TotalEnergies SE Ordinary Shares

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Total Energy's first quarter 2024 results conference call. I now hand you over to Mr. Patrick Poionnet, Chairman and CEO, and Jean-Pierre Sperre, CFO, who will lead you through this call. Sir, please go ahead.

Good morning and good afternoon, everyone, for this quarterly results session. I'm happy to welcome you together with Jean-Pierre We will go through all the details of these good or strong results in first quarter 2024. But before to do it, I would like to highlight the way we have implemented our two-pillar strategy during this quarter. And first, to recognize that the company celebrated its 100-year anniversary on March 28th. We have been celebrating this event all through the company in 120 countries where we are present. We have our company's ancestors who were really pioneers when they discovered oil in Iraq in 1927. And, of course, it was the opportunity, this anniversary, to pay tribute to the hundreds of thousands of pioneers who had followed them and were, in fact, the past and the present employees of the company. We have decided, by the way, that the signature of this industry will be pioneers for 100 years. So, but today, I would say, with the same pioneer spirit that we have decided in 2020 to embark in our journey in the energy transition and moving to total energy into an integrated multi-energy company with a clear and simple strategy anchored on two pillars. First, on oil and gas, mainly energy. with the objective to continue producing hydrocarbons in a responsible way, producing and growing hydrocarbons in a responsible way in order to answer the growing demand. And second, investing and developing integrated power, energy for the future, with the objective to become net cash positive by 2028. So this first quarter of 2024 is about advancing this strategy, I would say we are off to a great start on both pillars. We have achieved several milestones during this quarter, but I would like to end the line. First, on the oil upstream, we successfully started up some operated operations in Nigeria with AgpoWest and Tirago Development in Denmark, both of which are additive to our overall corporate cash margins, as well as Mero2 in Brazil, which started at the beginning of the year. We continue to have success on the exploration appraisal front. We've recently finished the positive appraisal of the Venus oil discovery in Namibia, and we are now working towards FID targeting end 2025 for the FID. We have also captured in these prolific orange basins some new licenses of INTRS on the South African side. We are making also, it's important to note, I told you it's a matter of execution or growth towards 2028, so we are also making good progress on some FIDs, which were planned for 2024. We will sanction this month of May the Camino project in Angola, 80,000 volts per day, operated by us with 40%. And we also plan in May to place the LLI orders for Suriname projects, and we confirm that we are envisage to take the FID before year-end 2024 in Suriname. Finally, I would like also to comment that we have done an interesting deal recently in Congo to increase our interest into a giant deepwater film ore and divest it at the same time from very mature assets. That's for oil. On the energy side, quite a big activity as well during the quarter. First, we begin to benefit from a low and re-up trading below $2 per million BTU to see some opportunities to integrate, further integrate our U.S. energy value chain upstream with the first acquisitions from Lewis Energy Groups of natural gas assets in the Eagle Ford, operated by a strong operator, EOG. Earlier this week, we announced the FID of the Marsa Energy Project in Le Mans. which is really setting a new low-carbon intensity standard for the next generation of energy plants, 3 kilograms of CO2 per barrel, fully electrified, and the electricity coming from renewable sources. And it's a very good example of TotalEnergies deploying its integrated multi-energy model in a country. Thanks to that strategy, we reached a new scale in Oman, combining LNG and renewables, or two pillars. So it's a good example, again, of what we can achieve by moving on the two pillars. On LNG, I would also insist that we continue to work with Asian buyers, which have some appetite for medium and long-term contracts. And I would say all linked long-term contracts, which is important, of course. In particular, for example, this quarter, we signed a contract with Simp Corp in Singapore, Beginning 2027, just perfect when we have more production. And to cover it, I would say, or to edge it with some all-linked contracts, that's the target. And there will be more to come as our teams are quite active on the Asian fronts, China, Japan, Korea. So we are working. Of course, it's important. We have a strong energy position, and we know we have some perspective to sign some all-linked energy contracts as part of our strategy. And lastly, I would also mention on the integrated gas part that we are acquiring the whole of Sapura OMV in Malaysia. This is a gas business related to net back of energy pricing with quite a good potential to increase. In fact, it's a prolific gas region with some potential to grow in the future. That's why we're very interested to acquire these assets. Then moving to the second pillar, integrated power, we have, again, fourth quarter in a row and increasing adjusted net result income, operating income, and Jean-Pierre will come back on it. As you've noticed, we have implemented, we are advanced implementation of the integrated strategy in Texas on the airport with acquisition, closing the acquisition of 1.5 gigawatt CCGTs, and that's good. The demand is growing in Texas. data centers, AI, we are right on the good market there. And also in Germany, which is another key market for us, we closed the Kion Energy Acquisition, which is a battery storage developer. So you will see for the results that the relevance of our strategy continues to be demonstrated quarter after quarter as a proof of concept that our differentiating model works. delivering strong results, which are fundamentals that allow us to grow our shareholder distribution in a sustainable way. We confirm again that we increased the interim dividend by 7% compared to last year, which I think will be appreciated by all our shareholders. And by the way, it's also this proof of concept starting to pay off, as we can observe the positive evolution of the share price recently. which is, in our view, in the view of the board, a signal that is being increasingly recognized by the market as a good one or the right one, and also evidenced by our leading total shareholder return. Finally, this value is not only shared with our shareholders, but also with the pioneers of total energies, and it's important, who are promoting employee shareholding plans, We are now in Europe the number one company in terms of amount of capital owned by employees, more than 11 billion euros, and a special grant of 100 shares to each of 100,000 employees has been decided by the board to celebrate our 100-year anniversary. So I don't know if we'll have $100 billion of results, Jean-Pierre, but not yet. So then with that, I'll turn it over to Jean-Pierre. That was a transition. to go through the detailed financials this first quarter.

Thank you. And good morning, good afternoon, everyone. As Patrick mentioned, our consistent strategy continues to deliver strong results, and we are well positioned to deliver on our 24 objectives of more energy, less emissions, and growing cash flow. Brand prices were flat quarter to quarter, down only 1% to 83 dollars per barrel, and the refining margin was strong. plus 36% quarter-to-quarter. But European gas prices declined by 35%, reflecting mild winter and high storage levels. In this context, Total Energy reported first quarter 2024 adjusted net income of $5.1 billion, only down 2% sequentially, and cash flow from operation, including working cap, of $8.2 billion. Profitability remains strong, with return on average capital employed of 16.5%, and we maintain discipline, confirming net investment guidance of $17 to $18 billion for 2024. Importantly, we continue to extend our track record of attractive shareholder distribution, with $2 billion of buybacks executing during the first quarter, and nearly a 7% increase year-on-year of the first interim dividend for 2024, which is now up 20% compared to pre-COVID level. Moving now to the business segment results and starting with hydrocarbons. Production was 2.46 million barrels of oil equivalent per day in the first quarter of 2024, stable quarter to quarter, and up 1.2%, excluding Canada. Production benefited from oil startups at scale, Merutu in Deep Offshore Brazil, and Agpo West in Nigeria, as well as 6% growth quarter-to-quarter in LNG production, which has upset the Canadian oil sands asset disposal that closed in the first quarter. Looking now forwards, production for Q2 2024 is expected to be between 2.4 and 2.45 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, and reflects planned maintenance that is partially compensated by ramp-ups, of Beirut in Brazil, and TIRA in Denmark. We reiterate full year 24 production guidance of 2.4, 2.5 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, which is 2% growth year-on-year, including Canada. Exploration and production reported adjusted net operating income of $2.6 billion, and cash flow of $4.5 billion. Also, we continue our leadership as a low-cost producer, with first quarter 24 upstream production cost at $4.6 per barrel. Moving now to integrated LNG. Hydrocarbons production for LNG was strong during the first quarter, up 6% quarter to quarter, thanks to higher availability, mainly Adictis in Australia and Qatar Energy LNG M2 in Qatar, as well as increased supply of LNG in Nigeria. First quarter LNG sales decreased by 9% quarter to quarter, partly due to lower demand in Europe, even mild winter and high inventories. Volumes also reflected partial downtime in three-port LNG in the U.S. this quarter. Integrated LNG adjusted net operating income was $1.2 billion during the quarter, reflecting lower LNG prices, sales, but also low volatility in the market. Cash flow totaled $1.3 billion, impacted by the timing of dividend payments from some of our equity affiliates. Given the evolution of oil and gas prices in recent months and the lag effect on price formulas, we anticipate that total energy average energy selling price should be between $9 and $10 per annum in the second quarter of 2024. Now moving on our Integrated Power business segments. We are pleased to report that this business continues its profitable growth trajectory, with adjusted net operating income growing sequentially for the fourth quarter in a row as activity grows. Adjusted net operating income grew 16% quarter to quarter to more than $600 million, and was supported by production growth in both renewable and flexible generation. So flexible generation, as Patrick mentioned, now includes the 1.5 gigawatt CCGT acquisition in Texas, which closed during the quarter, and further enhanced our integrated position to provide clean, firm power in the attractive and growing ERCOT markets. Cash flow from integrated power was increased $692 million for the first quarter, on track to achieve our target of $2.53 billion of cash flow for the full year 2024. Finally, return on average capital employed for the 12-month ending end of March 2024 reached 10%. Moving to downstream, the refinery utilization rate for the first quarter 2024 was stable at close to 80%, with a restart of setup in Saudi Arabia, following a planned turnaround during the fourth quarter of 23, offsetting the impact of an unplanned shutdown at the Donge Refinery in France. ARC contributed $960 million adjusted net operating income in the first quarter of 24, up 52% quarter to quarter due to higher refining margins. ARC cash flow from operating From operations excluding working gap evolutions of $1.3 billion, also increased double digits quarter to quarter, although it was impacted by a timing effect in 10 billion payments from equity affiliates. Looking forward now, we anticipate that the Q2 24 refining utilization rate will increase to around 85% as the Dons refinery progressively restarts, and because there are no major turnarounds planned. On marketing and services, this quarter demonstrates the efficiency of the implementation of our value-over-volume selective strategy, with cash flow from operations increasing by 5% year-on-year to $480 million in the first quarter of 2024, despite a decrease in our sales of petroleum products. At the company level, we reported a working cap of $6 billion during the first quarter of 24. And the main components behind this figure are, first, the reversal of the exceptional working cap released of $2 billion in the first quarter of 23, we highlighted during our last earning call. Secondly, $1.5 billion in the first quarter of 24. related to the effect of higher oil and petroleum product price on inventories at the end of the first quarter of 24 compared to end of 23, and $2 billion of seasonal effect, $1 billion related to the seasonal effect on tax liability, and an additional $1 billion related to the seasonal effect on gas and power distribution activities. Dealing at the company level increased to around 10% at the end of the first quarter, compared to 5% at the end of last year. And the just described $6 billion working capital led to a 4% increase in gearing, and the decisions we made given the interest rate environment to exercise the call end of March on the 1.5 billion euro hybrid bonds resulted in an additional 1% increase in gearing. Therefore, we expect gearing to structurally range around 7% to 8%, as 2% to 3% of the current gain related to seasonality impact on working cap at the end of the quarter. Our consistent and balanced strategy is paying off, as Patrick mentioned, and the first quarter has positioned us for continued success in 2024. In this context, the Board of Directors of Total Energy decided the distribution of the first interim dividend of €0.79 per share for the fiscal year 24, representing an increase of close to 7% compared to 23, and authorized an additional $2 billion of share buybacks for the second quarter 24. And with that, I'll turn it over to Q&A.

Thank you. This is the conference operator. We will now begin the question and answer session. As a reminder, if you wish to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. Please kindly mute any audio sources while asking a question. If you wish to cancel your request, please press star 2. Once again, please press star 1 if you wish to ask a question. The first question is from Chris Jones. Christopher Copeland with Bank of America. Please go ahead.

On networking capital and your net debt outlook, I think that removes already a few questions, but maybe a broader one. I wanted to just double check with you, Patrick, the political temperature and your assessment as we go into not just AGM season, but the idea that petrol prices remain capped There is talk about windfall taxes, should they be expanded or not, whether there is a plan to tax buybacks, what your thoughts are in terms of whether Europe has learned its lesson from the energy crisis that we're in, or whether it's still a dangerous thing to make too much money as an oil and gas company. I'll leave it there for you to go in whichever direction you would like. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Chris. You know, for sure, European leaders, they don't want to have again a crisis, an energy crisis on the price. You can see that in Europe, not only you have the German farmers, the French farmers who are complaining as soon as you try to lift or to increase some taxes on the tractors, fuel tractors, so it's not a good idea. That's very clear. We see, by the way, a global crisis political temperature where a lot of people are calling, I would say, for a form not of pause, but less regulation linked to the Green Deal. And we could think that the next mandate of the European Commission might be more about execution than increasing targets and regulations. But the petroleum price, obviously, European leaders can do nothing about it. It's more in the end about, I would say... OPEC and OPEC+, which by the way today are probably countries are probably quite fine with around $90 per barrel. They don't want as well to go back too high above one another because they don't want to have some impact on customers. So clearly the price was pushed up in the last months because of the crisis in the Middle East. I don't see the fundamentals of the market, as we all know. There is not much inflows of new supply in the market. The demand continues to grow, 1, 1.2%. So my view is that we can expect this price above $80, $80 plus for the year, I would say. So we are fine. Having said that, you never know. We have observed some volatility. Windfall tax? No, not windfall tax. But there is a principle in EBITDA. We are in a state of law and you have a territorial principle for taxes. That's very anchored in most of the Constitution. For France, it's in 120 or 130 treaties with other countries. We tax profits where we are, which we deliver in a safe country, and we cannot be double taxed for the same profits. That's a fundamental principle. So that's, I'm not so... I don't think it will come. The point is that, of course, European politicians are looking to what has been done in the U.S. on the 1% of tax on the buybacks. So, honestly, this is a music which could cross the Atlantic this year. Having said that, honestly, it will not change the buyback policy of total energies because, again, the buyback policy is... sharing additional profits with our shareholders, and even if we have to pay 1% of 8 billion, it makes 80 million dollars, euros, so I think we'll absorb it, but we'll not encourage them to do it. But back to something, you know, the debts in Europe have increased, so people will look for some additional taxes. We should learn them how we can cut costs as well, but that's not fair or necessarily our way to look at it. So globally, I mean, honestly, I think from this perspective, I think you must make the difference between, I would say, all the statements during the European campaign and politicians and the reality of what is really executed.

Very clear. Thank you, Patrick. Maybe one day we'll see the U.S. companies talking about relisting in Europe. But I'll leave it there. Thanks for your time.

The next question is from Irene Haimona with Bernstein. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Question on Namibia, if I may. You said, Patrick, you're working on an FID by year end 25. Can you say what the size of results will be for that FID? And can you share with us Post your successful appraisal, what have you encountered in terms of reservoir thickness, the gas cap, flow rate, etc.? Thank you.

Ryan, you go to details, which we pay a lot of money to get this data, and I will not share them publicly with all my colleagues, you know. because we still have quite exploration to be done. Now, in fact, today I will not answer by reserves, but I will answer, reserves is more a question for us of dimension, the dimension of the production per barrel per day. And it's linked, in fact, like in Suriname, this type of FPSOs, they are, the parameters, the key parameter would be the volume of gas we need to recycle. because there is a GOR. So we speak around, I would say, a development around between 150,000 bile per day and 180. It has to be now firmed up for the reservoir engineering studies, but all the data are there. We have made the campaign so Venus knows the priority is to go to production, I would say. And then, of course, Namibia for us, not only that, because you Our neighbor has just announced a new discovery in the southern part. We have the equivalent prospect on our side, so we'll drill it. We are acquiring that seismic in order to make the acquisition. So for me, Namibia is the first development, and we see others coming behind. But let's explore. And as I said as well, we continue to acquire some acreage, in particular on the Orange Basin.

We have two

good licenses, prospective licenses on the South African side, which we might drill in 2025, according to the, I would say, to the process of authorization, which is prevailing in South Africa. So that's where we are. So it's good news. We will be probably the first to produce oil in Namibia. That's the objective. So Suriname will be here, Namibia first development next year. That's the good news, I think. So to answer your technical questions, first, I don't have the data, so I cannot share the secrets. Second, to be honest, no, I have some. Second, I think if we speak today about development, it's because data are good enough to make a profitable development, fitting with our criteria, which is, as you know, less than $20 per barrel of CapExpress OPEX, or less than $30 per barrel per given.

Thank you very much.

The next question is from Christian Malek from JP Morgan. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions. It's nice to be back on the call. Two questions, just maybe first on Namibia. I mean, I was quite shocked how the scale of the resource has been increased as far as the GALP statement. I say that because I've never seen such a massive move in the way it's been presented. But the question I have is, therefore, in the context of your execution plans and your discipline on spend and investment, how comfortable are you that as and when you do sanction the FID, that this will stay within your CAPEX envelope in terms of both cost per barrel and so on, given we've seen This movie before, as far as Angola, when we had major discoveries, and then sort of fast forward two, three years, and it wasn't as easy to get the volume online for a number of reasons. That's my first question. Even if you have line of sight on that for now, that would be good. And the second question is, there's a lot of debate around listings, and I sort of find that we can blame everything apart from the actual valuation and why the valuation is where it is. relative to the US. But the question I have for you, Patrick, is electrons versus molecules. At what point do you potentially, in a stronger macro environment, re-emphasize your molecules as far as either sort of rotating capital or investing more capital? Because it sort of strikes me that the quantum of cash flows the US majors can deliver versus Europeans, the main striking difference or the distinction is the level of you know, hydrocarbon as far as oil and, um, the cash flows generated from that, that oil volume. And I know that energy transitions and the whole of the debate, but just purely on quantum of cashflow, is there anything that would make you reconsider a reallocation of capital? Thank you very much.

Okay. First, um, on the first question, I'm very comfortable to FID in Namibia, first FPSO and the second one, and it will be, uh, within the $18 billion of framework of capital per year, we can do it. It's profitable. You know, it's not a problem. And obviously, our priority, let's be clear, if we have good oil projects fitting with our criteria, they will be sanctioned. There is no doubt about it. And we never arbitrated against an oil project in the company. And it's why we express our strategy with two pillars. The first being oil and gas. The second one is integrated power. But it's clear. So no, I'm not afraid to have one, two, or three developments to be done in Namibia. I think what is good for our company will be good for the shareholders. So if it's a good project, we will sanction them. And we have some space. And we have been very agile in the company. to arbitrate. And I prefer to have more options in my portfolio that's a constant strategy. To arbitrate and then to give priority to some of them. You just demonstrated it with Marsa LNG. We postponed PNG because the costs were too high. We sanctioned Marsa LNG and 20% share. It's not big, but it's profitable because the capex were in line with our expectations. So this is the type of options. And so I prefer to have too many options and to be a to be selective on the most profitable ones, because this will contribute to enhance the cash flow per barrel and so the cash flow per share, I would say. So that's fundamentally what we do. So this one, and if there is more to come, we will capture it, to be clear. By the way, you are right, but I've never seen any way, anybody in 25 years in the history to speak about 10 billion barrels with one word or two words. I mean, so, you know, but the media, the media says, So no, no, it's with two words, no, never, but we'll see. Then on the stock listing, listen, by the way, when you go, it's nice to mention one of the U.S. companies because I was looking to the results which has just been announced. They are exactly the same than us. So maybe it's not a matter of molecules or electrons. It's maybe that's why we have mentioned that we could, And as we have more and more U.S. shareholders, thinking to have a clear listing in New York is obviously a move on which the board asked me to look at it because it makes sense. So we'll see how we can organize it. But going into the direction of a growing U.S. shareholder base seems to be a nice and normal thinking from a board of directors independently, by the way, of the domiciliation of the company in Europe. That's clear, but that's the first one. I don't think, so reallocation of capital, no, I don't consider it. I think we prefer to stick and to be consistent with the strategy. I think it has a value in the energy field to have a consistent strategy and to, because we know it's a long-term industry and if you don't navigate and thinking, so The integrated power business is continuing to grow to deliver cash flows. We are on the roadmap to reach 12% and then to be net cash positive. So I don't see why I should suddenly reallocate capital because the oil barrel of oil is higher. And again, it's a matter of... I prefer to stick on a strategy to be selective in terms of... projects, including hydrocarbon projects, taking on the low cash break-even of the company. I think it's fundamental. And suddenly having another raise to volumes, which will not be positive. So I think we are generating as much dollars as one of the companies you mentioned. So that's the reality. So it's not a question, of course, of... portfolio is a question fundamentally of going to the shareholders who are willing to buy energy companies.

Over the medium term, there could be a bifurcation of cash flow as their oil volumes grow and others don't. That's what I meant more in the context of if and when prices move higher and there's more volume in oil, is the market starting to look backwards for that in terms of valuing cash flow. That's what I meant more, the median.

Okay. Honestly, it would be a good problem if we have more cash flows because the price of oil is going higher, but I will not make the mistake to think that, yes, it's possible. The scenario you described is perfectly possible, Christian. But at the same time, we shouldn't say again, higher forever. That's not true. We know that it's volatile. We know that when price of oil goes up, then demand... We slow and then exactly the same typical thing. So we must not forget the essence of the story. Having said that, the best answer I tell you is that today we have a very good, not a good, a super strong oil and gas business, which allows us to deliver the best return on capital employed among the majors. Despite the fact, I don't like the word despite, that we are also investing in integrated power with a lower return. So that means the best question is if we have a portfolio and an efficient oil and gas operations, the proof again, this is the cost per barrel, OPEX per barrel is $4.6 per barrel. So that's We protect you. If the barrel is higher, we'll make more cash flows, for sure, because we maintain and we continue to steer this breakeven. And it's not only a matter of investment. It's also a matter of portfolio, quality of the portfolio.

Very clear. Thank you very much.

The next question is from Lydia Rainforth with Barclays. Please go ahead.

Thank you, and good afternoon. two questions if I could and one just to follow up on the US listing. Patrick, I think you said that the board has asked you to look at the moving listing. How long would that process take and ultimately what would stop you from doing it at this point? And then the second question was on the LNG business. You talked earlier about the idea of having flexibility within the portfolio. I just wonder if you could talk us through what your outlook is at the moment on the LNG market because obviously we've had Some projects have been delayed because of higher costs, but others that are coming in that are very competitive. So just your perspectives on that market. Thank you.

Okay. On the first one, to be clear, there was a discussion at the board with the board, clearly, on the matter of U.S. listing. We all agree that we have to seriously look at it, and so we are working on it together with Jean-Pierre. and I plan to report to the board by September, and then we'll see the pragmatic free-for-all, and we'll come back to you. But we consider that, and I had discussions, by the way, with a number of large shareholders in the U.S. about it, that today, in fact, we have an ADR, which is not a real share. They come to buy shares on the Paris market. You have exchange rates. You have few. And when I look to the... the behavior of the share doing it every day. You know, you have the price market which is dictating the share until 3 p.m. And suddenly you have a drop or a hike because New York is leading it. And by the way, the share at the closing in Paris is just the value in New York at 12. So all that is not... And on the top of it, which is more important, again, we have a... It's clear that in energy and the oil and gas field... U.S. shareholders are buying the shares and European shareholders are not so buying in the same way. So I think it's also a recognition to the growing part of the shareholding. And so we must look at it because, again, the board is keen to understand why. If there is a way to fill the gap that we see, if we can get easily access to shares to U.S. shareholders. that's where we are, and we'll keep you aware, don't worry, but I think it was the right time to mention it to our investors. On the LNG, you know the LNG, I will tell you, I'm positive for 2025-2026 because you will not see much new capacities. Of course, like you and all of us, we are not naive. We observe that from 2027, I did not mention 2026 because some projects will be delayed. I'm sure it's a big trajectory, you will see new capacities coming on stream from the U.S. and from Qatar. So this will have an impact on some of the markets. That's clear. But for 2025-2026, the price could be tensioned since some of the plants, again, could have some difficulties. That's possible. After that, okay, that will be good for the demand. You know, it will rebound. So what we are doing together with the energy teams is to – sign some oil-related medium-term contract because the view that we have on this business is that the oil might remain, like Christian's question suggested it, might remain stronger. So that's what we can do. And again, by the way, I'm not afraid because generally, and it was very well demonstrated by one of our peers, when you have some low cyclone energy, they are not very long because generally the demand is very reactive. You know, you have countries, clearly we've seen it this year, In 2023, you've seen more China buyers coming back to the market at $8, $9, $10, $9, $10. Under $10, you see China, and you will see, if it's dropping to $9, you will see India as well coming. So I think it's positive for the demand. And that would be, by the way, something important in this business, because somewhere with the events of 2022, customers are a little shy, you know, with this energy which went to the roof. That's why, by the way, they are also interested themselves to sign more oil-related contracts because they see more stability in that oil pricing than in the gas market, which has been very volatile. So, I think, again, maybe a lower price. Another comment on it, because sometimes I'm surprised by some analyses which are reported, You know, LNG, one of the interests of LNG, like you've seen in the results of Total Energy, is when the price of gas is going down in Europe, we have some amortizers in the LNG pricing formula. You know, we are not a European gas seller, I would say, and so the impact on our revenues, cash flows, and results is much lower because the formula LNG are amortizing these. Again, I'm not worried. I continue to believe that it's a good business to invest because it's a growing demand, because we need gas and electricity to produce, to complement the intermittency of electricity. There is a climatization demand in the middle class in Asia. So all that is driving, I would say, electricity demand. Part might be covered by coal and renewables, but part also with gas. And you know, a country like India is very interesting. They are building a real gas infrastructure with big truck lines around the country. City gas is being developed. And so it's a reality. We are investing, by the way, in this business there. It's a reality. And I think that a lower price during two, three years might give a push to that demand. And when the demand is stalled, it's difficult to Stop, you know, because then gas becomes your fuel for your house. So that's the perspective I see. But again, we are active in order to, I would say, edge, not edge is not the right word, but to sign some medium-term contracts with all related terms.

Brilliant. Thank you.

The next question is from Martin Ratz with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.

Yeah, hi, hello. When oil prices are referred to as relatively stable, I find that a very interesting comment. But anyway, I have two questions that I wanted to ask. The first is a relatively simple one on the buyback in oil prices. We started the year, of course, with 2 billion a quarter in buybacks, but I think it's fair to say that oil prices have been surprising to the upside so far this year. So I was wondering... if there is some move in the quarterly buyback, perhaps later this year, if this oil price sticks and under what conditions, we might see sort of the quarterly buyback much higher. I was hoping you could say a few words on what the prospect of that sort of might be. And then the other one is about the Sepura OMV acquisition. You bought 100% in sort of two tranches. I know it's not as exciting as Namibia perhaps, but it's not entirely small. I was wondering if you could say a few words about that. the rationale of that transaction, what the attractions of the assets are, how it fits in the overall picture. Thank you.

Good. No, it's not small. It's a good deal. Even if we don't make a lot of noise, even, you know, I prefer to pick some good assets which fits with the strategy, the growth potential, and we don't need to make small because, in fact, it's giving us an operating position in Malaysia. We see that as many advantages. In fact, we have a strong partner, Petronas. Malaysia is a very, in fact, it's still a prolific basin, several gas basins prolific ones. It's an opportunity to have a material position, 50,000 barrels per day, I think. So it's material. We can dedicate people. We see there, beyond these licenses, more to be done. So I cannot, there is a potential to expand in the gas business. This is a business which is related and which is priced as a net back from LNG. So you have different formulas. So it's part of also the interest of this business. You have some upside and you can correlate it. And it's also a way, again, to strengthen the links with Petronas. Malaysia is an interesting location as well for other activities, like in particular CO2 storage for Asian buyers. So there are some... A lot of Japanese companies are looking to that. So we see, and again, you know, I think for a company of our size, Ele is now in Asia, in South Asia strategy. Having more fit in Asia is important for future. This is where the demand will come. And Malaysia is an interesting country. We have also some energy business. So this was a good opportunity. Again, a material one, because what I don't want is to move from a, from a small asset. So this one was, so we were to have that materiality by making all these transactions together. On the buyback, well, okay, I just want, in fact, you know the answer by asking the question, Martin, I think. You know, when we stated in the press release in February, just reading it, with $2 billion of share buybacks in the first quarter of 2014, which will remain the base level for quarterly buybacks in the current environment. I think the current environment in February was more or less $79-$80 per barrel. We continue on this basis, but it's quite clear, you know, we have been clear about the cash allocation framework we follow. First, the dividend, the capex, we are where we are and we don't intend to expand that. And we said that we'd use share buyback to, if we have more cash flows, to share it with shareholders. Again, it was premature, this quarter, because we have only seen $90 for one month, so I will not conclude that the $90 will remain for the year. I know that when I was making some roadshows in London, people were speaking to me about $100, but in the meantime, it was at $95, it went down to $88 or $89, so it's volatile. It's clear in our minds that... If we have more cash than the base case, then we'll look to share it through share buybacks with some shareholders. But we don't have a mathematical formula to give you, so you have to guess. And again, it's a monitoring. We'll see what will be the second quarter, and I expect some decision probably middle of the year or September by the board when we'll have a better visibility of what could be the execution of the year. We have a good balance sheet, so we will not wait the end of the year to announce you what we'll do. But again, let's look to what is the reality of the market, because at the same time, oil price is better. Gas price was a little lower than anticipated at the beginning of the year, even if it's going up in the last weeks to more $9, $10 in Europe. And the spread with the U.S., because energy up is going down at 1.5, is also a good, important indicator for us between the TTF and AMREP. So that's a good signal. So again, we will follow what we say to our investors and shareholders. I remind you as well that we said that we want to distribute more than the payout for more than 40%. This quarter is at 46%, I think. So we are on the way to not to disappoint you. But it's like the strategy. We are consistent and we go... step-by-step, and when we are in a position to take decisions, we'll take them. Wonderful. Thank you very much.

The next question is from Lucas Herman with BNP Paribas. Please go ahead.

Yeah, afternoon. Thanks very much for the time and interesting comments throughout, Patrick. Amazing, isn't it? We all focus on oil now, and moved on a little bit but I just want to turn on the subject of FIDs I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the offshore wind business and just how things have progressed for you over the last six to twelve months around costs and what your thoughts are now on the timing of decisions you know Germany UK possibly North Asia where you have opportunity so just to give us some idea of okay I know what I'm doing on Namibia or Suriname, but what am I thinking around, you know, the allocation of capital to wind and timelines? Thanks a lot.

Okay. I will be transparent. There is no way. It's clear that, you know, we had the experience recently in New York where, and in fact, it's an issue. You know, when you are in some markets which are more regulated or I would say more depending on some fiscal incentives, suddenly everybody wants to take the incentive for himself. If the supplier is increasing the price of his turbine because he wants to capture the ITC, then we don't have it, and then we cannot make the project. So it's a chicken and egg story, but we are not condemned to develop projects if they are too costly. You know, I'm very... I'm capex-driven, and you know me for long now. We have just recently said that on P&G we are able to delay because the capex went out there and going to new contractors. And on offshore wind, obviously, we'll be the same position because it's clear that, you know, this energy is more expensive than onshore wind or solar. And, you know, integrated power strategy, it has to find its place in a merchant way somewhere to be able to make money with the merchant pricing as well. So if it's too costly and that it's going out of what could be expected as a merchant pricing for electricity, then why should we do it? So we are working on it. There is no rush. We will not be led by, I don't know which planning, by a 2030 target. the 2030 target for total energy can be filled with plenty of onshore possibilities. We'll have some offshore projects because we have some in the portfolio which are good, on which we will give the priority. We have created many options, and what we were discussing between us with Stéphane was, okay, if we need to rank all these opportunities, then to do the best ones, and not necessarily all of them. So, again, you have some eating there, but either we can... have some cold weather on all this value chain. Otherwise, we will wait and see. You know, we are at the position. But we work. We work. We work on... Last comment I would say for me of showing is an energy for, again, you have to look carefully to what will be the electricity market prices. It's an energy for markets where the electricity price will remain high. So you cannot deploy it everywhere. But Germany is a good fit. UK is potentially a good fit as well. And New York will see, again, if we can obtain or not the right conditions to develop it. So we are monitoring it, but... You know, in our capacity of integrated power, it should represent something like 10% by 2030. So it's not the core of the growth. And so if the 10% are only 7% or 8%, I don't care. Priority is profitability. It's a profitable growth. And so we will go and review this project one by one. And if costs are rocketing, it's better to wait and see or to allocate your capital to another project. OK.

Thanks very much.

The next question is from Biraj Borkataria with Bank of Canada. Please go ahead.

Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. The first one is on LNG. There's been on and off news around potential EU sanctions on Russian LNG. Now, just wondering what this would mean for the offtake at Yamal in particular. Would you be able to divert the cargoes and sell them elsewhere, or would you have to declare force majeure? And then the second question is on hydrogen. So, late last year, you announced a call for tender for across your refineries, and I don't think we've seen anything since. I was wondering if you could provide any insight on you know, the response from the industry and what you're seeing there. Thank you.

Okay. I know you like Russia very much. But there is no, for total, you know, if you, I will tell you, if EU sanctions Yamal LNG, the price of LNG will go up quickly and globally our portfolio will benefit of it. So I'm not at all, it's a positive if there were sanctions, not a negative. because the cash from Yamal is quite limited, contrary to what you might all think. First, we don't receive dividends from Yamal LNG since 2023. Second, the LNG business, because I remind you, but because of the risk of sanction, we decided not to hedge the volumes of Yamal. That means that this year, we have sold Yamal in Europe at a TTF price, and we buy it at a Brent basis. That means that it's not... a very profitable operation. This year's contract. So, honestly, it's not a point. So, yes, if there are sanctions on Yamal by Europe or by EU, we'll have to exercise force majeure, for sure, on some of the contracts. There are two contracts. One is for Europe, which we can exercise. There is one for Asia, on which we'll have to look more carefully to the close. So, this is where we are, and But my view to share with you, Biraj, I don't think, because the European leaders understand that their gas security of supply today rely on the energy, and they don't want, again, to see a price crisis in Europe until 2027. And what I understand is that they might have some ideas, but from 2027 on, not before. So we'll see. Again, for total energies, it's neutral. It's even a plus if there were some sanctions. So maybe people should think I'm a little provocative, but in fact, that's the reality when I look to this project. And you know, it's not billions of dollars in our cash flows. It's a few hundreds of millions of dollars which we can absorb easily, which have already been largely absorbed since 2022 in the company by other projects. On the second one, I would like you to follow more carefully. We gave you some indications in February on hydrogen. We told you that we receive a lot of offers, more than 50 different offers to our tender. We have been offered 5 billion tons, and we are targeting 500,000 tons per year. So then all the maturity of all these projects are not the same. We are working on them. I'm quite optimistic to be clear that we'll get what we are targeting. It's important for us because these 500,000 tons will allow us to decrease CO2 emissions by 5 million tons. 5 million tons of emissions, we have here 38 million tons, so it's quite sensible on the roadmap. And again, within the European ETS framework and the famous Red Freight, We can do it, I would say, in terms of neutrality compared to paying your taxes or eliminating emissions and getting some green hydrogen. So I'm really, you know, it's quite attractive. We are, in fact, becoming an anchor customer for some players, in particular in Antwerp or Rotterdam, you know, and even Lorena in Germany, quite a strong interest. And we could benefit from being a first mover because, again, they are As people, our projects are willing to develop the projects thanks to such a 15-year contract that we could offer. So we'll come back to you when we have clarity. There are different tenders, a lot of discussions. But I think before the year end, we'll be able to come back to you with news. But I prefer the teams to work rather than giving more indications. But I'm convinced that we'll have the opportunity we'll be able to execute the roadmap as planned.

Okay, thank you. Good luck.

The next question is from Michele Della Vigna with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much. And congratulations on the strong capital discipline and the ongoing upgrading of the portfolio. I think you mentioned P&G. That's definitely a great example where cost inflation has led you to rethink or at least delay the project. I was wondering which other projects in your portfolio you think should be delayed or perhaps re-engineered a bit following some of the recent cost inflation. Mozambique is certainly one where it feels like some of the bids have come back a little bit on the high side. And my second question goes back to the idea that you floated of a U.S. primary listing. The big aim there is to be included in one of the major indices like the S&P 500, which has so much passive and semi-passive following. I was wondering if you've had any discussions there and if you think it's actually something doable to be included in that index while remaining headquartered in Europe. Thank you.

Michele, you know the answer to the second question. And you know that you cannot be in S&P 500. They are not the best in the U.S. at all. So we don't intend. That's why we speak about primary listing. But again, when I see, when we discuss with U.S. shareholders, for them having access directly to real shares in New York would be a plus compared to going through this ADR or to the Paris market to buy shares. I think that's what we think about it. We see a Clearly, more appetite on the North American side for energy companies, oil and gas companies, but in Europe. So we are studying what could be, again, to facilitate their appetite by offering them easier access to our shares. That's the idea. But the index might be a plus, but it's not in the agenda, to be clear, because we don't speak about demilitarization. We speak about primary. That's all. On the first one, no. Honestly, on Mozambique, no, we don't face it at all. I know one of my colleagues wants to float that idea, but it's not true. I mentioned that a few months ago that we were discussing with contractors on Mozambique because they raised their costs. We had good discussions with them. So the good news that I can confirm today is that, in fact, we are back to we are on the good contract with all of them. We realigned all the contractors. because their interest is that we can execute a controlled project. Their interest is not to force us to retender or redesign or I don't know which strange idea. So we have a good concept, a strong concept, resilient one. So we work with all of them, and today we have contracts which have been initialed to restart the project. But we are over-dimensioned in that project. And again, on the security side, I would say, There have been a lot of things. The security in northern Cabo Delgado is okay. There is no incident, no event. It's well controlled. I will meet soon President Nussi from Mozambique to review it with himself. And so I would say on the southern part of Cabo Delgado, it's quite far from where we are, there have been some incidents, but there again they are deploying some forces. And by the way, again, that part is first. I would say, you know, people are asking me to release the fourth measure, but the first thing to be done is by the state of Mozambique, which is in charge of the sovereignty and security, to tell us if we could lift it before I decide. You know, let's do it in the right order, I would say. Don't try to ask privately owned companies to decide about something which is not fully in our hands. The security of that region is the first duty. It is the duty of the state of Mozambique, and we are working with them. So I would say it's not a matter of cost, this one. It's more a matter of having the right conditions to lift the force majeure and to move on, to move on progressively, probably, because it has to be done. The restart, you know, we'll try. We have to want to be remobilizing this stuff. We'll take time. But it's not a cost. So yes, P&G was, of course, disciplined. And it's not really redesigned. It's more, I think, we made, as we tried to explain, I will tell you, we're limited to our traditional engineering firms, partners, Western ones. I think what is new is that Western contractors have not so much appetite for many... It's like us. They do value over volume. So they have a lot of, plenty of projects in the U.S. probably easier to execute, you know, and... And so what we think is that we have begun to work with some Asian engineering firms, which are also able to deliver good upstream projects. And we observe it. In Uganda, most of the contractors who are working in Uganda, half of them are coming from Asian countries. And the execution is very smooth. And they respect the costs, the budget. So we are happy with them. So I think it's more... We went to the traditional players. We want to open the tender. It will take time. And I'm optimistic that we can put this project back on track. But again, as I answered before, within our portfolio, we have many options. And that's good to have many options. We are not discussing a lot of master LNG. We have it. We introduced it. We know we might have another option, which is called Train 4.0. in Rio Grande LNG projects, which might be more efficient than others. So I prefer to have more option and then to organize the planning and to be able to resist to cost increase, to keep the discipline while we will be able, despite this, to deliver the LNG growth we anticipate for 2028. So that's where we are. And again, we'll monitor the project one by one. And we see, you know, in Suriname, clearly we have good costs. Benefiting somewhere from synergies for some contractors with all the projects in Guyana, that's clear. So there is a synergy somewhere. Contractors who are working in Guyana, they propose to come with us in Suriname because for them it's just next. And so they can capitalize on what they've done. We'll see in Namibia, which is a new province, it will be for me a The next, I would say, frontier from this perspective is how do we establish an efficient oil and gas industry and servicing, et cetera, in Namibia.

Thank you.

The next question is from Kim Fustier with HSBC. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my question. I've got two on LNG, please. The first one is on U.S. LNG integration. I think your intention to extend into the upstream in U.S. gas has been well telegraphed for a while, and now you've made a first step with the Lewis Energy deal. Are you able to say roughly what proportion of your U.S. LNG offtake you'd like to cover in the medium term? And secondly, you mentioned good appetite for new oil-linked LNG contracts from Asian customers. Are you able to say or give any color on the slopes embedded in these new contracts, and also what share of your contracted LNG sales Is that for renegotiation over the next few years? Thank you.

Okay. On the first one, I think I've been clear. We want to protect or to edge, I would say, our cost of gas, our cost of production by having some gas, some equity in gas productions in the U.S. So it's around 1 bcfd, which we could target, more or less. But then again, no rush. Today is the right time. The NREF is low. So we've seen some dry gas producers quite keen to open the door. So we try to jump in. So it will not be a big acquisition. Probably it will be a sum of assets. And like we do, you know, you observe probably that I prefer to do that than rushing to make big M&A, which are expensive. And so we have an opportunity to do it. And... and dry gas window. Eagle Ford is perfectly located next to Rio Grande. That was one of the advantages of Rio Grande Energy. And you know, there are not much appetite for this dry gas Eagle Ford basin. So there are opportunities there to deploy, to develop a position on the long term. That's what we target. And the cost of acquisition is quite good. It's quite low. in particular today, because it's counter-cyclical. It's always what I think to make good deals when it's counter-cyclical, and this is typically what we should do today. But 1.502 is a good opportunity for us to advance. So if people are listening to me, they can come. Then on the LNG contracts, I cannot give you some commercial discussions on the slopes. It's protected, by the way. In most of my contracts, It's written, but I cannot disclose it, so I cannot do that. If we sign, it's because it's fitting with our expectations. That's all that I can tell you, but I cannot do that. And, you know, we renegotiate contracts. You know, in most of the long-term contracts, you have a clause which is, I would say, either five or ten years. It depends. So I think it's more than seven years on average. So, you know, every year, I would say, as we have a large portfolio, we have a 30 million tons of energy contracts. We have one-seventh, I would say, more or less, of these volumes. We are being renegotiated. But, you know, a negotiation for us is also positive because it's an opportunity sometimes to have longer contracts. So it's a permanent, it's an exchange of pricing and duration and volumes and optionalities. So, in fact, when we are reopening these contracts, this idea, There are many parameters which are on the table. It's not just the pricing. And then you exchange, okay, maybe more optionality to redirect some volumes in favor of the seller or of the buyer. So that's quite interesting, this negotiation. So I would say we negotiate more or less. Again, you can take it as a whole firm, 1,000,000,000,000 tons. We are accustomed to do it, but it's also... I was in China recently. We also discussed new contracts with the people. So it's a permanent give and take, and that's part of commerce, I would say. It's a business. Thank you.

The next question is from Alistair Syme with Citi. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Hi, Patrick. Can you talk about how much of your integrated power business earnings comes out of Spain? I think you've got a lot of flexible generation combined cycle capacity. I'm really just interested in how current low Spanish power prices will eventually feed through into earnings if they do at any point. And then my other question, just back on Namibia, I think in the press earlier in the week you got pinned down to suggest it might hold similar potential to Guyana. You know, you talked about 180,000 barrel a day development, which is something that is not huge. I'm just sort of interested in what makes you connect the dots to something sort of Giana-sized for the basin.

Thanks.

Oh, but again, on the second point, there are two differences. One is each development. You know how much is the size of one development. And again, it's dimensioned fundamentally by the facilities on the top side of the FPSO, because including the GOR, you cannot oversize the gas handling facilities on the top side on the FPSO, and that governs, generally, quite a lot of oil production. So I told you, again, the question will be, how many can we do it? And when I see my comments that I've done, it's just that when I observe, it will not be like in Vienna, when one GV will cover the full discoveries. Not the case. So we'll not have, I would say, the same efficiency to have one GV in charge of deploying the full resources, which is the case for France and Guyana. In Abidjan, you have different operators who are discovering all the hydrocarbons, or cells, shells, gall. So that means that when I am adding, and what we know about it, I'm adding it, I think the perspective to have six, seven FPSOs, or I don't know, It's perfectly possible on the whole Orange Basin, and we're just at the beginning of exploration, including on our block, including I mentioned the Orange Basin on the South African side. So honestly, it will not be as efficient in terms of development because it's on one GV, but several GVs could cover. I mean, the potential of this area seems to be quite attractive. So again, you have different operators, different exploration programs to be executed. So that's the second part. On the first one, Spain is around 2025, out of the 35 gigawatts, it will represent, I think, something like one to two gigawatts. So it's not a major country. It's the one we started quickly because it was easy to have access to some solar projects next to France. But it appears, yes, you're right, but it's not an easy country because a lot of competition. The price of electricity is quite low. You have a lot of... But again, and you have some containment, so you have to be careful about the project. It was an early mover to a renewable, so there is a lot of projects there. But I would say, in the plan, I would say by 2030, we could target something like 4 gigawatts of 100, so 4-5%. So it's not... In Europe, for me, it's not the number one country to deploy in terms of integrated power. Germany has more interest than even, I would say, UK. Because, again, for us, the driver will be where do we see the best combination between gas and renewables. Okay?

Next slide. But my question, which is really on today, I get a lot of your earnings in the integrated power coming out of combined cycle in the gas in Spain.

No, but Spain is quite low. You don't use much of this combined cycle today in Spain. Okay. Thank you.

The next question is from Bertrand Haudet with Kepler Fibre. Please go ahead.

Yes. Good afternoon, Patrick. Two questions. The first one is on U.S. offshore wind. There were recently your project, Attentive Energy, that was canceled. Can you share with us the reason of that cancellation? Because I understood there should have been a one-off, I would say, indexing section closed linked to the cost, and so I'm struggling to really understand. And do you still see a way forward in U.S. offshore wind? And then the second question is on is LNG related. You said in your introductory remarks that you've asked your team to sign long-term LNG contract with Asian buyers in the coming years. Do you have a volume in mind?

The first question, in fact, Bertrand, I answered previously. I explained that one of the key contractors, which is making a lot of local content that suddenly increases costs, probably trying to push the limit. He reached the limit. And in fact, it's, I would say, a You have to wait and see the follow-up. But I cannot disclose it because, again, we have some contracts with the state of New York, so I prefer not to comment it. The state of New York is managing these contracts. Their intent is yet to have the projects, and so they will probably, like they've done, for the two old contracts with two competitors, they will return the rate in the conditions which will allow us to launch a project. You need to have a little more time and you will understand. On the second one, I don't want to put a target officially today in front publicly with my teams. We know that we have some volumes available in our portfolio. This volume might be marketed, and it has to be marketed. When we took in Rio Grande the commitment of 5 million tons, we don't want to market all of it, but part of it clearly has to be marketed. It's clear it's part of the strategy. We are strong enough, and we are trusting our teams enough to do it without having the contracts, but at the same time, it's good to deliver the contracts. It's less than five, but it's not zero. You find the objectives. It's not like that. Again, at the end, it's a question of negotiation, discussion, and I think the right contracts. Thank you.

The next question is from Paul Chang with Scotiabank. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Patrick, you did the small deal buying 20% of the rate of With your LNG exposure in the Gulf Coast, is that sufficient or that you are seeking additional assets in the U.S.?

Okay, Paul, I think I answered to Kim. No, it's not enough. It's a first one. It's an opportunity. It's a first volume. It's, I think, 100, 200 million skirts per day, and we target more 1 BCFD, so there will be more to come. But the Eagle 4, as I said before, is a good basin. Dry gas in Eagle 4 is a good basin for us.

Okay. And your acquisition of Carlos on the low-carbon solution, how did that change the way that your approach or that your pace on investment in that area, in the carbon storage?

I think it's a compliment. You know, I've been always clear on CO2 storage, that we were ready to develop a portfolio primarily in Europe because it's linked to our assets. In the US, we have some refineries and petrochemical assets, so we know that we'll have to store CO2. We had the opportunity to have access, as I would say, at cheap conditions to these two nice projects, CO2 storage, one in Texas, very next to Port Arthur, where we are located, which is operated by Chevron, very committed, so a good operator next to our facilities. So that's matching our target. And another one, Louisiana, which is not created, but we intend to divest the second one. So again, we are driven fundamentally by securing some volumes on good projects for being able to store our own CO2. And if we have more capacity, we'll offer it to hard-to-abate industries in the vicinity. So that's, I think... And this one in the U.S., in the U.S., we have quite a vibrant CO2 economy, so it might be a nice place to have a good scheme, to have, I would say, a low-cost CO2 storage.

Patrick, does that mean that you are... No, we have a new... Yeah? Is it primary that you said for... lower your carbon emission or intensity of your own operation, or that you look at it as a gateway for a third-party revenue source business? It's for both. Okay. All right. We do. Thank you.

The next question is from Henry Patricot with UBS. Please go ahead.

Yes, hello, Patrick. Jean-Pierre, thank you for the update. Just one question on integrated power. You mentioned a strong first quarter in terms of cash flow from operations. We analyzed here the first quarter. You're already in the upper half of the guidance range for the year, and you'll have more capacity coming on stream over the rest of the year. Is it at this point expected that you're more likely to be At the upper end of the 2.5, 3 billion cash flow range, maybe even slightly higher. Is there something to have in mind when it comes to the first quarter cash flow, which we explained that we may not expect exactly that run rate through the year? Thank you.

Thank you. No, I confirmed the 2.5 to 3. You can multiply by 4. You will find something like 2.7, 2.8. But, you know, I'm not sure. It's a permanent growth. I'm not sure that sometimes we not have... The seasonality in this business, and don't forget it, you consume more in winter than sometimes in summertime. It depends on the region. Even if in Texas it's the contrary, you have more cash in summertime with hot weather than in Europe. But you have the seasonality aspect, so I confirm 2.5 to 3. And if we can be next to 3 rather than next to 2.5, I will be happy.

Okay, thank you.

The next question is from Jean-Luc Romain with CSE Market Solutions. Please go ahead.

Thank you for taking my question. It relates actually to CapEx in integrated power. You have had a strong start to the ad. Should we expect the quarterly level of organic CapEx to continue about the same over the rest of 2024 or to still accelerate?

No, but I think you have something very uneven during the year because, as you know, the guidelines we give you is the net capex, and you have, of course, with a growing portfolio, a growing part of farm downs, which will be booked probably more on the second half of the year than the first half. So you see more organic capex at the beginning, and then we should land to what was planned for the year, I think $5 billion. That's what we mentioned to you. So I don't anticipate a higher capital allocation to this segment. And by the way, I mean, as it was said by Christian, as we have quite a number of good oil projects, the idea is not, again, we told you that we have reached the right percentage of allocation, 30%, 33%. So that's a guideline. And I'm sticking on this one for the years to come. It's part of, we came to that level quicker than expected, but now it's also a matter of discipline. We have a lot of opportunities, but we are also selective, and it's important because, again, it's not one against the detriment of the other. So we execute a strategy. So it's more a timing effect, like for the working capital, rather than the seasonal effects now. But you will see it landing during the year. Okay?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Gentlemen, there are no more questions registered at this time.

And thank you. Thank you to all of you. I think we were targeting to be on time in order for you to attend the Exxon call, if I understand, which is follow-up in five or ten minutes, so we respected it. Thank you for your attendance. It's another quarter of strong delivery. Some people will say total energy is sometimes a little boring, but we are boring for the good, you know, and always going up as a share. So, I mean, I prefer to be in a bad situation, not to surprise, but to execute, to deliver, to be consistent. And I think it's probably one of the good, when you buy shares, you can trust that we will deliver. That's the message. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the conference call. Thank you for your participation.