Europe but we also adapt by investing, redeploying in regions where we can benefit from a competitive production base, namely the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. In this region, we can access to cheap feedstock, cheap energy costs, which put these assets in the top quartile in terms of the industry in terms of competitiveness.

And in this region, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, we can leverage our large integrated platform. You know that we have a large platform in Port Arthur in Texas and in Jubail. We've set up refinery in Saudi Arabia, where we are progressing well on the project Amiral. And you see that we are today -- as of today at 50% completion rate and the start-up expected by the end of 2027. All of these projects are done in partnerships to benefit from what I would call a low equity approach.

And for example, with Satorp and Amiral, we do it with our colleagues from Aramco.

The third market where we also need to adapt is the market of bioproducts. This is a growing market but facing 2 challenges. The demand is largely dependent on the regulation, which may change. And these bioproducts are more expensive to produce than biofuels. So we must address these 2 challenges in a pragmatic way to stay flexible and competitive, and this is what we do by leveraging our existing refining capacity to benefit from a low-cost, low OpEx basis.

And I would like to spend just 1 minute on the co-processing example, which is a good example of this pragmatic approach where we produce SAF in our existing refineries by incorporating the bio feedstock with the jet fuel into the jet fuel processing units. We produce a blend with up to 10% of SAF, which is more than enough, by the way, to fulfill the European mandate by 2030 and even beyond. The beauty of this co-processing process is that it's a very competitive production pathway at marginal cost and requiring a limited upfront CapEx. It's a good example, as Patrick explained a few minutes ago, how we can grow without spending too much CapEx. And this is our priority to increase the co-processing capacities, and we are already able to produce SAF by co-processing in our Normandie and Antwerp refineries and tomorrow in Leuna.

When it comes to producing pure SAF, the other choice we have made to be competitive is the retrofit of our existing refinery into biorefineries as we have done in La Mède or Grandpuits. And you know that by doing so, our CapEx intensity is, of course, much lower compared to the large greenfield project. And I'm sure you have all in mind the latest announcement of the large greenfield projects being postponed or even canceled.

A last comment on the feedstock. In Europe, we have secured a competitive source of feedstock through partnerships with SARIA, which is the leader of the animal fat collection and which is our partner in our joint venture in Grandpuits and the same for the UCO where we have struck a deal with Quatra, which is the European leader of the collection of UCO with a 15 years supply agreement.

If we turn now to Marketing & Service, which is also a steady cash flow generator. As I said a few minutes ago, our strategy is in one sentence, it's a strategy of value over volume. And you see on the chart on the left -- on the right-hand side that we are able to grow our cash flow despite the reduction of our sales volume. A good example is last year, where we have been able to generate more cash flows than the years before despite the divestiture of our retail network in Germany and in Benelux. To grow these cash flows, we build on our strengths on the 3 main business segments that you see on the left-hand side.

On retail networks, we concentrate on the geographies where we are the leader. It means in France where we're #1. We leverage our network to grow notably our nonfuel revenues, shops, food, wash, card services. In Africa, where we're also the #1, where we keep growing on the continent enjoying a growing demand. And we exit the countries where we have a marginal position and the latest announcement we've made where Brazil and Pakistan, 2 countries which we left last year.

Lubricants. So lubricants, it's a good business, a profitable one. We want to boost this business and to do it, we have changed this year. The branch organization, moving away from a regional matrix structure to create a dedicated global lubricants business unit. This business unit is organized by end markets to be more focused on the high-end applications, and by doing so, we also have been able to streamline the marketing and services branch support functions.

On the EV field, we have also a very pragmatic approach. We adapt our deployment and CapEx spendings on pace with the EV market penetration. We allocate our CapEx in priority to the fast charging hubs, whereas we streamline our CapEx for the slow charging points segment, the so-called industry charging. And we are doing it by developing a low equity approach with partners and leverage exactly as we do for our renewables project.

So as you see through these few examples, the downstream segment is adapting to in a pragmatic way to market conditions which are changing, evolving. And we execute a clear road map in order to deliver by 2030, an additional $1 billion of free cash flows. And now I would like to leave the floor to Stephane.

Thank you, Bernard. Good morning, everyone. So I will go first through our integrated LNG business, starting by our portfolio. As Patrick explained, our LNG portfolio is going to grow by 50% to reach 60 million tonnes in 2030, and this growth is going to come from our own production and the expected increase of our third-party offtake and spot activities. This growth will enable us to strengthen the 3 main competitive advantage we have, competitive advantage of our portfolio.

First is size. With 60 million tonnes, we will keep our 10% worldwide market share. Second, the diversity of our supply with notably 40% in the U.S. will stay pretty stable, 20% from Africa, 20% of Middle East, both increasing and the rest coming from Asia and Europe. And the third main competitive advantage is the flexibility of our sales. If I look at it from a production side, we can decide to take our U.S. production in Europe or in Asia, as you can see on the dotted row, depending on what is the best market.

If I look from the sales side, as Patrick mentioned, with the 8 million tons we signed in Asia recently, we are covering more than 70% of our sales with long-term oil index country, mostly in Asia. And we can decide to serve those contracts either by our own production or from the market. So if I try to summarize our LNG portfolio, what we have achieved is actually transforming Henry Hub in Brent, while we are keeping the arbitrage opportunity between TTF, the European index and the GKM, the Asian index.

If I move now to the U.S. as the U.S. is going to be our largest supply region. We are going to grow in the U.S. our production by 7 million -- more than 7 million tonnes, essentially from 2 competitive projects, Costa Azul on one side and Rio Grande on the other side. Why I say they are competitive? Costa Azul because it's located on the Pacific Coast, so well located to supply Asia and Rio Grande because the liquidation fee is very competitive.

At the same time, we know that our U.S. production and U.S. supply, sorry. And by the way, as well our CCGT production exposes to Henry Hub price, as you can see on the right chart for nearly 3 Bcf per day of gas. Hopefully, we have worked on that to reduce the short exposure, and we've done that in 2 ways. The first one was when we sell gas in Asia, when we sell LNG in Asia to blend the index on which we sell by coupling Brent and Henry Hub, reducing our Henry Hub exposure. That's one.

And second, by integration with our Upstream portfolio. And you've seen this morning that we have had actually another acquisition in Anadarko Basin from Continental Resources. So with all that, actually, we are able to lower this Henry exposure from 3 Bcf to 1 Bcf before this morning and actually even a bit less than 1 Bcf, and we are going on to try to continue to manage that exposure.

I move now to the prediction in terms of cash flow. And you can see the increase on the left side of our sales on one side, the blue bar and of our cash flow from '24 to 2030. Actually, it could have been '25 because '25 is going to be quite close to '24 -- as Patrick mentioned, we were hoping for a more volatile year but it has not been the case. So if I look at that growth, we have 70% increase of the cash flow, which is above the 50% increase of volume because it's going to come from projects that are more competitive.

And actually, we have made the distinction between what is coming from Upstream, the growth of our production and what is coming from our enhanced portfolio. And as you can see, the large part of the growth is going to come from our top-tier LNG upstream projects, which are already under construction and should deliver production by '28, '29 and '30. And a smaller part from an enhanced portfolio. And as I explained, enhanced portfolio, by that, I mean better supply coming from the U.S. and more flexible sales in Asia that we have been able to sign in the last 2 years. That's for Integrated LNG.

I will move now to Integrated Power, starting by the context and coming back to the slide that Patrick has shown with 2 main ideas, 2 main trends in the power market. What do we see? First, growth. 3% growth per year in the last 10 years and a trend that will continue with strong driver for that data center, digitalization, decarbonization of industry and EV rollout and in our market, heat pumps or air conditioning. What is interesting is that the market we address, U.S., Europe, Brazil, India and a few other represent 1/3 of the worldwide demand, and they are going to grow as well by more than by 2% as we see data center pushing demand, notably in the state starting in Europe and as well EV penetration.

So on one side, growth. The second main theme is volatility. Volatility is increasing in all those markets and with volatility, the price of flexible assets. Why volatility is increasing? Because renewables are developing fast. And as we all know, they are intermittent. Second, because in many markets, we decommission flexible assets, notably coal as it is the case in the U.S. and in Europe. So we are more depending on the weather. We are more depending on, I would say, heat or cold wave event.

And just to give you one figure, 7 days out of 10 now in Europe, you've got the price difference between the lower price in the day and the higher price of the day, which is above EUR 50 per megawatt hour. That was 1 day out of 10 only 5 years ago, just to give you an idea of how volatility has progressed. And that's exactly what we want to address with our strategy to focus on key deregulated markets where we can deploy our integrated model.

There are 3 countries we have chosen to do that, 2 main zones, U.S. on one side, Europe and Brazil, and they should represent 70% of our production. So why is the U.S. And actually, it's not the U.S., it's ERCOT, PGM and CAISO because there are 3 markets fully deregulated, where demand is growing fast, more than 6% in Texas and that's going -- that's continue, where you have a strong demand for corporate PPA and where we can deploy our full model with a strong base of assets, renewable on the other side. And by the way, we don't have any problem to continue to develop that pipe at least until '29. And where we have as well CCGT assets, notably in Texas and peaker in California and where we have battery in operation under construction. So that's for the U.S.

Then Europe, where here you have strong support through the CO2 price for flexible assets and where we have already a strong base of flexible assets that we want to continue to develop and where we have as well a nice renewable pipe, notably in France, in Spain, in U.K. and in Germany with the acquisition we made last year. On Europe, it's clear that we -- there are markets on which we want to focus, notably Germany and U.K. because there are countries where power prices are very high and the demand for flexibility is important as well.

Short comment on Brazil, low-cost renewable, the best wind and the best hydro in the world. We are #1, thanks to our partnership in Casa dos Ventos, and we are convinced that we can grow there a very profitable business. So that's the main focus, 70%. And then we have, I would say, 2 other zone, oil and gas countries where the idea is through our renewable activity to support our oil and gas production to support E&P in their discussion with those countries or to help them -- so like, for example, Qatar, Iraq, Libya or to help them to decarbonize their consumption like in Argentina.

And then there are a few countries where because of the specificity of the market, we can reach our target of 12% but that's not countries where we are going to deploy our integrated model and I can state India or South Africa. We want to divest all the other country, and we want to do that by monetizing our pipe in the most efficient way in the coming quarter.

I finish by the cash flow. So as you can see, we are generating $2.5 billion in '24, should be pretty much above $2.5 billion should be pretty much the same in '24, '25. And we plan to grow that one point, we are asking -- you are asking for more detail. So we have split that cash flow between 2 different activity. One is production. That's really what is coming from the sale of our Electron in renewable and CCGT. That's one aspect. And the second aspect is what we call sales, which include trading and our retail activity in Europe. And we will publish that breakdown from now in the next quarters.

As you can see, we are generating the 2.5, roughly 50-50. And those cash flows are going to grow for production with the volume. So we plan roughly to double that and at a slower pace for trading and retail. With all that, we should be above $3.5 billion, $4 billion in '28. And as Patrick mentioned, given the level of CapEx, that activity will start to contribute to the dividend in '28, and we should reach up to $4.5 billion by 2030.

At that time, we will have a return on capital of 12%, which is equivalent to the return on capital of upstream oil and gas in a $60 environment. Obviously, you don't have the upside to oil. But at the same time, you have the advantage that, that return on capital is completely immune to the oil cycle contributing to the company resiliency. And you could even state that there is some potential upside as it will be a bit sensitive to Power price.

And with that, I finish on Integrated Power and hand over to Patrick.

Thank you, Stephane. First, by the way, I think it's an important message, this one part of the differentiated strategy on electricity is clearly bringing us more resiliency out of the oil and gas cycles. I think -- and we didn't claim that before because we wanted to demonstrate that the model is successful, that we can continue to deliver. The more we progress in that business, the more we are, I would say, confident that we reach this level of free cash soon and of return on capital employed. So we can claim it.

And by the way, again, I was looking to the return on capital employed of the major companies end of the third quarter. We were #1 with more than 12% and some of our peers were lower than that. So I think we are -- this resiliency has to be -- is an advantage for the future of this company. And as Stephane showed you, we begin to give you more insights on the model by giving you from now the split, how do we manage to make this cash flow and these returns because I know people are asking questions to themselves, so we'll split between production and sales step after step more -- because we are more confident on this capacity to deliver.

So I want to summarize the investment case of TotalEnergies as a conclusion. First, again, more energy, less emissions, delivering superior free cash flow, and we have increasing shareholder returns. That's the fundamental message. The low -- less emissions was described by Nicolas but I want to insist that in fact, we are not -- we are managing to -- with this strategy, in particular, to lower the carbon intensity of our sales. We will reach minus 25% by 2030, probably more, in fact, with the ambition on electricity. Even if seen in the presentation of Stephane, there is more gas to power flexible assets but it's a reality. And by the way, I'm more comfortable being an oil and gas company to be more integration between gas and electricity in the execution of our strategy. And this additional free cash of $10 billion.

At the same time, what do we do with it? Again, and I'm coming back to the decision of the Board. We -- I'm repeating that we are using a strong word sacrosanct dividend. It's guaranteed. It has been the we demonstrated for 40 years. And it will grow. It will grow, of course, because we have growing cash flows. The payout above 40%, I would say, is bottom. It's full cycle. That it's a floor. And that means that we will apply it at $50 per barrel. So when I will have a question at $50 per barrel with this floor, buyback will continue $1 billion, $1.5 billion depends on the environment.

The other message is that it's not a target 40%. In fact, when I'm looking to the guidance we gave you at $70 per barrel and what we will apply in the fourth quarter, $1.5 billion of buyback, applying that through '26, the payout will be more in the range of 45% to 50%, so reaching 50%. So that's again, it's not a floor. It's a protection, this 40% for cycle for our shareholders. By the way, the dividend, when you calculate it in U.S. dollars, it's more than what we mentioned that 25% will be 11% increase.

But at the same we need to maintain and preserve the balance sheet. This is the second message that we -- and we received the message from market. We took it for ourselves. So we have this new guidance for '26 in terms of buyback. At $80, we maintain the $2 billion per quarter. We an environment at $60, $70 and an exchange rate of dollar per euro, we'll move -- we'll give a range of $0.75 billion to $1.5 billion per quarter. Just a comment for you, $0.1 per euro cost us $800 million. We expressed the dividend in euro when we move from $1.1, which was the case last year to $1.2 where we are today. the allocation to the dividend in dollar is an additional $800 million.

And I commented already the $50 per barrel case. Of course, we gave a guidance only for '26 because with the growing cash flow, we've seen some figure for '27. We will rescale the buyback levels according to the delivery of additional cash flow. It will depend, of course, on the energy price environment. So I will not -- but I don't want to -- we didn't want to give -- it's not a guidance for 5 years, will be very strange from us. It's for '26, and then we will adapt this guidance to price environment and again, to the cash flow growth that we will deliver.

This cash flow growth is coming there, by the way, just on the next slide, this is an important one. We made it on '26, 2030, so 5 years cumulative cash flow from operations. The first column is at $50. At $50, by the way, we would apply more discipline capital discipline. So you have a little less CapEx than at $70. I gave you the range before. At $70, this $80 billion of generation of free cash flow. You can see that there is quite a lot of free cash available above the capital investment and dividend of 2025 dividend over 5 years. So there will be space to increase the dividend to make net debt reduction and to increase -- to come back to higher share buybacks.

You have even the figure of $80 per barrel, it's an additional $15 billion. You have also at $50 per barrel, you can see that, in fact, our breakeven is clearly -- post dividend is clearly lower than $50 because we have some cash available but if we are maintaining the 2025 dividend equal. So you have also on this slide, the sensitivities we do not change compared to previous years, $2.8 billion of $10 per barrel Brent. By the way, for those who were asking why do we have a spread of $3 billion potentially between the $70 case and the $60 case on the buyback. The answer is just this one. At $70 $10 per barrel, we have a difference of almost $3 billion that's coming from there.

So if I summarize the cash allocation, I would say, first, the dividend, again, the first priority, sustainable, secured through cycles, and I can only insist -- it will be future growth will be fueled by share buybacks and underlying cash flow growth. And the Board will take decision, of course, in February '26, we'll see where the price environment will be, but it will be supported, obviously, by the buyback performed in '25.

The CapEx, we gave you new guidance, $14 billion, $17 billion full cycle, $16 billion next year. The balance sheet, maintaining gearing under 20%. We expect with Jean-Pierre to have by the end of the year to be next to 15%. So that's as planned as it was normalized gearing by end of first half. And surplus cash flows, we gave you the new guidance for the buyback, the way we will execute buyback in 2026. So -- but I would say this scheme is updated now. And with, again, strong commitment that the cash payout will be above at least 40% full cycle.

The last news, which is important for us, of course, is which has been confirmed by the Board last week. So we initiate officially the process to the SEC. In fact, we make the notification is to convert these ADRs into ordinary shares on the New York Stock Exchange. There are different reasons to do that. First, we can do it in 2021. It was not possible 40 years ago. We introduced the ADRs in 1991. You could ask ourselves why the European companies did not do that by that time. In fact, because by that time, the accounting system was not the same. There was differences. We were not in IFRS, we not recognized.

All that has been done. And in 2021, you have a lot, I would say, of digital capacity to move shares from the Paris to New York during the night, et cetera. It's blockchain, it's not papers, all that. So there are a lot of evolution. We have done quite -- teams have worked quite, I would say, efficiently in less than a year with different players, Euroclear in Europe and DTCC in the U.S., NYSE in the U.S. and Euronext in Europe to make it possible. Probably the company is paving the way by doing this transformation of ADRs into shares.

Why do we do it? Because we observe an evolution of our shareholder base. You can see that this quarter, by the way, more than 50% of our institutional shareholders are on this side of the Atlantic. In the meantime, we have -- in the last 10 years, we've increased quite a lot, again, the company employees, 9% and the individual shareholders as well have increased their share from 10% to 16%. So we have 25%, I would say, of individuals, which, of course, are generally quite stable. So we like them like all corporations but we have also to adapt to institutional shareholders, and you have the split there.

The second idea is that ADRs and just a figure, we dig into the cost of ADRs today for ADRs holders was around $12 million per year. The cost of holding the same shares will be $2 million to $3 million per year for the same holders. So we eliminate that cost, which was limiting some interest for the ADRs. We heard that without any additional obligation for us because, in fact, in the U.S. system, securities are covering ADRs as well as ordinary shares. So the obligations and we have had many questions about it, all the obligations we had under the ADR schemes are the same under as ordinary shares.

So for us, it's reinforcing attractiveness, and we hope to attract additional AUM, I would say, to the ordinary shares. But it will be only -- so it's not a double listing and all that, forget. It's one single class of TotalEnergies shares. Just extended trading hours from Paris to 9:00 a.m. to New York 10:00 p.m. from a European point of view, with shares transferable from one market to the other market. And there will be absolutely no impact for all ordinary shares listed on Euronext, which will remain the introduction market.

So I think it's a move, which demonstrates our appetite to continue to attract shareholders where the market seems to be more inclined to oil and gas, which is beside of the Atlantic but I hope that we continue to work, of course, hard to convince European shareholders to maintain trust in the company.

And that's the last slide to conclude. I think through this presentation, I speak about consistency, I speak about resiliency. I would say we see our capacity of adaptation. The example which was given to you by Bernard about this idea that we make co-processing instead of new greenfield or brownfield biorefineries is a good example. The other example he mentioned to adapt our EV deployment to the reality of the market. This is what I think is important for us. Part of the streamlining CapEx is also just to observe at which pace this energy transition is taking place and to cope with, I would say, the -- I mentioned that we see more -- the affordability part of the equation was more important than just the sustainability part for many customers. And so we need also to adapt this transition strategy to the reality of the market.

It's also true, by the way, on integrated power, the adaptation, which was described by Stephane, is just the reality is that investing only in renewables, more intermittent if we don't have in our portfolio all the flexible assets to capture this volatility will make little sense, in fact. So that's also what we are willing to do by adapting our transition strategy to the reality of the demand and to what the customers want in order to continue to provide reliable, affordable and sustainable energy. So this slide summarized, I would say, the investment case.

I will not be longer than that but we'll be happy to answer to all your questions. Thank you.

So we are moving now to the Q&A. So raise the end. So we start maybe with Duke, if you have a question, please. We have mics coming in.

It's Doug Leggate from Wolfe. Patrick, you've mentioned a couple of times that the market appeared to be sending a message with the share price given what happened to the balance sheet. So my question is, -- to get to the 15% gearing level, is that then a level you're comfortable with? Or if the oil price did end up being higher, what gets the first dollar, the balance sheet or the buyback? That's my first question.

And my follow-up very quickly, could you address incremental asset sales that are embedded in your production targets, specifically, I think there was some speculation recently about the North Sea potentially exiting there.

Just to be clear, we didn't set 15% gearing, but lower than 20%. So we are comfortable we're lower than 20%. So there's no impact if we are at 15%, 16%, 17% on the scheme I described to you, okay? We as the Board consider that less than 20%. Again, I think we'll -- according to Jean-Pierre and his team, we should land around 15%, 16% by the end of the year. But if we are comfortable, we look at it. And so if we were reaching more than 20%, which we are with the guidance we gave you, we don't anticipate that to be clear. We have some margin, and this is the point. Of course, we have to execute the CapEx program as it is, the $16 billion, all that is consistent.

And so I'm -- but again, balance sheet is a priority. This is the message I receive. So we test the market. We have a clear answer. So the balance sheet is a priority but we are comfortable with that level, which will position us in a competitive way compared to our peers.

Divestiture, what is planned? First, we need to execute divestiture of this year, and then we'll continue to do it. Again, in the plan, acquisitions are balanced by divestment, and we continue to rotate the portfolio. So in this year, most of the divestments will come, by the way, by Q4, but the proceeds of the divestments, we have -- as you noticed during the year, we have decided and it's part of streamlining the CapEx. But when we had participation or nonoperating interest in projects like Bonga or Gato do Mato, where -- which was not fitting, in fact, with less than $20 per barrel. We decided rather than continuing to contribute with 10%, 15% to just divest the asset, not to be a problem for the operator. So that's 2 divestments well done, and we'll have other examples of that. We have just -- we will just made another one in Norway, a small one where again, it's very mature. It's not fitting with our best allocation criteria CapEx allocation criteria.

So we decided to divest when we did not fit because again, we have a large portfolio. So we don't need to -- it's not a question of marginal bars. We prefer to stick within the guidance we gave, and we consider it the best way to have a reliance portfolio in the future for the coming years. We have -- I mean -- and of course, part of the divestment is also the recycling of capital on the renewable side, which is important. This morning, we have announced we have announced that we have in the U.S. made with KKR. It represents almost more than $1 billion globally, $1.2 billion, if I remember well. So it's quite big. It's a way to recycle the capital and it's part of the capital guidance and the business.

So that will continue because, in fact, in renewables, as we have reached more or less, we will continue to divest 2 gigawatts per year -- for the time being, these markets, I know there are some doubts but we are quite successful with the assumptions that we can farm down 50% with good returns. We will have done it in the U.S., in Greece and in France in 2025. And for '26, we have the same type of program to continue it. So that's what is embedded in the plan.

On the Upstream part, we will see when we -- you will see what we'll do when we will announce it. I don't want to give more details today.

Lydia?

Thanks for the presentation.

Sorry, Lydia, just to continue and Dough to be clear, the divestments that we plan are in the growth figure behind the numbers. Just to be clear.

It's Lydia from Barclays. And just to continue on the growth theme. If I go back to where you started the presentation, it was really that you can do the same or more with less. So can we just go through a little bit more detail as to how? Is it the technology is enabling more cost savings? Is it just that there were things you went, this isn't going to add a return? I just want to understand a little bit more how.

And then the other bit was, I think, fascinating when you showed more of the geographic diversification of the upstream business because that is different to where the peer group is. In a world where U.S. shale oil probably isn't growing as much, do you think that's actually much more important than where it might have been for the last decade?

Okay. First point, I think there are 2 sources of this $1 billion. One is clearly on the low carbon business. You've seen it. It was 4 to 5. We said 4, 3 to 4. So why? Because first, 2 ideas. Again, co-processing, there is less CapEx on biofuels than in the previous plan, just because we have a technology way to do it. So let's do it. Let's not be stable. EV, again, it was $200 million per year. I think today, it's more $100 million, $120 million. So because we adapt the pace to the customer demand. So there are a few ideas there. And on Stephane side, it's just that now we know what we want to do in which geographies to be more focused. And in order to -- we will be able to deliver the same, I would say, in terms of cash and with -- in terms of growth and cash rather than just continuing to. That's an adaptation. We progress on the understanding and we streamline, we focus the CapEx. So that's $500 million, I would say there.

The other part is coming from the oil and gas, again, decision to divest some marginal nonoperated interest where there was some CapEx in the plan where we consider it's better to focus on the core assets without impairing, by the way, fundamentally the trajectory. That's the other part, I would say. So it's -- the $1 billion is coming from these 2 parts. It's also, I would say, some -- yes, maybe a little more efficient. But there is no -- I mean, it's not a matter of technology there. I would say it's more a question of choice of portfolio of assets, maybe unless I'm wrong and...

No, no, you're right.

Okay. No, no but you can complement because I don't know Everything about it. You are right. But the technology is more on the OpEx, I would say, where we expect. And I mean, we have done a strong push. We are investing, by the way, quite heavily in these data platforms within Nation and Emerson, with Cognite in Upstream. So I think it's time to have really -- to organize the company. Today, it was until now, it was a bits and pieces, I would say, some pilots, it's time to move quicker to react to invest in programs to have the data platforms and to be able to deploy tomorrow AI in a more smarter way, et cetera. So this is a big effort, which is investment, but also it will contribute to the efficiency on the OpEx side, I would say, in the future.

Your other -- I think the second question was about diversification. I think it's -- honestly, it's for me something, which is important. And I consider that in that world, the world is completely changing. It's a world where fundamentally, politics are more important than economy. It's for a global company like us, a huge change. You need to see that. And I think we are leaving the era from the -- after the second world war. It's, I would say, the idea that the global world is good. No, it's -- and we want it or not, it's a reality. It's a reality not only here in the U.S., but it's a reality in many areas of the region. So of course, that means from this perspective, having some diversification and optionality, I would say, diversification optionality is very important in the portfolio.

And people could say it's more complex. Yes. It obliges us to be even more local, I think, to be next to local stakeholders, which is, I think, a good strength of this company. The way we are deploying our people in the company in different countries, yes, we have people there in order to be very local. And I can tell you what we have just achieved in Iraq is quite impressive in less than 3 years. We have been able not only to confirm the contract but to sign all these EPCs. And we've -- it's quite -- it was quite a challenge. It's possible because we have a capacity to be very close. In fact, all the stakeholders, our teams are there. And that's, I think, a strength in this world, which is more spread.

Okay. That does not mean that I don't want to invest in the U.S. It's part clearly, when we said that we have this exposure to [indiscernible], that means investing more in shale gas here. And we will study -- we have made already 3 JVs, nonoperated JVs. We'll see if we could accelerate on that in the coming months and coming months. So that's, I would say. But my view is that it's becoming an interesting asset of the company, this diversification and having optionalities in different countries.

Okay. So we go to Chris.

Chris Kuplent from Bank of America. Patrick, I'm going to try and be lazy and ask you to do my job, which is upfront. If you think back last year, 12 months, a lot of things have happened. You just mentioned comments on global politics. What else is standing out to you where we'll meet again today, 12 months later, where you think the most significant changes have occurred in what you're presenting? And as an observation, this is meant as a compliment that I think most of what you've presented today is very similar to what we heard 12 months ago. But maybe you can think about whether it's project news, whether it's politics or whether it's commodities.

And while you're thinking, maybe from my end, I asked you last year, what do you feel more bullish about? $80 Brent or $8 TTF. And you said $80 do you still answer $80 Brent?

No. So you know I'm already wrong on commodities. No, I think part of the change clearly has been and you -- I've seen some comments after my comments on the third quarter results that people were considering that market was considering I was more bullish but I'm just observing what happens. Honestly, there have been a big push. And I would not have bet 1 year ago that the OPEC countries will have and win their voluntary cuts because for me, we are in a world that where we need more $70, $80 per barrel to balance their budget. They are doing it for different reasons, politics, by the way, clearly, politics are interfering today in our world of commodities. It's a reality. Commodities in both sides.

On one side, you have clearly the U.S. President wants the oil price to be diminished to have a good gasoline price for the midterm elections. On the other side, you have the Russian war, which is, of course, fueling the other trend. It's very difficult for us to assess it. And that's why, by the way, for trading business is more complex today because you have some elements, which are not just market led by supply and demand, and I would say, what you could expect to rational behaviors. You have other elements in the world which is more political one. So that has changed.

That has also changed. It is the reason why we take actions because I want to be sure by anticipation. I'm not sure we'll see the price going down but I want to take actions before. It's not so easy in an oil and gas company when we are in a $70, $80 a barrel environment to say to our colleagues, okay, we need to be focused on that but it's also part of what the leadership of the company should do.

And again, I'm not betting on that. I just say we observe and I observe that this tariff war has an impact on the, I would say, macro environment, the demand you see -- look, I was not anticipating 1 year ago that the dollar could be weakened. It's weakening. And maybe it's not the end of the weakening. It has an impact on our balance of dollars and euro-dollars. I mentioned it. So I can -- maybe we'll be at 1.3 next year. And when we meet, I'm not impossible with the pressure on this part of it. So this is a world which has changed from this perspective, more short-termism and more politics. So that's what we need to take into account.

Having said that, coming back to your first comment, the fundamental of the strategy should not change and cannot change. We have a very strong portfolio of projects, so we must find a way to execute them, coping with this uncertainty. And I think that's why we are consistent, and we want to inject today, I would say, some elements of being more resilient in case of commodities price. The markets are not. I must also contrast that I'm very -- my short term, I'm observing the cash flow, which we will generate in 2025 at $70. We are planning, '29 will be more around $27 billion. So I need to manage that.

That means that also we have to fix some issues. And I know Vincent is there, he could speak about. We have 2 assets which are not delivering what we expect, Donges Arthur and Port Arthur. So he's working on it. He managed to fix what was happening in the cracker in Normandy is done. It's behind us but we suffered during the first half of the year. I think we are taking it. So we have also some work to be done in terms of our own efficiency. But I would say my comment.

If I may, just one quick one. How worried -- I know we're talking about 2030 today but how worried are you about the buildup of more LNG coming into the market from just adding up all the permits, the FIDs post 2030?

I am a little worried, but we -- to be honest, I'm observing that. I was quite happy, in fact, with the previous freeze in the U.S. today, it's a little accelerating too quickly. I'm a little surprised that all these projects will find markets, I mean, offtakers and financing. Maybe it's not fully done, to be clear. Let's see. Because I can tell you with Stephane, when we launched Rio Grande Train 1 to 3 to find -- of course, we were the marketers, so we know. But even to find the financing in the U.S. for a $10 billion project financing, we had to work hard. And so I'm waiting to see if all these projects, which are today authorized, they seems to find quite a good appetite of marketers, I mean, offtakers despite the risk that people take. There are probably some politics behind it. We see some Asian players clearly offtaking because it's part of the tariff bill. Let's see if they all find the financing for all these projects. That's the next step.

So having said that, on our side, I mean, that's why we have decided to sanction Train 4, but we will not participate to Train 5.? Because again, the clear advantage, and it was mentioned, as we are aware, we made a deal 2 years ago with NextDecade's Rio Grande. We are also a shareholder of NextDecade. So it gave us an advantage of the liquidection fee. And for us, it's just fundamental. Sorry.

Jason Gabelman from TD Cowen. I wanted to go back first to the cost cuts, and it was an impressive jump in guidance. I think last year, you guided to $500 million cost cuts. This year, you're guiding to $500 million per year. So wondering, one, if there's any inorganic component of that or if it's all organic? And two, given you have highlighted several times that upstream costs are already below peers, should we assume most of the cost cuts are coming in other parts of the business? And I have a follow-up.

For me, last year, what we told you it was $500 million for E&P but there was also a program for Refining & Chemicals part, including, I would say, some energy savings. Can you remind the figures that we had? And so we extended it from '27 to 2030. So for me, it's not just extension of the OpEx efficiency program. Maybe you can comment, Nicolas and Vincent.

For Exploration & Production, we had $500 million over 3 years, which is what we have shown last year. So now we've extended that to 2030.

$1 billion.

So which gives more $1 billion.

$1 billion.

And then it comes on top of this, there is a Refining & Chemical program.

Okay. And then as Bernard told you, they are becoming to work -- he has worked on his side to support services in M&S, and we intend to extend that to different branches. So the $2.5 billion are calibrated, will be delivered year after year. The idea is around $500 million per year. It's mainly organic to come back to your question.

Great. And my follow-up just on Namibia, which I think last year, you had hoped to get started up by 2030. Now it seems like it's pushed out a little bit beyond 2030. Can you just talk about what's going on, in that project and what you need to see to get Venus over the finish line?

I would say it's possible by 2030. It depends when we'll be able to take the sanction. Namibia is a new country to oil and gas. So we are working with the Namibian authorities to progress. We have given them a development plan, which needs to be approved. We are, by the way, working with contracting industry, and we are beginning to resign some interesting offers, which confirm the budget around $10 billion to $11 billion for these projects, which is to deliver more or less -- we have a debate with on the -- just to clarify where we are.

Because of the low permeability of the field and the necessity to reinject gas, it's limiting our capacity of plateau production to 150,000 barrels per day despite the fact that we have more or less the same reserves that in Suriname, 750 million barrels of oil. But at the same time, in fact, we need to extend if we -- this plateau could be much longer. So we have a discussion, but extending the license in order to have a good profitability for the project and to recoup at 150,000 barrels per day, we need a longer period, obviously, than in Suriname, we have 750 million barrels of oil, we are making a plateau of 220 million. So I mean, it's quite obvious. So it's just a matter of math.

So this is a debate, let's say, discussion we have with the government. In fact, today, it's new authorities, new to oil and gas. So we need to give them time to understand what we are requesting in order to launch these projects. We are working. So I cannot be -- it's just the beginning of a discussion. The authorities would like that project to be on stream by 2029. So that means that we should be able to take the FID in the coming 6 months. We'll see if we can achieve it or not. It's very important that everybody, all parties will be comfortable and trust each other if we will launch such a project of $10 billion in a new country.

So are we in the case of Suriname, where we managed to expedite very smoothly, thanks to very trusty and very counterpart in, I would say, in Staatsolie and all these guys. Or will it be longer like in Uganda? It took 5 years. I hope it will be more the Suriname case than the Uganda case. We'll see. It's part of our business. But again, clearly, there is -- we are able, TotalEnergies to launch the first deepwater projects in Namibia in good conditions if we get a common understanding of the conditions to reach it.

Michele?

So consider it's an upside for 2030, '29, 2030. It's not in these production lines.

Patrick, 2 questions, if I may. I wanted to start with the dividend, and congratulations on the best track record amongst European oils. Last year, I think you were indicating a 5% growth. This year, it feels like there's 2 competing forces. On one side, there's the huge confidence on growth, 4% per annum plus the buyback. On the other side, the 10% plus appreciation of the euro versus the dollar clearly has taken a toll. And I was just wondering how you think about those 2 competing forces in effectively setting the dividend per share growth for this year and in the coming years?

And then secondly, I wanted to come back to the gas market. There as well, there's 2 competing forces. There's relatively low inventories going into this winter, but then we also have the start-up of incremental exports, at least from the U.S. starting this winter and then it compounds with Qatar from the second half of next year. I was wondering how you're thinking about the risk reward, maybe a bit more volatility than what we've seen in the past 6 months? And also when you think the oversupply in the gas market brings us to kind of below mid-cycle European gas prices? Is it still 2028 you're thinking about how the date has moved?

Okay. Many questions. First, honestly, the Board has worked hard during 2 days reviewing the strategy, managing to land on something which is a strong scheme, repeating on the gearing, on the buyback. So I'm afraid that -- honestly, on the dividend, we postponed the debate later. Having said that, it's clear that we have a differentiation compared to the others. By the way, most -- we made a lot of benchmarking. All our peers are at 4% growth per year. So I don't know if it's -- so if we make a difference, 5% is not bad. We'll have bought back 5%. So there is a debate about this euro-dollar, which honestly is 1% more or less is not -- that hasn't changed so much. So my view, we'll have the debate beginning of the year.

I don't know if we'll be at $70 per barrel, if we are still there, I think [indiscernible] of 5% is probably the right one. But it depends where we'll be on the energy price. Sometimes short-termism also affects the boardrooms. So it's a matter. But I'm confident. And again, we are confident on delivering this cash flow growth. So this is a driver. So we have adapted the buyback. I'm not sure we should adapt everything. So we want to keep that differentiation, I think. We'll see. Again, I cannot commit for the full Board before February. But honestly, I think the debate on dollar-euro was more important on the buyback level. It was taking on board $1 billion extra rather than the dividend. So I don't see that debate on the same intensity, just to answer your question.

On the gas, -- we can speak with Stephane. I would say '28, yes. I think '28, I don't change. I don't I don't move forward because these projects are -- I see some slippage there and there. And also, you have this decision of the European Commission. If it's confirmed that they want to ban the LNG from Russia from '27, that means 20 million tons, you have to find there. So it creates a tension, not optimizing all the flows like it is today. We'll see where this LNG will go. So that's -- I think it's an element of the of the puzzle.

'26, honestly, I would be surprised to see -- there are not so much -- so many tons, and you have 30 million tons according to my records, which come in the market, not so big. It could be absorbed quite easily. So '26 with this tension, with again, all these news about Ukraine-Russia, which continue to disturb the market, maybe -- and the forward, say, 11, 12, we are there, I think we are confident. A little more volatility. My traders will love it, but I'm not fully sure to be honest, when I look to that.

Now what -- by the way, a comment we should do, which is important and which explains as well what are the difficulty we face from LNG business. The arbitrage that we had, the U.S. LNG was very well located to make an arbitrage between Asia and Europe. In fact, today, most of the flow is coming to Europe. There is not much arbitrage possible between the Asian LNG. The JKM and TTF is also more closed, which, of course, impact. In fact, on the first order, when we'll see that we are analyzing the results of the LNG business, this arbitrage, which was open, today is completely closed because most of the flows are going to Europe. And that is a new thing, something we need to think about it. Will it remain or not? I think it's not clear, but this is important to understand when we analyze the results. So that's what I can comment to you.

You have a question?

[ Victor Swistzakk ] with [ Loso ] in Montreal, Canada. My question is on the buyback specifically. Since 2021, you've spent, if my numbers are correct, $33 billion in buybacks, including this year. I'm curious how you look at 3 things: a, why you're doing it; two, how do you assess its efficacy? In other words, how do you know that you -- the money you're spending is money well spent? And three, how does it fit within your countercyclical narrative that you apply to acquisitions?

Why? There was 2 fundamental reasons to make buybacks. First one was consider the share price is quite -- could be higher. So it's a right time. It's better to be -- to buy back shares when the share price is low than high. The second was an economic calculation, which is quite easy. We borrow bonds at 3.5%, and we serve a dividend yield of 6.5%. So from a pure economic point of view, company point of view, buy back shares, you can make the math. It's quite at $53 or even $60 per share or EUR 61 per share, it's attractive from a -- having said that, is it efficient? Not really because I didn't see the price -- I mean, the share price went up and down.

So I'm not sure it's efficient from a pure -- no, but it's not efficient from a pure share price point of view, but from saving, I would say, from a dividend point of view, it's efficient. Because with this policy, we managed to increase the dividend by maintaining the, I would say, what's another objective. We managed to increase the dividend and the cash out from the dividend has been stable. So in fact, for you, as shareholders, it's efficient, I think, because you've seen an increase of the dividend without having a higher burden. We have the dollar euro already today, but let's put that aside.

So is it fitting with the countercyclicality? Again, we were historically, it's a 2022, which was exceptional, where suddenly we've seen a drop of gearing ratio lower than 10%, which could give some margins. I think if you read what the -- and you probably read it, I'm sure the press release of the Board, he said we want to maintain some flexibility, agility and maintain some capacity, which means, yes, we could have the situation, and we have -- but we don't have so many -- our portfolio is good. So our countercyclicality acquisition, we don't have so many targets, to be honest. We have one, which is U.S. gas, shale gas because we need to manage this exposure to Henry Hub.

So again, we'll -- that's part of the, I would say, of the equation. And that's the reason why also we have decided to adjust this buyback scheme to introduce a price element in the scheme like we propose in order to adapt and to keep some flexibility in the balance sheet.

Yes. But I know it's a permanent question. But it's again, yes. Okay. I understand. The share could go down if there is a price going down and then you will have to buy less. Yes, I know, but it's -- you cannot do everything at the same time. And the priority today is the dividend, and we are strong on the dividend because when I discuss with our shareholders, they all phrase that. Second, we have a nice portfolio of projects, so let's make the CapEx, $16 billion. We are efficient. And then between the balance sheet and the buyback, we'll -- the balance sheet, we want to keep balance sheet healthy.

Irene, please?

Irene Himona, Bernstein. When I compare your Slide 11 on CapEx with the equivalent slide last year, it's clear that the whole of the CapEx reduction, the $1 billion is low carbon and most of that is Integrated Power. So I had a series of questions on Integrated Power, if I may. First of all, can your existing portfolio or pipeline actually deliver the targets without any additions? And what happens to those targets if you're not able to find and add CCGTs? That's the first question.

The second question, in oil and gas, obviously, we talk of Brent and TTF. And as we saw today, that drives CapEx and distributions. What power price should we be thinking about across your portfolio, which will be behind the 10% returns improving towards 12% over time once we add trading, et cetera? And then finally, can you clarify whether your Indian interests are included or excluded from the power targets?

Okay. I will begin, Stephane will complement it. No, your assumption that it's not only low carbon, it's $500 million. Last year, the [indiscernible] integrated was $4 billion, we say $3 billion to $4 billion. So $3.5 billion makes $500 million. So you don't have the full $1 billion. In this guidance for CapEx, it's net CapEx, let's be clear. We have organic CapEx, but we still have M&A within the portfolio, within this guidance for Integrated Power. So we have the room, at least in CapEx to make the acquisition we need to do in order to have more flexible assets. So it's embedded.

And I would say you have more or less an average of $1 billion per year, I would say for -- it will not make $1 billion per year because it's not linear. So we'll see the way the opportunities we might have. Last year, we -- this year, we acquired the West Burton, last year in the U.K., we continue to study different projects in Germany, obviously, and in other countries.

In the U.S. today, it's quiet because CCGTs are expensive. So we were countercyclical. So we are quiet on this side, or this side of the Atlantic, we'll see. Let's be a little patient. So you have $5 billion embedded in this guidance for CCGTs. I mean I think it's -- there are enough opportunities to be able to execute that, I think. So just to be clear. But it's important. Of course, it's part of the strategy. And I think Stephane has been quite explicit. We need to do that.

On the other side, on the renewable part, I consider we have almost all what we need to have. We made an acquisition in Germany this year. So it's not a priority, to be clear. We might look to reinforce our trading house or trading capacities, that's possible. That might be a Renewables, we might be opportunistic more in terms of pipelines, but not big large acquisition. I'm not -- today, as soon as we see. We see there are good opportunities. The U.S. might be a good opportunity area, by the way, because today, we see the valuation of this type of assets diminishing in the U.S. on the pressure of the administration. So just -- so what price drive 10% to 12%. That's for Stephane, this one.

Actually, the power price assumption is to stay at the current market level. So the improvement of the ROACE from 10% to 12% is not linked to any improvement of the current market level. So we -- if I take European level, you are at, let's say, EUR 80 per megawatt hour in Germany as a reference. And then you need to go market by market, but Texas is around $50 per megawatt hour. The improvement of ROACE will come from the growth of the portfolio, as I've shown.

And if you look at 2 metrics, one, which is net result per terawatt hour, as the price are not moving, actually, it's slightly improving, but not that much. But you have the capital employed per terawatt hour, which is improving along the next 5 years because we are growing, we are amortizing assets. There are pipes that we bought that are coming on stream and that will clearly help to decrease the capital employed per terawatt hour. So that's where it's going to come from. And as well, we are clearly benefiting from higher return on capital of the flexible assets, which are clearly contributing.

Yes. In fact, we have quite a number among the capital employed, there are some unproductive capital employed today in the denominator of Integrated Power, which will be activated with the development of pipeline, just to clarify. So we are at 10% with part of some burden in the capital employed, which will streamline.

India. India, yes, it is not growing, even diminishing. In fact, we have this -- our position in India. We have this famous -- we have 2 parts. We have the shareholding of Adani Green. We'll see. It might evolve. We have -- we were at 20% or 19%. Initially, it was -- in our plan, it's more keeping 10% to 15%. But again, it's not primarily that. And then we have the famous JVs we have together. We don't intend -- today, we are fine. We have no growth. Adani Green could grow, but we have no growth. So India, yes, we believe in that market for the reason which was mentioned by Stephane, which is the low...

Yes, low-cost renewable and high growth. Why it is not an integrated market just because the flexible assets are coming from coal and we don't do coal. So that's as simple as that. So we can focus on renewable because it's, as I said, low cost, high growth. But at the same time, we do it through AGEL, which is a self-financed company and today is generating enough cash flow to free this growth.

Just to clarify my comment, we invested $2 billion in Adani Green. Today, it's worth $8 billion almost, $6 billion to $8 billion. So if I was able to sell 1/4 of my shares to recoup my $2 billion and to be neutral, I would be very happy. So we are looking to opportunities. But again, it's not -- to be clear, Adani Green is a very good company, growing. So it's not -- it's just that we are looking to what are the financial interest of TotalEnergies, and we support Adani Green development.

Alastair Syme at Citi. One more question on Integrated Power. Can you just quantify the strategic review in terms of percentage of capital employed or some sort of context for how big it is that you're trying to scale down?

And secondly, Canadian LNG came up a couple of times. What are you trying to achieve as you look to build out that business? And do you think you need to back integrate into supply like you're trying to do in the U.S.?

I'll let Stephane answering the first one. On the second one, no, we don't need the same. I mean our view on the AECO index is that it's low for long, very long. So you don't need necessarily the same integration. We don't see -- and the capacity of export from Canada is not at all the same than what is happening on the Gulf Coast in the U.S. So the tension we could see on [ Via ] because of all the transmission, et cetera, on the system in the U.S., we don't see at all the same -- we don't perceive the same tension in Canada. So in Canada, it's just an idea. You look to the map, you see that the Pacific is -- the trip from the Pacific is shorter from Canada to Japan, Korea, other customers. You don't have to go through the Panama channel, which is becoming an issue you have today compared to where we were.

So it's the idea, okay, we have -- we are strong on the Gulf Coast. If we want to continue to grow in North America, maybe it could be good to see. If we have opportunities, we have taken -- it's an option today. We invest -- we have taken some percentage in Western LNG. I don't know if this project will come, will go to end. We'll see. It's optionalities, which from a pure geography point of view.

And again, we have a very cheap source of gas in Canada. But we studied if Canada could be an area of shale gas in Canada to invest, including to, I would say, hedge our position on the Gulf Coast, it's not a good edge because there is no link between both. AECO could remain low, while [indiscernible] could go up. So we don't see that interest. So we still look at it, different opportunities. We concluded it was not the right way to move forward, and we have 2 different topics.

Sorry, I will take 1 question online. Just...

Maybe Stephane should answer the first question.

Yes. On the first question, we are talking less than 10% of our completely employed and perhaps closer to 5%. But that's not really the point. The point is that it's, first, an interesting portfolio that we can value because there are a lot of projects that are under development and which does not translate in capital employed, but which translates in value. That's one. And second, we want to do that because as in the other branch of the company, we want to focus so that we can lower our costs. And today, we need to decrease the number of countries where we are, which will be part as well of why we are doing that.

Okay. So we take 1 question online, Matt Lofting from JPMorgan.

hope you can hear me okay. Two questions, please. First, I wanted to ask you about the $10 billion underlying free cash flow growth target 2030 on Slide 15. I think the headline is very consistent with what TotalEnergies showed 12 months ago. Clearly, though, you're now framing lower costs, more efficiency. So I wondered if you could summarize the main areas where the pathway or the route to that $10 billion growth has perhaps changed from what was presented in the past and in particular, any areas where divisional CFFO that you're assuming is perhaps now more conservative than in the past?

And then secondly, on the downstream business, how satisfied is the company with underlying performance? I think you mentioned earlier a lower CFFO contribution to this year's expectations. There was perhaps a similar dynamic in 2024 outside of Normandy, what areas of the portfolio need to be further addressed?

Okay. On the first time, in fact, we are -- to be clear, there is no growth of trading in this plan. It was the case last year. There was some assumption, but -- so we are conservative on the trading assumptions. We consider we keep it stable through the cycle, through the years. We are more optimistic about the volume, et cetera. But so we'll -- just to be clear, so that has eliminated part of the CFFO, which has been replaced by less CapEx. So I mean just -- otherwise, for the rest, I would say, Integrated Power is maybe a little lower than planned in terms of CFFO as well. It's still, to be clear, net cash positive by '28, but the target in 2030 is lower than that it was, just to be completely transparent with you.

That the 2 areas, but also linked to the fact that we streamlined the CapEx. All that is quite consistent, but we reach our targets. In terms of production, the value will be different. On the downstream, I mentioned 2 other assets where -- but maybe Vincent can comment. 2 other assets of today where we have a concern. One is Port Arthur in the U.S., where clearly we are not at all at the level we are expecting. The cracker, petrochemicals, the cracker is fine, not the polymer side, but the cracker is okay, but the refining has difficulties. And the other one is Donges, where we have invested. We are waiting to start the investment next year or this year. Maybe Vincent, you can comment on these 2 assets. What are your plans to have a better efficiency on both of them?

Yes. So first on Port Arthur, we had issues with a specific equipment, which we call the reformer producing gasoline. We are currently in the big turnaround of the refinery. So we are fixing the technical issues. So it should start in 2 weeks' time, and we should be in better shape in Port Arthur, I hope. In Donges, before the end of the year, we will start this big project in order to get gasoline which less sulfur, which is an issue in Donges is that we produce gasoline, which is not anymore on spec for the European market. So we have to export with a big [ premium ].

So the new unit will produce gasoline with less sulfur that we will be able to valorize. And here again about the reliability of the plants, we have an action plan and the team today is delivering on these items where we had reliability issues. That's the 2 main sites where we had issues. If you look at the refineries in North of Europe, Antwerp, Germany, Netherlands, they are, as a matter of fact, producing very well. And in September, they have captured the good margins.

I must also say that something in Europe, which happened, which is a reality in the figures. We had suffered a huge inflation in Europe in '22, '23, which was translating in wages. We like it or not, but that's the reality of what happened in our European companies. And in fact, when I look to the figures of, I would say, the salary mass, you have almost an increase of 15% in the next 3, 4 years, which we have to absorb. And it's also part of why the breakeven of the refining system has almost increased by $10 per ton. There is another element in refining in Europe, which is the CO2. We should never forget that today, we pay and we -- in '26, we will face less free quota allocation for refineries in Europe. That's the reality of what happens.

So when you combine this increase of inflation on wages plus the CO2 impact, that's why I'm trying to advocate a European level, maybe we should make a pause on the CO2 price because we are completely disconnect from the rest of the world. But we have some -- at the end, we have increased the breakeven of almost $10 per ton. And I mean, in the plan, what we were thinking of $25 a ton moved to $35 and maybe $45. So we have really a question of managing the cost of these refineries, which -- and finding ways to continuously be more productive is not so obvious. So I mean it's just the reality of the figures at the end, we have this -- and I know that one of my colleague is very strong, and I'm happy that the U.S. CEO is supporting the poor European CEOs because maybe they have more impact outside that internal CEOs when you go to Brussels.

It's good to see that, yes, there is a question of competitiveness in Europe for heavy industries and for industries. It's true for chemicals, it's true for refining. And I'm not sure the European leadership is taking that into consideration. But at the end, we'll have to take actions, which might be difficult. Shutting down a cracker in Antwerp is part of the answer, and we'll see if we need to do more in order to cope with this situation. That's a question of European competitiveness for heavy industries.

Paul Cheng, Scotiabank. Patrick, 2 questions. First, you're saying that in your presentation and also in your prepared remarks, you are actively below the upstream portfolio because you want to grow beyond 2030. So if we look at your upstream spending, is it -- why is it the right number? Should it be higher or that is being constrained either by the desire to keep the balance sheet to be better or is by the organizational capability limit or by industry capability limit or by just simply the opportunity set. So trying to understand how you're coming up, this is the right number and not somewhat higher.

The second question is that you have said, I mean, the world become even more political and that it impacts your business in a big way. So if we're looking -- and you also say that the volatility is lower going forward. With that, how that impact the way how you manage your trading operation? You say you expect the trading result will be relatively flat over the next several years. But based on what you said, should it be actually be lower in your trading result going forward?

No, I didn't say there will be a concern. I said the assumption is that we didn't take any benefit from growth. I mean they are working hard to make it better, and they have increased. And again, we don't see -- should it be diminished? I'm not yet there. I mean, even if in the year -- in fact, in what we plan, under control of Stephane. But for me, what we expect from the gas and LNG trading is more or less in '25, same result than '24. We were hoping to have a better result because if you remember, the last quarter of '24 was quite good. So we are hoping to have this trend, and we were planning on the trend of the last quarter '24. We are optimistic. So at the end, it's the same type of results, which is higher than what we were doing in 2019. So we should not -- in the meantime, we have progressed and same on the old trading -- same on the old trading. So I'm not yet there to think that it could diminish.

What is also true is that you have more competition in trading. In fact, that's true. Just I'm observing that landscape. After the financial crisis, the banks have exited this commodity trading, most a lot of banks. So in the end, on the old trading, you didn't have many players, the 3 European majors, some few trading house, I would say, 5, 6, 7 players. And then it results attracted many people. So we see national companies moving to trading, Aramco, ADNOC and others having -- and you see also, by the way, some U.S. colleagues who want to make more trading. So you have more people in the same basket, I would say that probably has an impact as well on the capacity to grow. It's an observation.

Upstream, I think upstream, again, it's not a matter of -- I mean, we have a -- we have been first to be able to grow by 3% per year in a market which is growing globally by less than 1%, oil and gas, 1% is quite a challenge, remember. So I mean, to think that we could maintain -- I don't know if we maintain 3%, 2%, 3%. I remember figures when we were 20, 15 years ago, we were speaking about 5%. We never made the 5%. So I mean, it's back to where do we want to invest in which type of project.

The only constraint we have is the one which I -- clearly is strong, if we want all these projects to be less than $20 per barrel CapEx plus OpEx or less breakeven lower than $30 per barrel. This is a constraint. But this is a question of resiliency in terms of low cycle. I want -- I mean, this is what we confirm. And I would say what we are demonstrating is that we can grow at 3% having that constraint. So I think does it limit? Yes, that means you will not see TotalEnergies investing in certain fields that we have exited, for example, oil sands in Canada because we are thinking that not fitting with this criteria.

And so can we continue to grow with this constraint? I think then yes. But again, we never, at the Executive Committee level, stopped the project and refuse to allocate capital if the project was fitting with this criteria. So we are not constrained by the absolute number of CapEx. I think it's fine. But we just -- if projects are fitting the criteria, we move on. We move on. We are good on oil and gas, and we can appreciate the capacity to have -- today, again, I consider that the capacity of the company to grow by 3% on oil and gas is quite a strong proposal of the investment case of TotalEnergies. So maintaining it beyond 2030, I think, is a challenge, but we'll continue to work on that.

There is a question there for a while, please go ahead.

Okay. It's Mark Wilson from Jefferies. It's kind of related to what you were just answering. You've got a remarkably consistent reserve life index over the last few years that you show yourselves versus peers. The first question is, what do you feel has contributed to that? Is it the geography of your assets, the efficiencies you put in? Is it exploration or even M&A? And then the second question is, given the growth that you're projecting the 3%, where do you feel that reserve index will be, higher or lower by the time we get to 2030?

The answer is quite easy. It's a permanent focus on that parameter. As an oil and gas company, I mean, maybe because it was part of my previous job when I was at the head of the strategic growth in E&P during 5 years. For me, it's absolutely essential to keep an eye on this reserve life index. So -- and there are 3 things that when I became CEO. First, LNG is good because LNG, if you build an LNG projects, you have very long -- you build an LNG project on very long plateau. So if you can identify good reserve, long reserves, that's good for helping your reserve life index. That's why we are working hard on Mozambique. It's not only that project is beyond. So that LNG is a good from this perspective, it is contributing to it.

Second, exploration, yes, don't advocate on exploration. I mean, keeping $1 billion. We have -- and remember, we reduced the budget from $1.5 billion to $1 billion, and we are more efficient. So it's part of it. And then having access to discovered what we call DRO, discovered resource opportunities either by being -- the Middle East, obviously, is part of it. I mean when we decided, I think first decision I took was to maintain to extend this concession in Abu Dhabi, yes, and Iraq. So you go where you find long reserves with all cheap costs. I mean, so it's fitting with all the criteria. But again, for me, it's essential.

And even if we have a strong transition strategy, and we are strong on building this electricity business, we never defocus on oil and gas. Because first, this is -- again, most of our shareholders are buying shares of TotalEnergies because it's a nice oil and gas company, delivering results first. It is where the cash is coming from. Even if we have from electricity, it will come from '28 and which will fit. So it's just the organization is focusing on that. And by 2030, the objective is to maintain this 12 years, 11, 12 years. And it's just a question of continuing. The life continues. So we'll continue to look for more opportunities in the different geographies. And we went to Brazil because these giant fields, they have a shorter life, but at the end, it's also contributed. So it's, I think, really for me, it is one major criteria of the sustainability of the oil and gas company in the future. And that's why we are focused on it, and we'll continue. And we deliver up to us.

We have Lucas here, please.

Lucas Herrmann, BNP. I guess we've got to the stage in proceedings where the questions become a little more abstract, but 2, if I might. Stephane, the first to you, just battery. Is it more important now or less given the way that the strategy is moving? And does that mean that the level of spend or the intensity, et cetera, the capital intensity of your business in ways increases because it's not so much build out of power, it's also build out of storage.

And the second, sorry, is around LNG and project financing. And I mean, there's a lot going on in terms of liquefaction growth. And maybe it's to you, JP. I'm just reminded of when Yamal came on stream all of those years ago, and I think we were all expecting -- this is a modeling question, but we were all expecting quite a lot of cash flow. What happened in the end was we got quite a lot of cash flow, but an awful lot of the cash flow went to pay down project financing. So it's just to understand with projects like Mozambique, for example, when we come to think about the cash flows into the future, how much initially is going to be absorbed by the project financing associated with the many liquefaction projects that you're building out. I said, it's that stage where it becomes a little more abstract. The questions that is.

The battery, you can go to batteries.

Yes, battery are more important because we see that especially when you have solar production in the country, that's a very useful tool to play the energy arbitrage. So in the plan, we are planning to grow battery. We have nice pipe in Texas. We acquired as well 4 gigawatt of pipe in Germany with Kyon 18 months ago, and we are deploying that. On the other -- and it's fully included in the $3 billion to $4 billion CapEx.

What is interesting with battery is that you can clearly apply the same capital-light model than for renewable, and we are actually on it where you toll the battery, you give a guaranteed revenue to the battery and you are able, one, to leverage with nonrecourse debt, the battery and second, even to farm down. And we have currently launched a process to do that with a lot, a lot of interest on the subject. So we will basically apply the same model to the battery than to renewable.

To be honest, on the second question, I will have all the details of the project. I have just one figure, and only Mozambique by 2030, if it starts in '29 is an additional free cash flow CFFO for us of $500 million. So the cascade of how does it bring that? I don't have the details, but just to give you a magnitude. And just the first year, so probably it better. So -- but I think our teams can better come back to you. So at the end, it's okay. I mean I'm not fine. I'm fine with that.

Henri Patricot from UBS. Two questions, please. The first one, going back to LNG beyond 2030, you highlight a few potential opportunities in Mozambique LNG future phases, Papua, Canada Pacific, but also that quite a few projects are going ahead already for the late kind of 2020s, early 2030s. Do you see a market in which there will be room for more than one of these? Or would you be much more selective in terms of which LNG projects go ahead in that time frame?

When you sanction a project -- a new project in 2030, you are in 2035, '26. So I mean, on the contrary, I think the beauty, if you are able to be countercyclical because you have good opportunities, it's better to anticipate if the price is low by 2030. So I think -- and the Mozambique Phase 2 might be the obvious case, in fact.

So I think you can then be proactive in ways. So that's an idea, for example. But there are room for more projects, and we just gave you ideas to tell you that the story does not end in 2030. We think we begin to think to what happened beyond. So it's just a message coming back to reserve life index and things like that.

Understood. And second question on the disposals and the SPDC Nigeria disposal. Is that something that's still in the...

It's active. Nigeria is always a nice country. We will -- we have accelerated on divestments of Bonga. It was not planned last year. SPDC, the previous buyer has difficulty to give us the money. So I want the cash. I will not lend in the money like others have done just to have a headline. I want real cash. If I'm just receiving $100 million and then I just lend the money to him and I'm still there, I'm not there in this type of deal. TotalEnergies is not there, to be clear. And I refuse to do that. So either they got the money and I got my value or I prefer to keep the asset. But I'm not there just to make a sort of -- I don't know if you qualify it just lending money to give it.

So that's the difficulty. But again, it's Nigeria. I'm -- we have other potential buyer, and we will come. We are working on it actively. Nicolas has that on his personal objective. He loves Nigeria. But I'm helping him to be clear. I'm helping him as well. Now again, that's a reality. That's life. So we moved quickly. So in the divestment proceeds, we will have Bonga and not this year, but we are working on it.

Okay. So let's go online. Peter, if you are still there, if you just ask your question.

The first was just on the LNG target. Can you clarify what that assumes for the volumes that you have been lifting from Yamal? So do you expect those will continue if the EU does ban imports of Russian LNG from 2027?

And then the second one was just more broadly, you've got quite a lot of growth coming through over the next few years. Can you talk a bit about the execution risk you see around that and kind of how confident you are on kind of delivering on the growth profile you've outlined today?

Okay. Second question is very good because now everything is sanctioned. We need to execute properly. On the LNG side, on the Qatar part, I would say I'm confident. We have close discussions not only with QatarEnergy, of course, France, but also with Technip Energy, which is -- and we see the first train middle of the year and then new trains every 6 months, more or less. So I mean the plan is there. It's true for NFE. NFS, we'll see later, but we have -- will come beyond.

Rio Grande Train 1 to 3, I would say we are in advance on the execution plan when I'm looking every month to the progress of the plan. Bechtel is very dedicated to that. And we have no -- today, we don't see -- we are not in a red zone. We are even in advance. So I would say on this one. It's -- by the way, we have an idea maybe to propose to some of you if you are interested to visit this plant in construction. It's always spectacular to see a huge plant in South Texas where it's in this new area. So that's what I can -- Yamal, first, in fact, there is an assumption there that Yamal is not there in 2030. I don't know. We are precautious about it.

So in fact, we don't know exactly either what the European will do. Either it's just banning Yamal LNG to come to Europe, but not taking sanctions against Yamal. If there is no sanctions against Yamal, I cannot execute the force majeure to be clear. I am partner. I have some commitments. Up to me to take the LNG and to bring in somewhere else than Europe, maybe to Turkey,, to India. Turkey is not far from Europe. It's not in the EU, so we'll see. That's part of the difficulty. So we don't know exactly what will be the regime. Today, they are more speaking a ban to Europe, EU, ban to EU rather than sanctioning. So 2 different configurations. Of course, if there are sanctions, then end of the story, we have to stop and we'll stop and we execute the force majeure.

So that's why in our plan, we are cautious. We have a view that maybe the sanctions will come 1 year if the war lasts. But I hope it will not last until '27, '28. I'm not at all a decider there. So we'll see. So that's for Yamal, I would say. So in our figures, Yamal somewhere is offset from '28. It's a worst case, I would say worst. We don't know. We are waiting to see what the political leaders will do.

But the last draft we've seen, it was not sanctioning. It was more banning, which then we have to take care of the LNG of Yamal. And we are working on it to see how we could manage it from a commercial point of view. Remember, [ Train ], Yamal, we have -- we are contract for 5 million tons, 2 million to Europe and 2 million to Asia and 1 million is not geographically led. That's where we are. So again, that part is not in our hand. We are following the decision from European political bodies.

Questions?

Did we exhausted all of you? Doug has another one. We can make another round, okay. So Doug?

I appreciate the follow-up. I wanted to come back to exploration, Patrick. And there's 2 parts to my question. When you have a lower risk exploration or development area like Iraq, margins tend to be lower. So I wonder if you could speak to what the PSC looks like, how those margins without specifics, obviously, compared to the broader improvement in the cash margin you talked about. My second part is you did add 25% of Block 53 in Suriname, which already has a discovery. What is the plan for Krabdagu and future exploration and development, including Block 53?

Okay. The second one, honestly, is quite easy. It was an opportunity from CEPSA. They wanted to divest. They are exiting upstream next to door. So it's an easy connection. But for me, it will help to maintain the plateau longer. So this is a discovery. It's not a big one. We speak about 30 million, 40 million barrels of oil. So it's not major, but it's easy to connect. And entering will avoid a difficult unitization process. So we'll be in, so it will be easy. Apache is in. We are in. We have PETRONAS, but we will help to do it. And so having a longer plateau, just to be clear, so it's extending the plateau. So it was a very -- an easy case to take. It was not very expensive. So it's good.

Iraq, exploration in Iraq, not much. I prefer to have access to our existing fields. No. Honestly, the contract we have is quite -- it's not a low margin. It's a good margin. It's accretive. It's contributing to the $25 per barrel at $80 okay? Otherwise, no. Iraq, we were quite pioneers to come back there in 2022 when 2020, during the COVID, all our colleagues were exiting Iraq. We came back. And we said clearly, there is an Iraqi risk. I mean, so we said to government, it's risk and reward. So I can come and invest, and we've done it in an easy way, but we need to have the clear rewards. So no way to accept any service contract to be clear. So we need to have an incentive to the oil price. We set it a contract, a new type of contract. I think some of our peers now are coming back to Iraq. I made the Prime Minister recently told me thank you for having convinced your peers. I want to keep a space for me. I don't give them everything.

Now today, in Iraq, and we had a discussion with him, by the way, I told him, look, you still have quite a number of discovered resource, which are not developed. So to invest in exploration, so I prefer just which is a longer cycle, why don't we try Ratawi, was undeveloped. So there are other fields like this one. So we are looking to where could we, in fact, even in the interest of Iraq to increase the oil production, it's easier to come on something which is discovered and we try to accelerate. This field Ratawi, in fact, we took it at 30,000 barrel per day, 60,000, 120,000, 220,000. At the end of the cycle will be we signed the final '23 in 5 years. So it's a shorter cycle than going to explore and then to find. And then you have to find the pipelines because we do with the discovery. So I'm not -- maybe we'll do it because the government wants, but honestly, our priority is think even for the country, it's better if we can quickly grow production of existing fields.

There are some giant fields where clearly we could improve the production. It's a question of -- but what we are demonstrating to the authorities is that we can work together with BOC, oil companies in a scheme where Total operates, we have some secondaries and all that is good for the benefit of the country. So can we repeat the scheme? We'll see, more my priority.

But clearly, it's -- when we go to these countries, like the rewards needs to be consistent with the risk that you take. But again, by the way, the situation in Iraq today is fine. And I visited that, even it's better than we thought. I was -- so it's surprising, but the country is going to a form of normality. There are elections, so we'll see what will happen with the elections. On our side, the fact that we have been able to award all these EPC contracts with this government is really a strong achievement, and I'm proud of the teams who have managed to do that.

Any last question? Irene.

Just a follow-up on Integrated Power. You retained the volumetric targets. You retained the target for cash neutrality by 2028. You have cut the CapEx, and I just realized you have also reduced the targeted CFFO from that division. I'm not sure I understood why the cash flow is lower this time around. It used to be over $5 billion in 2030. It's now between $4 billion and $5 billion.

Yes. Because there is this CapEx? The volume in net production, not in capacity. In the previous scheme, there was 100 gigawatt of renewable capacity growth. Here, you have only 80 gigawatts of renewable capacity. So we have adapted that because we need more of flexible assets and less of renewables. So in fact, the reality is that the way it's produced is not exactly the same. And it's also adapting to the markets we are targeting where we are more comfortable to invest. In fact, the decision which has been taken we have -- is you have key deregulated markets, one priority, 70%. The oil and gas country where we see some synergies, Iraq, Libya, where we see some synergies helping, by the way, to have access to contracts on the E&P side.

And then the other countries, what we call the renewables one, where honestly, we inherited a lot of countries where we will -- it's not a priority of the company to be a pure renewable developer. We are not a renewable developer, fundamentally. So we inherited from that from different acquisitions. And when we put all that on the paper, we said, okay, what do we do with all that? And there are too many countries, too many CapEx being spread there and there. And so what we intend to do is to keep some ones where we think there is a capacity to grow it efficiently of India, South Africa, a few ones or to do it with partners. So we are looking to find partners, and you will see soon why I'm saying that if we conclude what we are working on. Or we say, okay, these are projects which are good, let's divest them, let's stop.

So there is part of cleaning the pipeline, which was not done last year. And again, that's why I think you need to accept that we continue to progress year after year and refining, I would say, the business model, which is supportive of Integrated Power. And again, the more we move, more we are comfortable on the way we see the perspective, okay? But don't tell me that you are unhappy if we spent $3.5 billion instead of $4 billion. I would be surprised. Okay. If we are more efficient, we are looking for efficiency. Okay. So it's clear that we are -- we will have some portfolio management to be done, and we intend to do it in '26.

Any last question? 1, 2, 3. Patrick?

So thank you. Thank you for this session. We spent 3 hours together. So it's a normal standard, it's okay. I hope we have answered most of the questions. But again, I'm sure we will have more. Thank you for the attendance. And again, I hope you -- we continue to this presentation. There is no revolution. It's just giving you an evolution of the way we deploy our strategy and being more resilient, being agile and continue to focus on free cash and return to shareholders. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Good afternoon, and welcome to everybody in the room to the 39th Barclays Energy and Power Conference here in New York. And I'm delighted that we have Patrick Pouyanne, who is Chairman and CEO of TotalEnergies joining us. And Patrick, I know it's a very, very busy time for you. So I very much appreciate you joining us on screen here. So welcome, and thank you.

Thank you, Lydia, for welcoming me. Sorry not to be with you, but I'm coaching the Frankfurt, German Summit today with [indiscernible] and I could not be in New York. So I don't have the capacity to be in 2 places at the same time, and I'm very happy to spend half-an-hour with you, with all the investors.

You can do many things, Patrick. I know over 2 place was a tough. But you will be here in New York, I think, on the 29th of September for your Capital Markets update. So.

For sure, and live this time.

And if I get into some of the things we want to talk about today, you've seen a lot of change in the past decade running TotalEnergies. As you think about what's to come going forward, what do you think is going to define success for an energy company in the next decade? So I'm thinking about things like does scale matter for example. So what defines success do you think for you for an energy company over the next decade?

It's -- energy is a long time, I would say, investment case. So you need first consistency in the strategy. That's a lesson. There are some fundamentals to execute a strategy in that field. As it's quite capital intensive, you need to have a strong balance sheet. And that's important. And I think TotalEnergies, with the size we have, we have a strong balance sheet and the size is not a matter for me.

We need to focus and to permanently manage your business by having a permanent eye on the breakeven of your portfolio, the low cost. It's fundamental. On oil and gas, you know there will be some cycles. Today, we are quite high. We know that we could have in the future some lower case. So that's the situation. So that's the other point, which is fundamental. There are some fundamentals in the energy. Then you have the capacity to manage this transition where it creates an uncertainty on the demand. I'm on the camp that, in fact, the transition will take longer than people think because the customers want affordable energy because they don't change like that an energy system.

And so that means that we need to think on both sides, the oil, the gas, but also thinking to the transition. We made a choice in TotalEnergies, which is to develop a profitable integrated power business, betting on the fact that electricity market will grow. It's a way to balance and to begin to think to the transition in order to balance the portfolio.

Thus, you had a question about -- you asked me a question about that scale matters. And I think you referred to the fact that we see 2 companies larger than others today, at least in terms of capitalization. I think it's -- first for me, I'm strong on that, it's value over volume. So volume is fine if you can create value. I think our 2 USPs, they are consolidating the shale oil industry in the U.S. So they can, they have synergies, they can create that.

But I understand their business case, providing that when the other things that my lesson of 10 years as CEO is that it's good to make an acquisition, M&A if you make it countercyclically at a cheap price. I'm not fully convinced of that by this time when the price of oil is high, but that's their business, not mine.

On my side, honestly, I think the balance sheet of TotalEnergies is strong. We have been able to generate a huge high organic growth. I think we'll come back to that, more than 4% per year of energy, 3% for oil and gas. So we have a portfolio. Our balance sheet is strong. We are exactly -- we are consistent. We are a low-cost operator.

So my view is that the size -- at all level of size, even if we are the fourth largest company and a little far from the first 2 in terms of capitalization, and you can find our explanation, the U.S. against Europe. I don't think it's a matter for me. It will not be driven -- even if we can speak about M&A, it will not -- I don't feel the necessity to have a large acquisition just to cope with size.

And there's a lot of points that you've made there, which we will pick up on throughout the side of it. I'll come back to the very first point you made about a consistent strategy. And when I think about the TotalEnergies strategy, you have set this out as having 2 pillars, the oil and gas and the integrated power business. So maybe a little bit more detail on why does that 2-pillar approach matter to you?

I think first, the 2 pillars are not exactly the same size. One is bigger than the others, including in terms of investments. 75% of the investment is going to the first pillar, oil and gas, 25% to be integrated power. So we should remember that. I think it's the approach that we have. I think for us, it matters. Our energy, our strategy is answering the demand for customers today, which is primarily oil and gas, but the energy of today. We are strong on that. It's our DNA historically.

And I think it's what is driven, I would say, our profitability and our dividends and our return to shareholders. At the same time, we continue to develop again, this pillar. We have a growth of 3% per year and not only by 2030, it's 3% in ' 25, will be 3% in '26. So a large portfolio, and I think we'll come back.

And then at the same time, as I said, you asked me the question, what happens in the next 10 years? I think it's good to begin to work and to build on a growing market because electricity is a growing market, growing energy market, a market -- an energy where we can also develop our skills of integration going from production to customers by food trading and all that.

So there are a lot of opportunities and to build a business which will bring some -- give some resilience as well to the company because it will be less cyclical. It does not follow the same oil and gas cyclicality. So it will be resilient. It will contribute to the dividend. So it's a way for us to prepare the future. And again, in this business of energy, you need to think long term. So there are 2 pillars, one big one, a smaller one, but a growing one.

And at the end of the day, the objective being by 2030, we will be a company, an energy company, an integrated energy company with 80% of oil and gas and 20% of electrons for customers. And by the way, there is a common point between both pillars, which is very important, is the gas because, in fact, when we speak about power, we speak for me and the way we approach with the Board was, okay, look, it's a growing market. It's gas to power.

We produce gas, we make LNG, but it's also a way to add value to the gas to power, and we see that today. It's a booming market. It's not only a matter of renewables. I mean renewables are part of the equation, but at the end, what the company -- the customers want, they want a 24/7 reliable power. So this is a good combination for us of integration between the gas and providing electricity to customers.

And again, that consistency come through. And if I get into the portfolio itself, you've talked a number of times about and particularly the oil and gas side, the ability to grow at 3% per year on the oil and gas side out to 2030. And you do have some big projects here, whether it's Suriname, Brazil, Uganda and then if I think about the gas side, Qatar, Nigeria.

And to me, I think it's always important when I'm talking to investors that, that 3% volume growth should actually lead to faster cash flow growth. And I'm thinking 8% to 10% a year around that. But what is making the barrels better that you're bringing on stream than the legacy barrels?

It's true that in '25, we grow the production by 3%, the cash flow with 8%. Why? Because most of the growth is coming this year from oil fields. In the Gulf of Americas, I would say, with Ballymore and Anchor, which, of course, you know these barrels are a little more expensive, but with a good low taxation, so very profitable. And also from Brazil, in fact, where we have managed to build a strong position at a time where competition was not there.

What is changing fundamentally is that the policy of the company since 2015 and reaffirmed in 2020, we invest in projects which are -- which must match one criteria. It's either less $20 per barrel CapEx plus OpEx or less breakeven, lower than $30 per barrel. When you -- each new project that you inject in your portfolio is fitting with what I just said, you lower the breakeven. And of course, you have more room for higher margins.

And it's fundamentally -- it is a fundamental reason why we replaced more expensive barrels because I remind you that in the year 2015, when the price was over $100 per barrel, we are not controlling that parameter. Breakeven was much higher. So we have, of course, rotate the portfolio, but also very disciplined on the choice of projects. And for example, and we continue on it.

This year, I've divested some non-operated shares in 2 projects, one in Nigeria, Bonga, one in Brazil, Gato Do Mato because it was not fitting with my criteria. And so I said, first, it was marginal for us. Second, why should do it? I have a good -- a nice portfolio of good opportunity, and you mentioned them. And it's reality when we say 3% because, in fact, 85% of my growth has been already sanctioned is under development.

And so -- and it's true that beyond what I just described, we'll have more growth in Brazil. We'll have fields in Angola. We'll have Suriname, of course, which will come and which will feed that growth. So many opportunities. To be honest with you, the 8%, be careful when you go to LNG and growth with natural gas projects, it's not exactly the same accretive barrels.

But it's true, what you said, the cash flow -- free cash flow will grow quicker than the barrels. That's what we will deliver to our shareholders as we plan to deliver an additional $10 billion of free cash flow at $70 by 2030. So it's a reality. And of course, this is why we can consider return to shareholders as very, very safe within TotalEnergies portfolio.

And those are 2 points that I will come back to both on the free cash flow and the shareholder returns. But if I go first to again, the portfolio as you think about building it into next decade, can you talk through your position in Namibia, both in terms of that final investment decision for your existing Venus project? And really what else you might be looking at in the area or kind of how you think about adding resources?

I think Namibia, so we have today in our hand a project called Venus. There is a lot of 700 million to 800 million barrels of oil. There is one difficulty as we already expressed, the permeability is low. So that means that in order to sweep the oil, we need to reinject the gas, that will limit the plateau of production to 150,000 barrels per day, which is quite interesting, which means as well that the production will be longer on a typical deepwater project like in Suriname with this type of reserves, 800 barrels, normally, you make a plateau of 200, 220. It will be longer. That's why we are entering -- we have entered into a discussion with the authorities to extend the license for a longer duration.

I think today, the industry, I see that the contracting industry, all our suppliers are very excited by Namibia because they see that new country for oil as being potentially a good area for them to grow. So we are just working with them. We have interesting, I would say, very attractive offers, which match with our budget. So it's good news.

Now again, it's a new country to all. So we engaged also with the authorities. And when you are engaging with a country which is covered oil and gas, it takes sometimes a little time. We need [indiscernible].

So we see today, our priority is to build the trust with the Namibian authorities in order to move forward. It will be the first project in Namibia. And of course, as you said, we are looking for more because there is an interest for us to find synergies for development because it's just the beginning. The first mover generally is benefiting from some attractiveness, but we need to go beyond.

We have exploration. We continue to explore on our license on the license. We have also -- the Orange Basin is continuing in South Africa, and we intend to drill that next year. We still have 1 or 2 wells to do on our license there. So we will look, obviously, Venus today is a priority, but it's clear that TotalEnergies is willing to use Venus as a base to try to move forward and to grow in Namibia, and we are looking to different opportunities to do it.

And in that whole area around, you touched a little bit on the exploration side there, and you talked about South Africa. So -- and it brings me a little bit back to earlier when we were talking about value versus volume numbers.

How do you think about resource additions from here? As you look around the globe, where are you most excited about where you have the Total’s portfolio? And is there any way you'd need to add anything?

First, I would just remind that today, Total has been good to maintain the quality of its portfolio and longevity of its portfolio. Our proven reserve ratio is more than 12 years, 12.4. There are only 2 major companies around 12 years, Exxon and I. So I'm very proud that we have kept able to cope with Exxon on this one. And our competitors are more around 8 to 9 years. So there is a big difference when we think to the next 10 years.

And this has been the result, I would say, of 2 ways to build this portfolio. to be countercyclical on M&A, so to capture opportunities or, for example, in Brazil, where we managed to build at a time when nobody wanted to really look seriously to that. Today, it's growing. And then exploration, I think it's important to maintain belief in exploration. We have a budget which is very consistent, $801 billion of exploration appraisal for the last 10 years, very maintaining and some good results.

We discovered Suriname. We discovered Namibia. So I'm happy with the teams. We just -- we continue to bring new licenses. We just announced a new license in Congo, in Nigeria, where there were no awards of licenses to any IOC for 10 years. We managed to get the Niger Delta is potentially prolific. We have also some -- we are looking to Angola as well. So all this West Africa. We have some interesting well in Brazil. So I believe we will continue to be clear to look to exploration as a source of adding value because, of course, it's risky.

But when it's positive, it's the best way to create value in our oil and gas business. So we are on both. But again, for example, where I'm excited. I'm excited. There is debate about Mozambique, but if we are fighting to restart Mozambique quickly shortly, it's because the potential of Mozambique is not just the first phase. You have 300 Tcf. It's a huge resource for the future and which to continue to develop in the future.

But we have also built a position last year in Malaysia. People were it's quite a prolific gas basin with customers not far from that. And we just announced in June that from the first hub that we acquired, we managed to get a second hub with PETRONAS, so it's, again, 4 Tcf of gas. So there is for me, that's the way we want to build the future, and I'm excited. I think the quality of the portfolio total is the diversity of it. At a time where you have geopolitical uncertainties, I'm always -- my answer is diversification, diversify your geographical footprint.

And we have been able to do it both the U.S., Brazil, Africa, Middle East. And I think it's in this world, it's probably also of interest for our shareholders. So -- but there are opportunities, and we begin, in fact, to build when we go to beyond Mozambique, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia is to prepare not only 2030, but 2035. It's -- we continue to think 10 years in advance. In fact, this is a way to ensure the future of the company in all these businesses.

And it's fascinating what you're saying there, Patrick, because actually one of the things that I've admired around the TotalEnergies portfolio is that some projects will slow down, some will speed up, but you've actually always hit the targets that you set yourselves for that. So I'm actually going to move to the second pillar within that just the time integrated power.

And my perspective is that TotalEnergies has been one of the best in this area in terms of how you've deployed capital and that consistent approach, and I'll come back to that phrase consistency a lot. But the critical question, I think, still for everybody in this room and for investors listening is the idea of can you make money in that business? And can you really achieve that 12% return on capital employed target and ambition that you set out?

Of course, we want to make money. After 5 years, we are generating EUR 2.5 billion per year. We make CapEx today at EUR 4 billion. We are growing quicker than expected. And in fact, I can tell you that when we said to our investors, it will be net cash positive by 2028. I can confirm that the growth is 2028, and we'll reach this return 11%, 12% by '28, '29, 2030. Why?

And we secure the road map, in particular, because we are focusing more and more on what we said, integrated power. There are countries where we can deploy the full system like Germany, like the U.K., like the U.S., of course. And we'll put where it's not only renewables, forget, if it was only renewables, it would not be 12%.

To be clear, I don't have a magic tool. But I make money because we are able to deliver cash flows and returns because fundamentally, we took at it. And again, the gas to power, we need flexible assets. And it's a combination of all these production assets, which allow us to go to customers to make proposals and to enhance the value, including by the way, on the renewable business.

When you say renewables combined with batteries and gas-fired power plants, when you sell what we call firm power to customers, you have a big added value compared to what would be a PPA has produced for renewables. So all that is the way we look at it. I think we intend on the next -- because I have many questions, we intend to give a little more insights on the way we make these cash flows coming from production assets. And you will see that it's quite split in 2025 between the production part and the downstream part.

I mean -- so it's really like for oil and gas integration is creating the value, not thinking only of producing assets for renewables. So we are far from this model. So that's why I'm confident. And again, you will see it will be net cash positive by 2028. It will begin to contribute to the dividend because this is the objective.

But again, 8 years for a new segment to contribute to the dividend, I would be happy if I'm contributing in Namibia in 8 years to my dividend. So it's quite -- I think we have a model. It's -- and again, why 12%? Because I was looking to the race of the major companies for second quarter '25.

We are #1 still at 12 point -- but I don't see any -- we are today at $70 and lot of my peers are under 12%, more between 10 and 12. So point they make, people ask, why do you invest in this business if I'm between 10 and 12, and at 12, it matches my $60 per barrel threshold for the year, and it gives more resilience, more cyclicality, so absolutely correct. And again its energy. And so, it is also a way to continue building strong position in gas, LNG. It also a way to have a short for gas and to create value.

I think that point around 8 years to get to positive free cash flow is an important one to remember. And you did mention I think [indiscernible] is the TotalEnergies growth top line energy production at about 4% a year. Cash flow probably grows a little bit faster than that. And if anything, CapEx probably comes down from here a little bit. So where does that leave you in terms of free cash flow side? How are you thinking about free cash flow?

When I think about free cash flow, there will be 2 sources of free cash flow. And you are right. There will be some cash savings because the CapEx were probably at the top in 2025 will begin to go down because we are also working today as we anticipate, I would say, a softer price on oil and maybe on LNG, we need to manage that. So I see, yes, some lower CapEx for the future.

So it will again help us going down from 18% to 16%. And then you have the growth of the cash flow -- free cash flow coming from just the growth of the revenues of what I described. So the free cash flow, again, should grow by $10 billion by 2030 at price. And so that's -- and it's growing. It begins to grow $1 billion in 2025. That will be one.

And then it will accelerate with the deliverability in particular, integrated power, which should they consume, I would say, $1.5 billion will become free cash positive. So it's also an addition to the trajectory. But I think on that, I invite investors to attend our 29th of September meeting in New York that we will have more color on that. I'm sure, and we'll try to give more color even on the shorter term, not only 2030.

And as always, I'll have more questions at that point as well, Patrick. But it probably brings me a little bit to the cash return side. And so clearly, we've outlined the strength of the portfolio, you've had a lot of spending options, but you've also promised to return at least 40% of cash flow from ops to shareholders and 2025 is a higher number.

And it's one of the questions that I debate quite a lot, but you've had a $2 billion a quarter buyback, which I think has been in place for 3 years now. And so -- and there's an element to which just the way the short-term cash flow CapEx balance works, is getting paid out of debt for now.

So how do you think about that? And given where your share price is, and I think it's no secret that I think the share price should be higher than where it is now. But how do you think about returns to shareholders? So that's a long-winded discussion, but how do you think about it?

No, it's -- but the first point on this one to be clear. We are fully committed to all what is dividend. To be clear, the dividend is 6% in total, no cut in 4 years. Remember, in COVID, we went through -- we have increased it by 7% per year in the last 3 years. It's dynamic. In fact, all the share buyback we've done are transformed by growth with dividend. And as we anticipate free cash flow growth that I just mentioned to you, we even anticipate on that by giving 7%.

So that I can -- anybody is completely secured. I think the growth will be maintained. We call at least the buyback story. So if we continue to buy back around 5%. We will increase by 5%. That's important. The 40% threshold you mentioned, in fact, is a big protection for our shareholders because -- and it's a big protection in terms of low price because, in fact, even at $50, we will apply it.

And at $50, that means that we will do even continuing to make small buybacks at $50. But in fact, the reality is that our payout has been return to shareholders has been 50% to 55% in 2024, in '23, '24 and today in '25. So we have, in fact, established a higher level. It's true that there is a debate today, and you are right. And because when I see the reaction of the market at the end of July, where suddenly we were a little -- our share was a little, I would say, punished because we increased our debt.

The Board will discuss that. Of course, that matter. In fact, what is the question mark. On one side, you have a cheap debt, I would say. My cost of debt is 3.5%. So is it a problem to borrow money to return to shareholders to be consistent when you have a cheap debt.

On the other side, you have a gearing level where my cost of capital, I remind you, is more 6.5% than 3.5%. So the arbitration. And by the way, as I said, we consider the share is cheap. So it seems that it's logic somewhere to continue. On the other side, we've seen the reaction of the market. So there is a debate, which basically come back about which gearing is acceptable? Is it 15%? And by the way, the 18% we reach will go down because it's some working capital effects that I explained. So I'm not worried about. But this is a debate.

And again, we'll -- I think the Board will, of course, is listening, to be clear, we listen to the market. And so we see the reaction. So I think we'll have a strategic session before, of course, our session in New York on which we will debate. And I cannot anticipate, but the debate will be back. But I just gave you the 2 fundamentals.

On one side, cheap price, low cost of debt, inclining to maintain buybacks even if it's higher than the free cash flow. So we say reasonable. So at $70, we maintain. We know the math, and let's be clear. We knew that at $70, $8 billion much better $80 than $70, but we were ready to accept it. If the market is punishing us because of that, then we'll need to think about where we will land. But that's the debate. I think it's an interesting point where, of course, I'm ready to listen to all my shareholders and investors to help us to go into to have the right policy for the interest of everybody.

And I think you've talked a number of times to hear about actually that value and focusing on what matters to shareholders, it really comes across. And I think it's one of those that when I look at it, sometimes the conversation ends up more about the cash flows and about the portfolio and the consistent portfolio that you build.

I am very conscious of time, Patrick, and I very much enjoyed our time together in the discussion. But I personally see the energy sector is dominating the capital markets narrative for the next decade, how we deliver energy where it's right. But Patrick, I did want to invite your final thoughts on TotalEnergies's prospects for the next 12 months. and sort of just the message you want to leave to investors here in the room and joining us online.

I think as you said perfectly well, our share is cheap. So I invite everybody to look at it. It's a good opportunity to enter into as a shareholder of TotalEnergies today because, of course, we will deliver growth. We will take care of cash flows. We don't -- I don't control the oil price to be clear, or the refining margin. We do our best, which is the deliverability of our assets. I see that our integrated power is coming. I know that '26 will continue to maintain the growth of 3%, that the cash flow will continue to grow as well.

So I mean, we have everything, but the dividend policy, as I explained, is completely secured and is very strong. So I think it's really a nice entry point. You have in front of you, it's a company with a clear strategy, a consistent one. And I would say we have a clear return policy shareholders.

So I am -- I think, as you said, we have -- you have in front of you a company, which has -- and I try to explain it through our discussion, a consistent strategy. The fundamentals are strong. Projects are low breakeven. The portfolio is globally well balanced. And so I think we will attract. I know we are a European company, but sometimes -- and we have a European companies, which have more and more U.S. investors. But that's, I think, a good case of continuing to attract U.S. investors is for me fundamental.