TotalEnergies SE

Good morning if you are connecting from the U.S. Welcome to Total Energy's 2024 results and 2025 objectives meeting. We are today in the city in London. I hope that you will appreciate that we brought the sun in London today and you will appreciate also the view. For the people who want to follow us live, you can connect on our website totalenergies.com. The program today, we will start with the presentation of the 2024 results with Jean-Pierre, and then we will move to the outlook presentation for 2025 with Patrick. The presentation should last one hour. And then we will move to the Q&A session where you will be, of course, able to ask all the questions you want. We have, as usual, a dedicated line for the people who could not attend and we will bring from time to time questions online. We should be finished around 4.15, 4.30. But before to start our journey today, I invite Stéphane Michel, our president, gas and power, to come on stage to launch the meeting with a sequence on safety. Stéphane.

Thank you, Renaud. Good afternoon, everyone. As you are aware, TotalEnergies is building an integrated power pillar. And like any other industrial activity, this new development is coming with new HSE risks. One of them is the risk of fire and explosion while operating our battery energy storage system or BES. In the industry, around 15 incidents happen every year. The most serious one was in March last year in Japan, where several firefighters were injured by an explosion. Within TotalEnergies, our last incident occurred in 2023, hopefully without injuries. But since then, we have worked on the design specification of batteries. And we have done so with our battery affiliate, SAFT. which happens to be one of the top five best suppliers in the world. Thanks to their know-how, we've been able to include new innovative safety barriers that you can see on the slide. By adding early detection of thermal runaway to prevent the fire to spread over, By adding as well water fire suppression system in addition to the passive one and by adding extra ventilation to avoid the risk of explosion. In addition, we are implementing now systematically a dedicated training for firefighters on how to fight a battery fire because it's quite specific. Thanks to all that, we are confident that we can develop our multi-gigawatt pipe of batteries while protecting our people, of course, and by limiting as well the risk on our assets.

Thank you. Jean-Pierre will be on stage. You have the first one.

On safety, sorry. That was for the battery and that's a good transition for our result in 2024. The first one is on the result on the tree. As you can see on the left side of the chart, the fact that we are continuing progressing and we are actually in the Lower, if not the best, of our peers in terms of comparison. That's one on the left part of our activity. And then you have the right part of our activity where we have introduced the comparison as well on integrated power TRIR. comparing our results to one of the peers in that industry where you can see that we have been able to progress from above 1.5 in terms of trade in 2020 to 0.78. And that's today something which is very... at the living edge of what is done in that industry of integrated power that has been realized by working on the technological risk, as I've just mentioned in the previous slide, and as well working on behavioral safety with two things. One, the way we operate our facility, and second, the way we build, because we have a huge exposure to construction man-hour. That was for safety. Thank you, Jean-Pierre.

I should introduce in the room because you have other executive committee members so that you can identify them. So Nicolas is just there. Nicolas Terrasse, Vincent from refining and chemicals. Bernard is next to Renaud. And we have in the back Aurélien and Namita, which are there. I think I did not forget anybody. Hello is in Japan, so she's not in London. But she's probably listening to us. So Jean-Pierre, the floor is yours now.

Thank you very much. It's a real pleasure to be here with you today. to present the 24 results and the main achievement of the year. So, as you know, our strategy, balanced and consistent strategy, is anchored on two pillars, so oil and gas, mainly LNG on one side, and integrated power on the other side. We have made great progress in 24, executing this strategy and anchoring free cash flow growth on both pillars, oil and gas and integrated power. So let's start with the high main heights of the year 2024. On the first pillar, oil and gas, we started production at five major projects, Meru 2 and Meru 3 in Brazil, deep offshore Brazil, Agpo West in Nigeria, Anchor in the Gulf of Mexico in the US, and Phoenix in Argentina. We launched four major oil projects, Grande Morgue in Suriname, Ataputu and Sepiatu, and over two offshore projects in Brazil, and Camino in Angola. We progress in Namibia, where we are working towards sanctioning the first oil development that Patrick will give you more details later on. In LNG business, we further derisk our exposure to spot gas prices in accordance with the strategy we presented to you during the CMD New York in October. That means that we continue to successfully market our LNG volumes by signing several new contracts middle term with Asian buyers, representing in 2024 more than 6 million tons a year, mostly with an oil indexation. And secondly, we increased upstream gas integration in the U.S., by acquiring interest in dry gas assets in the Eagle Fort Clay in Texas. We launched also the Marsa LNG project in Oman, and we became a significant gas operator in Malaysia through the acquisition of 100% of Sapura OMV, which provided us LNG pricing exposure and a platform for future low-cost, low-carbon growth in terms of production. In summary, on this first pillar, oil and gas, we incurred an upstream production growth forecast of 3% per year through 2030 in a cash-accretive way. And we record a proved reserve replacement ratio above 150%, one of our records in total energy history. Moving now to the second pillar, integrated power, We were very active in 2024 in debt business as well. You see on the slide some of the achievements of the year, the main highlights of the year. I will come back on that later. But very important, we reached our cash flow target. To have a cash flow from operation above 2.5, we are at 2.6 in 2024. And I think, obviously, it's a very good achievement. Let's move to the figures. We believe that the company delivered, once again, solid results in 2024. In a software environment, price environment compared to the previous year, 2023, the company generated almost $30 billion, $29.9 billion of CFO, coming from all the different businesses. And you see here the repartition of this cash flow generation, segment by segment. First, E&P contributed very strongly to this performance, with the cash flow generated in 2024 at $17 billion, benefiting from the oil project startup I already mentioned in my introduction. Integrated LNG business performed with a cash flow at $4.9 billion. It was negatively impacted by lower average LNG prices compared to the year before, low market volatility during the first three quarters of the year. That impacted gas trading results. But on the positive side, you will see that the Q4 results shown LNG trading performance back to the level of the first quarter 2023. I will make a zoom on that later on. Integrated power continues to track records of strong performance through the year, with high cash flow year over year, 2.6 billion 2024. Downstream cash flow reflects, in fact, the global weak margin environment, especially in Europe, with refining margins down by almost 45%. Year over year, after the two exceptional years we had, we benefited from in 2022 and 2023 in relation with the Russian crisis. And we suffered as well from operating, operational issues on some of our refineries, especially in France and in the U.S. However, You can see that the downstream cash flow remained above $6 billion, at $6.1 billion, demonstrating the resilience of the company's integrated downstream model. Let's move to the results themselves. So you see that we posted an adjusted net income at $18.3 billion and an EFRS result at $15.8 billion, taking into account mostly the impairments we recorded earlier. in the course of the year on sun power and the exit on some African exploration leases in South Africa in relation with our exit from these rocks, fair adjustments and inventory variation effects. In terms of profitability, we had the ROE return on equity at 15.8% and the ROE return on capital input at 14.8% in 2024, which makes Total Energy once again the number one in terms of ROE among our peers. In terms of investment, you see the figure. So we invested $15.8 billion. So in the range we gave to you between $17 and $18 billion. On the shareholder return side, we continue to increase the dividends with a distribution of $7.4 billion in 2020 years. And we executed the $2 billion buyback program per quarter, so leading to $8 billion buyback on, if you consider all the quarters 2024. Globally, that means that the payouts for 2024 reached 50%. Very important to notice that this attractive shareholder distribution was achieved while keeping very strong balance sheets. You see here the gearing we had end of the year at 8.3%, or around 9.5% when normalized. Why? Because this figure, 3.8%, benefited indeed from positive impacts in the working cap for $1.5 billion. So in summary, we maintain Fortress balance sheets while increasing the shareholder return in 2024. On the investment side, we remain disciplined in 2024, as evidenced by this figure, net investments being within the guidance $17 to $18 billion, $18.8 billion for 2024. We continue to be highly selective in the project restriction, or we invest in selecting low-cost, high-return, low-emission projects and projects resilient through cycles. Patrick will come back on that later for 2025. As you can see with the pie, total energy has a balanced growth strategy with one-third of the 2024 capex allocated to new oil and gas projects, and $4.8 billion to low-carbon energy, mainly renewables, integrated power projects, for $4 billion. We continue to be active with portfolio management using selective M&A to enhance, to high-grade, in fact, our portfolio. 2024 net capex consisted of $16.4 billion of organic capex, but also $4.6 billion in acquisition and $3.2 billion in divestment. So once again, that means that we continue to be very active on that side, M&A side. Previously, I've described our focus acquisition on the upstream side, and on integrated power, our acquisitions are focused on key deregulated markets, such as the US, the UK, or Germany. I will come back later on that. As well, 2024 divestments included in the upstream our exit from Brunei, so the sale of our E&P subsidiaries in Brunei. In downstream, the closing of the second part of the deal with Kustar, with the sale of the retail station in Belgium, in the Netherlands, and in Luxembourg. And within integrated power, Several divestments in line with our strategy to farm down our projects at COD when the production is ready to start. Just to give you two examples, so solar and battery projects in the US that we closed last December and 50% are interested in sea green projects, offshore wind in the UK. Let's discuss now of each of the business segments in more details. 2024, I think, showcased the depth of our portfolio, upstream portfolio, full of attractive growth opportunities that are translating into project sanctions, daily lowering, high return, and robust reserve replacements. You have here the list of the main project sanctions in 2024, four main projects on the OECD side, and two projects on the gas and LNG sides. This project anchored 3% per year accretive production growth through 2030. And very important to notice that we have already derisked project costs by signing largely lump sum EPC contracts on that project. The chart on the right-hand side of the slide highlights total energy compelling investment case. We already have the resources to grow underlying production and cash that will ultimately support dividend growth and attractive shareholder returns. Saying that differently, no need for us to make large acquisitions, large M&A, to fill any potential gap. Given our consistent strategies, we continue to explore and develop the upstream business We have maintained a strong and consistent proved reserve life index of around 12 years since 2018. You see here the index for 2024, 12.4 years. It was 11.7 the year before, in 2023. I think it's clearly in contrast with some of our peers that posted a decline. That means that Exxon and Total Energy are leading the peer group by a wide margin in terms of portfolio longevity, with a key advantage in the deflation business and support cash flow into the next decade. Also, you have the figure for proved and provable reserves, which are now at 8.5 euros. Saying that differently, we are not a shrinking company. We have been replacing reserves at much faster rates than we are depleting them, and at a faster pace compared to some of peers. In 2024, our reserve replacement was a robust 157% of production, up from an already strong figure. It was 141% in 2023. The vast majority was done through organic growth, which translates into a strong organic reserve replacement ratio of 150%. These reserve replacement figures demonstrate clearly the depth once again of our portfolio and that we are successful to replenish it year after year. Let's move to integrated energy business. As shown in the chart on the lower left, the results end of the year, so for the first quarter, were at the highest of the year and benefited from improved market conditions, so meaning more volatility, higher price. Adjusted net operating income increased 35% sequentially, and the results were back to the first quarter 23 level at over $1.4 billion. the two blue bars you see on the chart on the lower left. This performance was driven by 6% higher hydrocarbon production for LNG, an average LNG price above $10 per annum in BTU, and, ultimately, LNG trading results that were able to capture higher market volatility. Although this rebound during the fourth quarter, Overall, full year 2024 results were negatively impacted by low gas price volatility due to the May 23-24 winter, high stock level, particularly at the start of the year, low demand, and limited trading opportunities due to globally a balanced global LNG market. What are our expectations or anticipations for 2025? As you can see in the top led charts, a colder 24-25 winter and low end of season storage is expected. The end as well of the Russian-Ukraine transit agreement to use the pipeline to import Russian gas is also a factor that will contribute to tighten the markets. Tightness in Europe should lead to more competition between Europe and Asia to attract or to capture additional energy sources. and it will result in increased arbitrage opportunities for flexible cargoes between the U.S. and Europe and Asia. This should benefit total energy, given our dominant 3DF position in the U.S. and our large position as an energy exporter in the U.S. We are number one, as you know, in that matter. Moving now to integrated power business, 2024 was a continuation of our multi-year track record of performance in that business. It's definitely a growing business. You see here the progress that we made between 21 and 24. We have grown integrated power into a business that is yielding some results. We are able to increase by nearly four times the cash flow over the period, 21-24. Reaching, once again, our objective to have cash flow in 2024 above $2.5 billion. And Roitier increased from 7% to 10%. That was the target we set for the year. In 2024, the company further enhanced integration in deregulated markets for flexible asset acquisitions. So we acquired Roitier. CCGT in the U.S. and in the U.K. throughout the year for 3 gigawatts. And in addition, we increased storage capacity through the acquisition of a major player in German battery markets called Kion in the middle of the year. We also have been active in consolidating our renewable portfolio as part of our farm-down strategy in integrative power and mentioned in my introduction. We successfully farmed down the equivalent of 1.2 gigawatts of renewable and battery projects, resulting in $1 billion of capex being recycled with more than 10% return. On top of that, the company acquired DSB. It's a German-based renewable project developer with a sizable 18 gigawatt pipeline, mainly in Germany, France, Poland, with a closing expected this year. In addition, in 2024, the company strengthens its differentiated market offering of clean firm power. For example, you have here two examples. We capture premium pricing through contacting free terawater of clean firm power to large industrial and big tech companies. And through, you see here the table. Operative COP 1 and 2 emissions are down 36% compared to 2015. And an absolute label, you see the figure, component two on our operation, our operative facility in 2024, we're at 34 million tons compared to our target of being less, of having less than 38.8 million tons of CO2. In fact, reflecting here on here, two opposite movements, two opposite trends. On one side, a further decline in our operating oil and gas facilities, reflecting the emission reduction initiative undertaken over the last couple of years. And in the other hand, the impact of the interrogation of the new CCGD I mentioned to you, the acquisition we made in 2024, particularly in the US and in the UK. On the methane side, the 15 reduction targets We have to reduce the methane on our operation by 50% versus the level we have in 2020. This reduction target was achieved a year early with 2024 operating methane emission now minus 55% compared to 2020 levels. We achieved this thanks to continuous decrease in flaring and fugitive emission in particular in ENP. And you have here the example of Gabon with the elimination of rooting flaring two years earlier than anticipated. And we will continue to reduce operating methane emissions and we set a new objective for 2025 with a target of minus 60% compared to a reference 2020. To achieve that, you have different action that will be taken. First, the decision we made last year to deploy continuous detection system across all the operating assets in the company. That means that in 2025, you see here the figure, more than 13,000 equipment for continuous maintenance tracking will be developed and deployed. additional technologies improvement will be implemented to further reduce methane emissions. You have here some examples to switch gas instrumentation to air or to replace fingertips. And last but not least, we reduced our life cycle carbon intensity by 17% compared to 2015, which is better than our initial target of 14%. This indicator reflects, as you know, the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of energy sold, and which is, in fact, which matters in our industry. This indicator translates perfectly the evolution of our energy mix and the implementation of our strategy for more energy with less emissions. And the final slide for this section is a benchmark. So the positioning relative performance of total energy compared with our peers on four important metrics. So the Prove Reserve Life Index, the Upstream Production Cost, the ROHA, Return on Capital Employed, and the Dividend Per Share Growth. As already mentioned, our strategy has remained consistent and it allows us to deliver from results and to remain in the competition very well positioned. Starting with the upstream, our reserve life index increased, I mentioned to you already, from 11.7 years in 2003 to a very robust 20.4 years in 2024. We are on par with ExxonMobil and heads of the remaining peers, reflecting once again the depth of our portfolio. We have the resources in hand to continue to grow production and to grow the cash flow, the underlying cash flow, for years to come. And once again, we do not require big M&A to do that. Moving to the cost, we have three production costs. Total Energy has consistently reported the lowest upstream production, so PEX per barrel, with 2024 figures below $5 per barrel equivalent. This is, of course, a competitive advantage that we want to keep, allowing the company to be resilient even in a low-price environment. In terms of profitability, we are pleased to report that in 2024, again, Total Energy ranks number one, In order to share among our peers, it's the third consecutive year that we achieve this performance, demonstrating once again that it's possible to be the most profitable major and to be a leader in the energy transition. On the dividend side, so it's the last graph, the dividend growth, the dividend per share growth, we are positioned number two at 25% growth over the last five years, which reflects our strong commitment vis-à-vis our shareholders. Total Energy maintains, as you know, the dividends between the COVID crisis. It was not the case of all our peers. Some of our peers decided to cut the dividend at that time. And our dividend growth is underpinned by the company's deep upstream portfolio, strong free cash flow outlook, and balance sheets with gearing, once again, at 8.3% and up 24% or 9.5%. After normalization. And with that, with that benchmark, I leave the floor to Patrick for 25 outlook.

Thank you, Jean-Pierre, for these 24, which people say is less than before, but the two years before were exceptional for us. the first largest results in the history of the company. So it's still a good year. And in fact, again, I said that in 23 and 22, after the exceptional year, we were entering into a new era because the balance sheet was completely leveraged. And the succession, in fact, of the last three years, it's easier for us to implement the strategy we have decided because we went in a world where we have more, I would say, capacity to deploy it and that's what we've done in 24 Jean-Pierre said several times we have a deep portfolio of plenty of good opportunities. What I will show you is that in 2025, what we want to do is not only to grow, but also to deliver additional free cash flows, which are the most important. That's why we selected this title, Delivering an Accretive Growth and Resilient Shareholder Returns. That's the program for 2025. A few words about the markets. So, in fact, the old markets, people wrote to me, it's volatile. I think when you look at the figure, it's a little stable. In fact, this line is quite flat, in fact. Okay, it was flat in a higher way last year than this year. But, in fact, we can say that with two different, in fact, gender elements, in 23, still a very high increase of the demand because the end of the COVID recovery in China. In 24, the full year, markets were more bearish about the demand. at the end it's only 0.8 million barrel per day but all the expectations on the supply side did not materialize in fact as it was anticipated and finally at the end the opec plus has done a good job to maintain this price i would say above 70 75 per barrel and i think for 20 we look to 25 I expect IEA, not us, we have no experts, said plus 1.1 of million barrels per oil demand, which will be higher than 24. By the way, it's more or less the average, a little less than 1% that we observed in 20 years. Good news from 2004, by the way, is that the increase of oil demand in India was as big as the one in China. So we have a new engine of oil demand growth in the world. India is moving to more infrastructure, more manufacturing business model than the one we had in mind. On the supply side, of course, 25 strong supply from non-OPEC and the U.S. policy, the U.S. administration is willing to push this production up. So, the U.S., by the way, liquid production in 24 increased by 0.7 million biovolts per day. And when we speak, by the way, about liquids, it's in fact more NGLs than oil because, in fact, most of the liquids production in the U.S., It's coming from the increase of the gas and all the associated NGLs. The oil is increased by 0.3. We plan to raise 0.2, 0.3 for 2025. So that's to have that in mind. Of course, Brazil, and we'll come back, we'll benefit from the growth in Brazil, ourselves. We are now as well. We are not there. We do not intend to be. We are next to Suriname. We'll see. The market, of course, will be a debate, I think, in 2025 between the U.S. administration and OPEC+. So it will be an interesting debate to observe. We have been a little cautious in the way we approach the year. We put all the results I will show you on the forecast based on $70. We are more 80, but if I can do it at 70, I could do it even easier at 80, so you would have some sensitivity in the presentation. On the gas, it's quite different, I think. Last year, the year 24, you know, and we had a very good, I would say, weather during last winter or mild weather and in fact we ended with exactly the winter 2024 with high inventories and in fact the full first half of the year suffered I would say some quite low volatility in the gas markets around $8, $9 per million BTU for TTF during six months, because there was no real need to replenish full storages. The storages were high. And that, of course, did not help, by the way, the capacity, not only the price, the price was lower, but also a lower volatility, which did not help our gas trading to perform. For 2025, in fact, as you can see, the weather in Europe is much colder, and you have another element of it, which is not only the weather, but you have also the fact that now the transit for Ukraine from ocean gas has been stopped. So it creates another tension in terms of supplying gas to Europe. And what we observe is that today we are already at this stage, two months, still two months Before the end of the winter, at the low, we begin to have depleted quite well the storage, and it's reflected in the forward curve, second quarter 25, the forward gas is at $16 per million BTU, so it's about $15 per million BTU. So we anticipate clearly, I would say, more volatility, 25, higher prices. People could say there will be additional energy capacity. It's quite limited. In fact, when we make the map for 25, we evaluate that around 20 million tons of new capacity coming on stream. which means 5%, so it does not change the fundamental trend. And you will see probably, again, more competition between European buyers, which need to replenish their inventories, and Asian buyers. So, of course, you know, for us, there are two spreads which are fundamental, TTF minus Henry Hub. And then you have the TKM minus TTF because it's the arbitration. And with the volumes we have in the U.S. or regas capacity in Europe, of course, we can benefit from more arbitration when these spreads are going higher. But what we expect, we anticipate, again, we'll see, 425. So two different environments, clearly, for gas and energy and oil. Our KPIs for 2025, our objectives. I will speak about growth, but then, of course, growth is not enough. We need to deliver more free cash flow, and it's more volume, more energy, less emissions, and growing free cash. So globally, our energy production, when I compare the oil and gas and the electrons, will grow by 5%, so we'll contribute to, I would say, a global supply of all the people of this planet, 5%. More than 3% growth on the oil and gas and more than 20% growth on the electricity side and we will reach more than 50 terawatt hour. 50 terawatt hour is halfway of the objective by 2030 and in fact the electricity production from TotalEnergies will represent 10% of our oil and gas production in 2025. So for the ones who want to see of the transition Is it March? It is. It is. It's reality. It's really welcoming. For me, a sizeable business, and I would say the achievements in the last five years has been quite a... We are on the roadmap, and I would say quite a success. So that's the key. We're finding Vincent will do his most with his teams to have a better utilization rate. I will come back. LNG sells about 40 million tons. We don't have new, I would say... energy plants coming on stream so we should be in the range of what we achieved 40 45 and renewable gross installed capacity we set this target of 35 gigawatts by end of 25 in 2020. uh i will come back i think we will be there uh at 35 we are 26 by end of 24 and we have exactly nine gigawatts which are being built today 8.9 so maybe 0.1 will miss but which are being built. So its reality is not just an objective. It's a matter to deliver, of course, this capacity. But again, more and more, myself and the board, we attach more and more importance to the production of electricity because at the end of the day, the results are more linked to the production than to gross capacity of renewables. Less emissions. Yes, we continue to make it part of the, I would say, our global agenda. We need to produce more hydrocarbons, but with less emissions. So OSCOP 1 and 2, we set an objective less than 37 million tonnes. Of course, you can say it's not ambitious enough, but we have one difficulty we face, that we have more gas-fired power plants in our portfolio, which we acquired in 2024 in the UK, in the US. We will run, and if it's colder in France, we'll have a higher utilization rate, so more CO2. What is important for us is also to see the decrease on the oil and gas operations. It was 35 million tonnes in 2003, 34 million tonnes in 2004, and it should be 33 million tonnes in 2025. The methane, we are clearly a leader on that part. I think it's an easy way for me, for the oil and gas industry, to have a real contribution to diminishing this greenhouse gas. It is in our hands. It stops flaring. It stops venting. Things which are not high-tech, I would say, close flare. So we have really embarked the whole company, and Nicolas is really very strong about it. He's a master of close flare all over our installations. setting all this continuous equipment for detection of methane, like for oil, and I think it's really, we want to be visitors and the teams are motivated. And last but not least, because it's the marker of our strategy of transition, which is the carbon intensity of the cells of energy. The word cells is missing there. We have reduced it by 17%. We want to continue to. We are, in fact, quicker on the roadmap because we deliver, of course, the electrons, which are, I would say, a decarbonizing part of our cells. But last but not least, all that because we want to grow the pre-cash flow, so we selected three indicators. I will give you some others in the presentation. Production costs, less than $5. Could be $5, but not... So we don't need to have a big, I would say, cost-saving plan, but we are permanently maintaining. And honestly, the fact that we have been able for the last three years, despite the inflation that we face, to maintain this less than $5... It may be not spectacular, but it is indeed. So other companies of my peers have engaged in large cost-saving plans. I think we've done it between 2015 and 2020. We have the benefit, and today we are strong with the team, are very efficient to manage this $5 per barrel. The CapEx, I will come back on it. I'm sure we have questions. $17, $17.5 billion. And cash flow from operations, more than 29 at $70. We've done 29.80, so it's quite an improvement. There is some free cash, some additional cash flow, and the objective of my presentation will tell you where it will come from, in fact, so that you can certify that all this balance of all the business model and the strong returns we intend to deliver to shareholders are in safe hands, which is true. So, by the way, look at that first. So it's true that we gave you a guidance of $18 billion, I think, in New York on organic capex. Today we came with organic capex of 17, so reduction, and a global capex, including M&A, of 17, 17.5. Why? In fact, it's because we've done some few, we worked, in fact. We have, to be clear, all the growth accretive projects will be Developed as planned. There is no reduction on any of the nice opportunities we have in our portfolio. So I'm completely on the line of Darren Woods from that perspective. No chance. But at the same time, we have many projects. And so with Nicolas and we reviewed all that with the teams. not to overstretch the team by continuing to invest in small projects, but focusing the whole company to deliver these large, attractive projects. That's the program. So it helps us, I would say, in the year three to find $500 million of small projects, which at the end is 50 plus 50 plus 50, but it's a sort of dispersion, so refocusing. Because we know also that we have a workforce and we cannot do everything at the same time. So it does not impair the global production profile that we have to deliver to you. But it's a question of streamlining, focusing the teams, being efficient in the way we spend our cash. The other decision we took to be, it's more in the low carbon molecules, it's a little slighter, it was 800 or 900 million dollars in the report of, 900 million dollars in the report of 2024. It's only 500 million dollars the budget. We drew some lessons and we consider today that it's better in some businesses like electric charging or biogas to have a leverage for equity We don't see enough returns in all that, to be honest, in terms of allocation of equity of the company. Full equity is not our priority, and we drew some lessons. That doesn't mean that we don't continue to do it, but we move to some business models with less capital intensity. It's not major. On the SAF molecules, we continue. In fact, the budget, you know, we have this big project in Grand Prix with the Vincent team, which will end before year end, so it's the end of the project, so we have done the top. So that's why also. But $500 million, so low-carbon molecules is reduced because we drew some lessons It doesn't mean we will not continue the strategy. It means that we are allocating our capital and our equity in the best way. So that's the reason why we came down to $17, $17.5 billion. We still have, in case of challenging market conditions, we have identified another billion which we could decide to arbitrate during the year. At this stage, it's not necessary. Power is at $80, $75.80, so it's not that situation. So that's why I would like, it's also true that compared to September, we continue to execute the EPC contracts and a lot of them are largely lump sum. So we have security, I would say we have a good vision for 2025 of what we will spend. If they were overrun, it's not in 2025, it's more in 2028. So I hope it will not be. So that's also why we are confident. And of course, it's good work, it's an effort, but continuing to streamline even more when you have a large portfolio of opportunities, I think it's a good discipline. So I announced to you a growth of more than 3% for the upstream growth, oil and gas. In fact, you have here the list of the new projects, the new productions, which represent 150,000 barrels per day. What is remarkable on this chart is that six of the eight projects are already started. So it's mainly a matter of ramp-ups. We have two projects which have to come on stream, Balimor in the Gulf of Mexico and Merufo in Brazil. Well, by the way, the operator is a little more optimistic than ourselves, so it's good. By the way, there are other characteristics on this slide. We have three gas projects. Phoenix, Tira, and Yerun in Malaysia. You have five oil projects. It's important for the next slide. And by the way, Autotide is operating four, Petrobras three, and Chevron two. So we rely on two of our big operators, but nice operators. So I'm quite comfortable with this figure of 3% because it's many ramp-ups, and we are on the way to deliver it. Of course, it's more important, it's not only growing production, it's additional cash flow. And that's the good news and important news when we look to this file, is that the growth of 3% of our upstream production, more than 3%, will be translated in terms of cash flow from operations by an increase of more than 8%. In fact, this portfolio of projects... Of course, the portfolio in Brazil and in the Gulf of Mexico are accretive compared to... And that means that for the same amount of capex, in fact, more or less the same between the two years, organic capex, you will have an increase of $1.3 billion of free cash. 8% is $1.5 billion of free cash, which will come from this growth. And I think that's a good news, of course, for that's why we are at the board. We are confident in the return to shareholders, and we have decided again to increase the dividend by another 7.7% and the final dividend by 7.6%. So that's, I think, important. Wintertime Energy, its value over volume is not just growing, it's also delivering more free cash flows. one of the country in which uh which is successful from this perspective which will contribute to these additional free cash is brazil brazil in fact is becoming in 2025 the number one country in our portfolio in terms of cash flow from operations uh it's new you maybe did not notice but in fact since 2015 we have built a portfolio today we have We will have eight fields producing 180,000 barrels per day. So it's a successful story. It's quite interesting, by the way, to build such a position. The average margin at $70 per barrel is about $35 per barrel. And so in Brazil, we'll continue to invest because we have two other projects that we sanctioned in 2024, Sepiatu and Ataputu, which will contribute to additional free cash in 2030. But the free cash formula in 2025 at $70 per barrel will be $1.4 billion, which And $10 per barrel would add another $400 million. So it's a strong position that we have built since 2015. Again, we operate Lapa. Petrobras is our operator on most of that. And we had access to, when you look to the history of the cost of access to all these resources, it was, in fact... quite a low cost of access. We did not discover them, but between the deals we've done with Petrobras in 2015-16, then the TOR round where we participated with low competition, we managed to be a good demonstration on how to build a strong position in a new country. We have also some exploration potential. We continue to look to that. The other country on which I want to touch a point, because I'm sure we have plenty of questions, is Namibia, so I prefer to preempt the questions. Our friends have made some decisions, and in fact we know, to be clear, we share the same partner and we have the data. We have some data-sharing opportunities. agreements between our friends and ourselves. So we can compare. It's true that we were probably, I would say, more lucky or slower or better, but they selected a block where clearly the Venus discovery has better characteristics, petrophysical characteristics. The oil in place density, 10 to 20 million per barrel of oil compared to the adjacent discovery, which was less than five. It's a six reservoir of 80, 120 meters. The permeability is not very high, I will come back on it, but it's two to four millidarcy compared to, I would say, less than one. So all that makes, in fact, the commerciality of this discovery is achievable. It's in our hands. We are working on it. That's why we don't make any write-off, because in the country we want to transform this discovery into production. So probably we are there at the heart of the system on this eastern, on this western part of Namibia range basin. So there are some challenges. That means it's not challenging. Yes, the permeability is not high. It is high as you are. As you are in our license, it's lower than the neighboring one. Again, 700, so still again. That means that the challenge is in fact that you have, as we don't flare, I remind you, we don't flare, no flaring policy. We have to re-inject the gas in the low permeability matrix. So that means that we have, we cannot, the plateau on which, that we reach will be lower But it will be a very longer plateau and a slow decline along the years. So we are designing today a project of 150,000 barrel of oil per day production. It's a very light oil, 45 API, which is good for its value, with a long, shallow decline after the plateau. The other challenge is 3,000-meter water depth and 300 kilometers from the coast, but I mentioned them, but it's not really impacting. So objective, and we are, is to be able, I will not tell you less than $20 per barrel, but today we are confident we can reach $20 per barrel today. of development costs, and also, of course, to continue to minimize our greenhouse gas emissions. We target 15 kilograms of CO2 per barrel on this development. So on this one, the plan is to move forward. We apply the same ideas than on Suriname, taking FPSO with contractor standards, which have been quite efficient in terms of managing the costs. There are some ideas to optimize, by the way, even the design of the FPSO, the contractors, I don't promise you we will sanction it before year-end. I know it's an internal objective. I'm more about beginning the first half of 26, but it's an important project. It's a good project on which we are working. So it's good news for Namibia and, of course, for Total Energies. Our neighbors in the north, we are not surprised by the results because the last way we drilled Tamboti was not good. So we are not surprised that the neighbor in the north did not make any discovery. It's quite consistent. We are in the center of this ecosystem. I would like to add that we have, in fact, some potential to continue to explore. And so it's not end-to-end. Venice is a focus of, I would say, the engineering and project teams. But we will drill further. I think during the second quarter. The rig is on its way to Marula, which is a big prospect. You can see south of Venus. We have another one on these blocks in Namibia, which is called Olympe, on the next block. It's a different thematic, but it might be an interesting exploration to dwell. We plan to do it either at the end of 2025, beginning in 2026, because we would like to have a full campaign between Olympe and then continuing in South Africa. We took some positions on the Orange Basin on the South Africa side where we have two prospects to be drilled. One is called Vultrus and the other one Nela. So, you know, the permitting process in South Africa is a little longer than in some other countries. The idea is that in 2025-26 to have a ring coming and drilling these three exploration wells. So an important year for Namibia for progressing on the project. On integrated energy, I will not come back on all the comments of Jean-Pierre who explained to you that I mentioned it about the environment for gas price. Yes, we think we might have a better environment, not only absolute term, but also in terms of volatility, if we maintain the performance of the fourth quarter. But again, we should, and the target is to come back to... After a year where we are, I think, at $4.8 billion of cash flow to come back to target six, not more, but let's target six billion. And Stéphane and his teams are taking actions. 2025 is also a year for us where we have to progress a number of projects, energy projects, which will come on stream in 2026. It is a case of Energia Costa Azul in Mexico and Northfield East in Qatar, mainly. Nigeria LNG 27 will be end of 26, so little impact on the 26 performance, but more for 27. So that's also, as you can see, we have six LNG projects which today are being, on the way to be, are being built. And so this is, of course, another part of the execution efforts of all the teams of Total Energies. Last but not least, but I would say a lot has been done in 2024 by with, I would say, this strategy of securing some rent-related contract with Asian buyers successfully. It has been done, 6 million tons, a very good achievement. we will continue to work on it because if we have opportunities as we think that the market might be i would say soft soft by soften by the end of the decade it's a good good way to to take benefit of it if we have some good contracts which are all related so that's for this one a world about integrated power uh on this slide i have only some few figures I would say, again, this year, 25, we will reach – this electrons production will represent 10% of the oil and gas production. So I think it's a good block on our roadmap. I'll fill out 30 objectives. In terms of cash flow from operations – We say 2.5 to 3 billion, we made 2.6. We have benefited in the last, in 24 of, and 23 by the way, of some edges which we have done because of the high electricity price of 22. We don't have them in 25, but we have additional productions. We have new gas-fired power plants, so we are confident we could... meet again these objectives in terms of cash generation. It's not written, but maintaining the 10% return on capital employed, even increasing it, is of course on the roadmap of Stéphane and his teams. We are working, but I will answer questions. On the downstream... So it's clear that the landscape has changed. You have on the left the refining margin, the European refining margins, which for us is quite an important, I would say, API. The environment has changed in the middle of the year. You can see you have in gray the mean and the max 2018-2021 before the end of the year. which is a war. You have where we were in the last, you can see we were in 22, 23, largely above, but it was, I would say, hysteric markets. We benefited from it. In 24, we are back to a sort of normalization, a little low, because $25 per ton is a break-even. So I prefer $35 per ton. As we are optimistic, we have made the budget at $35 per ton. But maybe if there are tariffs on Canadian crude oil, we could reach it. Yesterday it was at $40, so it's not impossible. You know, sometimes you have some events in this planet which can help you. You don't control everything. But what we should do, that's why we have a target of $7 billion downstream compared to the 6.1 this year, because there was also some miss, to be clear, on the operational side, which we estimate a little less than $1 billion. But we hope, and Vincent, it seems, are really motivated to eliminate this miss, a very poor performance on Donge, which was not, in fact, running well. We are hoping that you will run again from March. We had some issues on the cracker in Normandy, not because of the cracker, but because there was a storage, there was an accident, a technological accident, independent of the world, but which affected us. This is solved, so we are back to normality. Port Arthur as well is quite a challenge for years. We have a chance of management. We hope we will deliver a better return. So it's a matter of... Coming back, I would say, on fundamentals, of course, discipline on cost, but also delivering the energy efficiency program should deliver $100 million. And, of course, plant availability. So that's the refining. This downstream segment is helped, I can tell you, by performance of the marketing and the trading. The marketing is quite remarkable because, you know, we sold quite a large portion of German, Dutch, Belgian networks. In fact, the cash flow from the marketing in 2024 is $2.3 billion. It was exactly the same, but 2.3 with these networks. So we sold them for $3.2 billion, and in the meantime, I see no impact on the cash flow generated by the division. So it's quite remarkable, and I can congratulate the teams of Bernard. So at the end, you could tell me we would have done $100 million more, but I like the idea that we cash in these networks in an environment where we are not strategic assets. And at the end, we continue the performance. Trading is doing well as well. And that's why we target $7 billion. an improvement but we have some good reasons not just a margin assumption is fundamentally solving the operational issues we had and continuing to deliver on marketing and trading as per which are resilient So all that gave us, and I will give you the math, but before the board of directors look at it, we have a growth in front of us, a growth of free cash flow. And I mentioned $1.5 billion additional free cash coming at $70 from the F3 growth in 2025. We plan $10 billion. So it's a step between 2024 and 2030. So it's a good step. So this we are confident. We have a strong balance sheet. So the Board of Directors for the third year in a row decided to increase the dividend by 7%, 7%. Here it's not for the full exercise. It's paid dividend per year. So that's why you see 7.2. But it's paid in a year. You know it's a combination. of two exercises and some interim dividends. So in fact, since for the last three years, we have increased the dividend by more than 20%. So it's quite a good, I think, good return to our shareholders. We have translated the euro per share because our dividend is denominated in euro, in dollar per share on this chart because we have had some dollar investors. That's true that they benefit from higher growth, by the way, at 1.1 in the last two years. 1.0405 is a little lower. But the average for U.S. investors on 2225 compared to 7.1 for a European investor would be between 6.5 and 7.8. So I would say it depends on the exchange rate, but it's a strong also nice upgrade. On the buyback, it's a strength chart, so I don't know if it's a Mondrian chart, but you know we have bars of $2 billion, $2 billion, $2 billion. I told you in New York that we want to maintain the $2 billion, assuming reasonable market conditions. The market conditions are very reasonable, so we maintain the $2 billion. I know there were some question marks among you after the third quarter results, and I But, you know, generally when we announce something, we are consistent. We know what we do. And, of course, it has been reinforced by the two, the strong or the low gearing, you know, at the end of the year, by the end of the year. We knew that there will be a way to return this draw on the working capital. It came, it's not, we will try to find a way to normalize it around the quarter. That's what has some fiscal effects. 8.3% of giving is low, but I remind you, we're at 7% at the end of 2022, at 5% at the end of 2023, 8.5% at the end of 2024. So the track record under 10 is quite well established in this company. So we have some room, let's be clear, and that's why I want to confirm that the intent is to maintain this $2 billion of buyback per quarter. We make some math. You have them on this chart on the left. At $70, we would generate, as we told you, more than $29 billion. So we have, yes, a deficit and capex. Of course, a lower capex is helping the balance. You have something like, I would say, $33 billion. So you have a gap of four. It represents 2% to 3% of gearing increase, less than 2.5% of gearing increase at $70. At $80, it's almost nothing. So in fact, considering the sensitivity, you have $1 billion. So it's an equation which I think is quite completely affordable with a strong balance sheet. And that's why I confirm to you I intend to maintain this $2 billion per quarter. As I told you in New York, you have the sensitivity which did not change fundamentally on this chart. So to finalize, to end my presentation, this is a chart we show you in New York. I think more energy, less emission, growing free cash. We just introduced the year 2025 to remind you the framework in which we are to grow the energy production by 4% per year over the six years for 2030. We'll do it 5% in 2025. Electricity, electrons will present 20%, will be at 10% halfway in 2025. Less emissions and growing cash flow, which I think is very important. What is remarkable is that, as you can see, at $70, $12 per million BQ TTF and $35 per ton, which is more or less $10 per dollar, only different from 2024, We could deliver free cash, which is the same at 70 but at 80, and so at 80, an additional $3 billion compared. And again, it's coming, and that's a strong message I want you to keep in mind. But we grow, but we grow for value, and we grow for accretive growth and additional free cash flows to feed the returns to our shareholders. And the last slide did not change. It's very consistent in total energies. I strongly believe in an energy world, but consistency and resistance in terms of strategy. So to be resilient is important. We have... and it's a result of a very deep stream portfolio and you've seen it through this 157 renewal reserve after 141 last year, which will grow again, which will anchor the growth of our production for 2030. On LNG, We have a good position, very well positioned with the U.S., European position to benefit from arbitrage, and this is what the teams of Stéphane are doing. Integrated power is on the way, on the roadmap that we set, and I gave you all the elements of the financial framework to support this strategy. Thank you for your attention, and I will be happy to answer with Jean-Pierre and with all the executive committee members in the room to your questions.

OK, let's move on to the Q&A. So maybe Henri, yeah?

Hi, thanks for taking my question. It's Henry Tarr at Berenberg. Just a couple. In Namibia, I think you mentioned sort of Tamboti perhaps not living up to expectations. If you give a little bit more colour on that, that would be great. And then just on the LNG business, what flexibility do you have this year in terms of sort of cargoes that are available there? to drive that incremental cash flow in integrated LNG. Thank you.

Okay, Tamboti, Nicolas, you want to answer? You need to take a microphone, otherwise nobody will listen to you.

So Tamboti, there was an oil pool. We performed a test of the oil. Permiability was low, lower than Venus, so what Patrick explained moving to the north. So the world did flow, but limited flow. So less good than Venus, basically.

No, there is no commerciality, to be clear. So we cannot think to connect Tamboti to Venus. Game is over on Tamboti. And in fact, it was a risk we knew because when we drilled one of the Venezuela appraisal, we saw in the north some degradation. But we wanted to drill it because it was a sizable prospect, and in case it could have been an additional. But the petrophysics are poor, I would say, are more in the same type of range, but what has been written off by some of our colleagues. So we know the limit in the north, we know the limit on the north and west, so we continue to look to the rest of the block. The one of Stéphane, you want to answer to the flexibility you have in your portfolio? Stéphane is there, you will have a microphone there.

Yes, so the flexibility that we have in the portfolio is, as you know, we have a supply that is largely coming from the US and those US volumes can either go to Europe or Asia. And as Patrick mentioned, the spread between GKM and TTF should be quite volatile because of Low stock in Europe, so we expect people to fight for that energy. So we will be able to divert the cargo depending on the best market from that U.S. position.

When we have a long-term contract, generally we are close to rediverse or divert the cargo with some profit sharing, so it's quite flexible. In fact, it's the advantage to be a company portfolio. And we have very gas capacity in Europe, I remind you, 20 million tons, to welcome, to take all this energy. So this is the infrastructure resulting from this point of view.

Michele?

Yeah. Thank you. Michele Della Vigna from Goldman Sachs. Two questions, if I may. The first one is on tariffs, clearly a very hot topic at the moment. You've got exposure to various parts of the U.S. energy value chain, renewables, LNG plants. Is there any area where you would see potential tariffs as being inflationary from your CapEx perspective? I'm thinking especially about the value chain of the LNG plants, but also perhaps some parts of your downstream business there as well. And then secondly, on gas, there's a big debate about summer in Europe with potentially Germany forcing 90% inventories by the end of the summer. Do you see the market being able to do that or a potential repeat of 2022 with a hard competition on price with Asia?

On the second one, I think it's clear that for me, that's why my message, I think with the situation of European storage, if we are too aggressive to replenish our storage and we don't give them a little more time, and the situation is not exactly the same for Germany because we have more gas terminals today. You know, in 2022, we are all afraid not to have... trying to put maximum storage because we had a lack of infrastructure. In the meantime, we have built some. We have bought some floating units. In Germany, you have 5 million tons of capacity, but also in France, we have one. So we have more infrastructure. So I think the situation should be a little more. But if we go to rush, the only way to rush is to take the LNG from Asia and to pay more. And again, it could be inflationary. So I think today, yes, we have a risk of that. I'm not sure it's not good for European customers, for a European energy player like Total Energy, it's not necessarily bad, but up to us to also. For me, the situation is not again because we have built some infrastructure, so Europeans should take that into consideration, you know, and not just because in 22 we are super afraid. We had a lack of regas capacities on the continent. Today we have some of them. Not everything, but we have more. And so it's still there. So that's the point. But, yes, I think that's my message. I think there will be some – we could have higher gas prices and tensions. And, again, the spread between – that's why the arbitrage from the U.S., which even because of the Panama Channel is even more – I mean, that could be another element of the puzzle. On the tariff, we are entering a new world. I said that to the board yesterday. None of us have never worked in a world of tariff or tariff wars. You know, it was the old world. We have built a global world with almost no tariff, so we thought everything was easy to move. I mean, I think we have pragmatic guys, by the way. You know, they are able to take decisions and to change their mind, which is good leadership when you are able to see that you could have some points. We could have some difficulties. It's true that you have some value chains, but it's true not only for refining or downstream. It's true for car manufacturing. A lot of spare parts are moving across the border between Mexico and the U.S., so you could have this type, which is a strain, which is not a good news. You could have also some good effects for European refiners if you have a tariff on heavy crude oil in Canada. You will benefit of it. So, yes, you might have your effect. At the end of the day, I think my view is that the U.S. administration will be pragmatic in the interest of the business people. You know, it's fundamentally, it's a country where business is first, more than in Europe, you know. In Europe, we can't shout. They don't listen too much to us unless we take strong decisions. In the U.S., it's more open to that, including the president. So, I say, let's say you today, you have a sort of, I think 25 will be a little shaky, so let's be ready. But maybe the best for us is to not to take too quick decision in the wrong way, you know, to observe what will remain early policies in place. It's the same, by the way, for the fiscal policy in the U.S. for renewable. But let's see what will happen in the Congress, you know. Again, I was looking, I asked this morning to Stefan, give me the map of the federal lands which are forbidden for onshore wind. Texas, there is no federal land at all. Just to be clear. It's the Rockies, you know. It's the part of the Faroe Islands, and when we cross in the history of the U.S., they went beyond the Rockies. So, I mean, let's observe what will happen. I think the best, my view is that we need to observe, not to overreact, and to let this coming six months will give us more answers. too many questions to the enthusiasm at the beginning of the administration. But it's true that we might have to adapt, and we are not all what we have designed. The supply chain has been designed, not only in our industry, but in all industries, as a world with no tariff, or very limited ones. So suddenly, if you disrupt it, you might have Bad effects, but also maybe some good effects on the other side. So let's observe. But I take your point, and yesterday I said to the board, there we have to be able to be very adaptable and to react, to look at it.

Okay. Martin? Martin?

Hi, hello, it's Martin. I have two questions, if I may. I wanted to ask you about Suriname. So Statoly in Suriname in a recent bond offering suggested a level of capex. for the project that was perhaps a little slightly higher than what we sort of generally understood. And I was wondering if you had a comment on that, whether you're comfortable with the CapEx in Suriname. And the other thing I wanted to ask you is about trading. It's a bit of an open-ended question, but of course, trading was very, very profitable generally in the industry, 22, 2023, came down a lot in 2024. But it's hard to know exactly how much. Can you perhaps say a bit about how the earnings evolution of trading has been and more broadly what your ambitions are in that business going forward, how you see that business changing.

I'm sorry, I don't know where the budget is 10.5 billion, as we mentioned that in September. There is no change at all. So I don't know. Statsoli maybe is using it. They have a small production or to leverage some money, some cash. I don't know. So you have to ask them a question. But there is no change at all. There is no impact. No, no, we are very close to them and we are monitoring them. So no, there is no impact, no new elements compared to the budget we gave you. Okay. So from this perspective, let's see. On the trading, in fact, honestly, there are different things. We have been quite open to you about the gas trading. On the oil trading, in fact, it's true that it was an incredible year in 22, but the year 24 was a strong year, was a good year on our side. You don't see a lower, but strong. In fact, nothing even higher than it was before 22, than 21, when I compare the results. So I think the teams have adapted. Well, it's really linked to the volatility of the market. Traders, they complain where things are flat. They don't know what to do. It's flat. They don't like that. When it's a little more rocky mountains, they're happy. For me, on my side, I'm not sure I'm competing with them. No, but it's, I mean, it's, as we said, they are strong contributors. We don't ask them to take more risk. It's up to them to manage their business. And if they do better results, they have a better pay. That's quite easy. So they have a strong motivation.

Biraj, there, please.

But on the other side, there was no miss. Be clear. No miss.

Hi, thanks for taking my question. It's actually maybe for Stefan on integrated power, but there's obviously a lot of excitement around data centers and power demand associated with that. I was wondering if you could just give some of your perspectives on what you're hearing from the customers. What are they looking for? And in particular, could you just do a little compare and contrast across the regions you're in, U.S., Northwest Europe, and maybe Asia? Thanks.

Stéphane might compliment me. I think several comments. First, you know, on our side, our business model, integrated power, is linked to the combination of renewable and flexible assets. And we strongly believe that this market, what we call the clean firm power, we managed to sell, we have been effective, and we sold 3.3 TWh per year at this stage to different customers, 25% to GAFAM, by the way, so we begin to enter into this market There is more to be done. The figure I gave you, it's when we sell as total energy. If I'm adding the Clearway cells, because we are also non-operated assets with Clearway, it's 7 terawatts per year, so we benefit somewhere from this market. But you know what we are looking at? We are not in the infrastructure business. So investing in gas-fired power plants, in a big park of data centers and gas-fired power plants, which is a sort of infrastructure, I would say, a return which is an infrastructure return, a sort of regulated business. It's not what we are targeting. What we want is to offer, and we have still some dialogue. We have dialogue with some hyperscalers about how do you combine renewables, gas fiber plan, PQs, and batteries. The renewables, in fact, are lowering the cost. Because when we use renewable, it helps to lower the price at the end for the PPA. So it's a source of cheaper electricity. But of course, they want a 24-7 reliability. We need to combine it with CCGT because batteries. And this is a combination where we think we can not only have a reliable electricity, but also a cheaper one, which is honestly what they target. Of course, today they want a lot of volume. They are all shouting that they don't have enough But if it's expensive, I'm not sure they want to get it. The other points where we have, I'm listening to this concept which is coming in the U.S. about big data park, I would say, or huge park combining several gigawatts plus. In our dialogue, we were discussing with Stefan again yesterday, in our dialogue with hyperscalers, they attach a lot of value to the reliability aspect. And the reliability is not coming only if you have an independent I would say park, independent from the grid. That does not mean a reliable system. So some hyperscalers that we discussed are willing to have the connection to the grid as well. And the grid not only, so it's a grid where you would be able in case of unreliable supply from your own sources to bring, to withdraw I would say electricity from the grid. So Is it more this business in which we are, this integrated business, taking benefit of the assets, but just building capacities as an infrastructure? But maybe Stéphane wants to add on my comments to give some compliment to what I just explained. So, yes, we look at it, but more in the dynamic of what we could integrate it and clean from power.

Yeah, no, just to add on what Patrick has said, just on the geography of it, There is a clear focus on the US first, and notably in Texas, where we have a large presence, and as Patrick mentioned, where we can offer a blend of renewable pickers, CCGT, and batteries, that's one, and we start to see an interest as well on some European countries, notably Germany, where we have tried to develop our presence. The good thing as well is that in the US, there is a clear focus on time to market and one way to be able to deliver on the 28 target 29 target is clearly to use existing pipe and under construction asset otherwise that's going to be quite challenging to deliver on time

Your idea is that in the sense that today when you build some new farms, you try to have a connection in both ways?

I know. That's not for tomorrow, but the day after tomorrow is that any project we do now, we try to preserve some land to be able to welcome data sender. And at the same time, we ask... For the grid connection to supply the grid, we have to be able to withdraw the power. Because, as Patrick mentioned, they need to be connected to the grid for reliability reasons. And the idea that you can only build that on beyond the meter is probably not going to work.

Chris, yeah.

Thank you. Chris Coopman from Back to America. Two questions, if I may, Patrick. I think you've been powerfully presenting how busy you are growing organically, but nevertheless, I wanted to ask you, where do you think today is it most attractive to buy rather than to build? Where do you see the biggest opportunities in the M&A market, considering... your ambitions all the way into 2030. And my second question, I'm afraid someone's got to ask you about Mozambique. Your 2030 numbers you presented in October were including Mozambique. What can you give us as an update? Thank you.

Okay. We don't need M&A. We're not getting growth. So today, again, it's not the right time. I think we can sell. We have a divestment program at $70, $80 per barrel. It's not the right time to buy. We'll look again, as you know, if we continue to have opportunities for total energies in the U.S. shale gas to continue to replenish. We have done two deals, but we need to have more. So that remains clearly for me a priority. So if there are good opportunities, and I have teams today we are looking around, and trying to be imaginative and creative. You know, you have some shell oil producer. We have a lot of associated gas with most negative values, so they might have a way to make a deal, and we are working with some of them. So we see this remain, and the area today is quite low, so it's quite accessible, I would say, these type of things. Otherwise, honestly, we don't have a big need. We are working on other ideas. Okay. On the integrated power, yes, we continue to acquire, but it's more recycling capital, you know, because this year, Jean-Pierre has said it's a good achievement. We sold 1.2 gigawatts. Farming down, so recycling 1 billion. The target was more round 2 than 1.2, to be honest. So we have still, so I'm just, I remember the internal market targets. Okay, Jean-Pierre is nice, but he's fine with all his colleagues. But in fact, we were more targeting 2. We know what we missed. It was two countries on which we were almost closed, and finally we had an issue with the buyers, so we decided not to close it. But so it's two gigawatts per year, it's recycling $2 billion. And this $2 billion should allow us. That's why we are already at the plateau in terms of capex and integrated power, even if we want to continue to grow. So this one, for me, it's a matter now. The model must continue to recycle this capital to be able to grow the assets. That's fundamental. And on this one, I would say it's quite obvious what do we target next. In Germany, we need to target some one or two gas-fired power plants to maintain. Then we'll have the full value chain. So that's clear. The U.S., PGM, things like that. But again, today in the U.S., the gas-fired power plants, because of these hyperscalers, they are so expensive. We are lucky to go beyond. So let's wait. Let's wait and see. Today it's very fashionable. It could come back. So that's, I would say, this type of example. But it's not big, big deals. And by the way, Stéphane has already consumed quite a lot of his M&A acquisition budget with the VSB deal. So you know he's... But it's a business where we can tell you we have a lot of ideas. We have a lot of ideas. But it's good for me because we can be selective and fundamentally on this M&A more and more together we know exactly what we want to achieve and so we have teams are very enthusiastic but Solar in Ireland, I'm not sure it was the best idea of the team. Sorry for the Irish in the room. Nothing against the Irish, but some strange ideas sometimes. That point. The question too, Mozambique. Yeah, Mozambique is more important. On Mozambique, Again, I met President of Mozambique. It was not in the press at the beginning of last week, last Monday. I've been there to discuss about what are his views. The good news, in fact, there is a huge continuity in terms of the security setup. He kept the energy minister is coming, was already there before. He was not minister, but it was the head of the agency, defense minister, all that are the same people. So I would say, continuity regarding these Mozambican energy projects and the surroundings. There is a will of continuity. That's important. The security, the agreements they have with other countries will remain in place, and they are dedicated, I would say, to bring the best they can to the project. We have, as you know, it's public. We had a debate with some credit export agencies. I think the one which will be solved quickly is the one on the other side of the Atlantic. I think I would be surprised that President Trump's administration would be against an energy project they have approved, by the way, four years ago. So I think it's a question of weeks. So this is important because it was a big part of the credit export. President Adarko, we said all that, but it was almost $5 billion. So once we have this piece, this financing is done, I would say. I would remind to some of the other credit exporters, in fact, all of them, but two have approved. The other one, that they have signed a contract and that we gave them a lot of money, so I'm ready to exercise all my contractual rights, not me, Mozambican energy shareholders, because we are only 26% of it. Okay. And then on the project side, the question is to be able not only to appraise the security on Afongi, which is fine. On the peninsula we're going to build, we have no doubt. Be clear. It's even better than it was before because everything has been reinforced. So I have no problem. It's more the security of the regions again, which is more for me a question. So I would like, we are looking to the reality and to see some improvements on this part. On the contractor side, they are all ready to start up again. The project is, we told you, around $20 billion. It's around $20 billion, so there is no change. So, yes, it's true that each month which is going through, and we were not anticipated, to be honest, in summer last year, these difficulties with the credit export agency in particular there, because there are no signals. Then it enters into politics, you know, the politics mixed. So we are victims. But it's back on track from my point of view, and it's a matter of weeks. So that's where we are. Today, I think we told you 2029. If we lose six months, we 2029, 2030. But the idea is to be able to do the project, to launch a project. And that's the point.

Lydia?

In 2030, to answer to precisely to your question, in our roadmap, it's 3 million tonnes of LNG. So, precisely. So, it's not either. It's important. But we have other options to activate in our portfolio. So, we don't have in our plans the 24 of Rio Grande or 25. So, there might have... I mean, we have enough. The depth of the portfolio, the optionalities we have on the LNG side... Okay, it may be Mozambique in the base case, but if it's not Mozambique, it might be something else. So from this perspective, I think we have some different cards to play to meet the... And again, it's more the value that I want to have and not just the volume. And I will not... We will not sanction. We are working hard on Papua. I'm sure I will have a question of Papua, and we are very... in very good, and I would say strongly unify all forces with ExxonMobil together to find new ideas, to relaunch the tender. And again, we are not desperate to make the project, but we are working hard to make it back on track, acceptable capex to deliver some value. We'll see. I think all the offers will come by September 2025, so we should be able to take decisions. But again, there on this one, the forces of the two companies are aligned and working together, which is good for us.

Thank you. It's Lydia from Barclays. Two questions, if I could. The first one, just on CapEx, because if I think about the change from September, the CapEx side was probably the big change. So just going back to that, at what point did you go, actually, we need to take it down from 18 to that 17, 17 and a half? And just that point on the contractors and it being lump sum, are the contractors still happy to do that going forward and you're working with them differently, I think? And then the second one was just coming back to the downstream side and the operational issues that we've seen there. That obviously is unexpected. These things happen. But is there anything you're looking at that may be more systemic that you need to go back and look at some of the processes that you have in place?

I will let Vincent explaining what he wants to put in place about his availability of the plants. It's also true to be clear that we have old refineries. I will tell you. You know, I'm not a big fan to invest in plenty of new refineries, in particular in Europe. So we have also a question of... It doesn't mean that we don't have a systematic plan, but Vincent will share with you his action plan that he's putting in place with his colleagues and his teams. On the first one... It's not a big change. 0.75 out of 17, I know it's a big change. Yes, maybe you were surprised because you were all thinking that we'll go above. So you don't believe us. You should believe us. I've been CEO in front of you for 10 years. I don't think I missed a lot of things on this perspective. So you should believe us first. I'm not planning that we'll go beyond. No, we are. In fact, we've done our job. And again, I told you the truth is that there was something which was voluntary on this project. some low molecules where we begin to have our EV charging, we want to be more frugal in the way we allocate capital, I would say. Not the program could be developed, but the matter is the way we finance all that. The other part is, again, to be pragmatic. We have a number of people. We cannot overstretch them because then it's a question of safety. It's a question of execution. And we had some subsidiaries where clearly, like Angola, they have a lot of things to be done And so we look at the plate and we say there are maybe a little too much. So let's arbitrate. Let's focus on delivering Camino and the key matters and not because the guys or people, you know, you have a bottom-up approach and then you try to be reasonable. So it came to that conclusion, but I don't see that as a... I think it's a good discipline. By the way, it's proved that... But again, all the opportunities bringing additional gas have been preserved. So it's more looking... When you spend $18 billion to find 500, it's not a huge management of exercise. It's a question to maintain the idea, and it's important. Because, you know, we have three years in a row at $80, increasing some capex. You begin to – discipline might be somewhere more difficult to obtain. The fact that we are having this debate, important. It's also true, to be clear, that the commitment to what we told to you in September to the buyback is taken into account by everybody. And that's part also of the margins we want to have. So you have an impact on us when you make some comments. We listen to our shareholders and to our investors. She's good. Okay.

Vincent, sorry.

So we have a clear plan on availability. Just to make it short, first, we have very good refineries as well. And we realize that sharing of experience is not fully implemented. To take a very concrete example, the refinery in the U.S. for Arthur is alone in the U.S., And we want to take the best of the best players in Europe, Antwerp for instance, and to be sure that it's implemented in Port Arthur. So we have changed the management. We have people coming from Europe, and we see already the plan delivering the first results. Second axis, in terms of organization, in what I would call the bad players, We see that very often in the maintenance, for instance, the people working on the more long-term improvements, they are cannibalized by the short-term. when you have issues. So we need to ensure that these two teams, they are clearly separated and that these particular plants, like for instance in Donge, they are not always fixing issues rather than working on the long term. We have also realized in some plants that people could focus on these particular equipments of the refineries which are bringing the best margin. Instead of looking at everything, just focus on the high-value margin units. And then, last but not least, and it's very concrete and pragmatic, I think that digital today is ready to bring value. We have solutions, and we can improve valorization, for instance, for the products in the refineries, thanks to these tools.

It's to make it short, but you have plenty of... I think, honestly, when Lydia looked at the chart that I put it again, When you have two years of easy profits, I would say, which came from the sky, you know, refiners, when I was running this business, I would have never thought I would have 100 ton of margins, you know. I think it has also an impact, you know, somewhere. It's why, in fact, at the end, it's back to fundamentals, back to the things which we are... So it's no critics, it's just a matter of, again, it was very strong, a very high result. You lose parts of these plants and you have a succession of events. But again, it's not a matter to sleep, you know, not to react. And that's the business. It's not systemic. For me, it's a question of, again, putting back things in normal and I hope we'll get the results. Reasonably optimistic on this one.

Lucas, here, please.

Thanks very much. It's Lucas Herman at BNPX. Two of them, Mike, Patrick. Liquidity, US share, how have things moved, where have you got to in terms of the intent to improve it? And second, I guess it's just a reminder. I have this horrible feeling I'll wake up one day, we'll probably know about it beforehand, that Russia-Ukraine has been resolved. So it's just a reminder of what's the position in terms of legacy dividends, legacy flows that you could potentially recoup. over and above obviously regaining, control is the wrong word, but regaining access to the cash flows from existing assets. Thanks very much. Okay.

First one, first is I will not introduce the debate. It's not a question of double listing. Emmanuel, what we want to do is to have one class of shares, only one. which will be introductory market is Paris and these shares might be traded on both markets from 9.30 a.m. to 6 p.m. I think in Paris and from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. in New York. So it's a continuous listing of the same class of shares. That's why at the beginning it's transforming the EDRs into shares. So I don't want people using double listings. It's not a double listing. It's not two class of shares. And in fact, fundamentally, the stock value and when the two markets are open at the same time, it's just linked by the exchange rate, in fact. That's the way it works. It's not two double listings. It's one listing. It's more a continuous listing. opening, yes, access on the US side to shares and not to ADRs, which have a cost, etc. Where are we? We are working on a lot of technicalities with Euroclear and DTCC, which are the two, I would say, transfer agents in this system. We have also some banks working with us. So the technical solutions have been found for all these issues. So we know if we could vote, we know if we could perceive taxation, so all that is done. Now we need to go to the legal part. We have entered into a new phase to translate to legal documents. So that means that we are working on it. We see there is a, I don't anticipate a blocking point, but you know all that has to be done. So the good news is we know how to make this continuous trading on both markets, interaction, but we have to translate that into contracts, of course, or Our counterparts do not have only our topics to solve. So there is a lot of things. But our view is that our objective, let's be clear, is to do it in 2025, maybe end of 2025. But if we don't do it in 2025, we'd be worried, but we cannot do that. So it's clear. So let's see, we'll have some more visibility in the next six months. But technically, we know and we have found all the solutions to the technical questions we had. including the one which is, for example, in France, when you buy and you sell a share, you have to pay 0.3% tax. That should be applied to the purchase and sales on the U.S. market. It's a small detail, it's not a small detail. So it has, how do we implement that? That has required some, I would say, some developments with different intermediaries, et cetera, but we have the solution, so we know how to secure that. So that's the type of things where we are. It's not big deals, but it's a sum of technical details. So we progress. And again, the board supports unanimously all these moves. But again, it's a continuous listing of the shares which are primarily introduced in Paris between the two markets. And then that's the point. Russia, I don't remind the figure anymore. I know we have around $1 billion somewhere. Somewhere, somewhere in the system. To be honest, in my head, they have disappeared somewhere. I don't know why, but I see your question. You are optimistic that, you know, we don't have any dividend from Novatec for most of the year. They are somewhere there. And there is a funny law in Russia, which is floating, that if you don't take your dividend after three years, you could lose them. So there are funny things. They could make one year. It's not very friendly for foreign investors. But honestly, today... The point is that today, as you know, the situation, everything is frozen from our point of view. Yamal continues to work, and we continue to exercise the contract of Yamal Works. For the rest, we'll see. The assets, we have the shares, and the shares are somewhere, but I'm not... For 2025, we did not integrate anything in our... Even more on the point, but my question to me is when, you know, in Europe, when, at which point, there will be enough LNG capacity in the US, 27, where Europeans might decide they could get rid of the LNG in Russia. That's more the question. Again, in the meantime, the 100 days of President Trump would be, if I easy manage, I will applaud. Not only total energies, but for everybody, I would say. More important than for us. So, that's where we are. So, again, nothing is in all the figures you've seen. There is no Russia story, except the Yamal flows. With Yamal, as you know, as we don't age too much, we don't age Yamal, we have an issue when prices are going, when we are very low in 24, the performance of Yamal, which was not aged, was not as good as it was the year before. It's part also of what has impacted the, I'm not claiming that, but that's the reality. What has been the performance of the contract 24, we are not as good as 23 just because we are more in the spot. If the price is going back, it could be, you know. That's the point.

Thank you. My first question on biofuels, if I may. An industry that had its economics deteriorate substantially last year. A lot of your peers are cancelling, withdrawing, impairing. There is some valid concern that we won't have the staff capacity needed by airlines in 2030. So I wanted to ask, because you've obviously converted a number of your units, what do you think needs to happen for that business to economically scale itself up over the next few or four years my second question specific to the quarter working capital we've seen a systematic release of material amounts of cash in Q3 23 in Q4 24 so can we anticipate that happening in future what is driving it what is happening there thank you

Okay. Jean-Pierre is the expert of working capital. Try to help him. First, I think on the staff, let's come back to, there are different ways to produce stuff. There is the easy way, the cheapest way, which is to go from lipids, I would say. Those who call animal fats, different waste, palm oil, things like that. These ones are profitable. We need to continue to invest because we have this mandate, so we could have a short. Then you have other projects, which are honestly, for me, more critical, where we didn't invest today, which are methanol to jet or going to ISAF. green hydrogen, all that are complex and expensive. And in fact, they are not meeting the demand from customers because the airlines are complaining that they want the cheapest one. And my view is that we can meet the mandates by 2030, 2035, just by remaining on the cheapest technology. So I understand why some people are canceling some projects which seem to be on the high side of the capital intensity. That I understand. On the other side, I think the difficulty is that it's a regulated market, so sometimes you have highs, sometimes you have downs. You know, in 24, the HBO were quite low-priced. Suddenly you see a depression because of the Scandinavian countries, which have changed their rule of the games. This year in 2024, Germany is helping everybody because they have decided that all the inventories which we had in our bio quotas have disappeared. So suddenly you have a lack and so the price is going up. So that's the difficulty of this market. And you have to navigate it. You have a nice way to make stuff. And that's the reason as to why you have some cancellation with coprocessing. Because the airline industries have discovered, have allowed us in fact, because it was in fact just a normative debate. Can we make some co-processing when you inject used cook oil in a refinery? You produce kerosene. Can you make a mass balance in order to consider that what you have produced? It's a SAF. It's not a real SAF, but it's a SAF by aggregation. And they have this in July, last summer, but it's acceptable. Why? Because first, it's much cheaper. But by doing that, of course, they have pushed back the other big projects which are really delivering SAF. Real SAF, I would say SAF, like the ones we produce, are more expensive. So just because they were somewhere afraid that they could not have enough stuff and they are cheaper. So I think the coprocessing has taken a quite a good space in the market and so that's also why i think some of my colleagues have said why should i continue to invest in your brand greenfield projects because if i can produce these products just by combining in my own refinery that's that's part so the game has changed and that's the difficulty with these molecules which are honestly very regulated you know they change the way you accept the things and so you have this market so that's why investing in capex you need to be uh You can do it, but on the most efficient projects. And so I continue to be convinced that for us, it's not Greenfield for sure. It's just transforming all the refineries which become old and even not profitable in declining European markets into biofuels. So for me, that's a good thing to do. and again the condition to do that and that's one difficulty is to find a way to integrate the upstream because then there that's a value in all these use cook all animal fats of the you manage we build a partnership with saria this german company on grand prix we are exploring with them enlarge this this partnership to more projects because the integration is a way to secure So, by the way, not just to be the transformer of a Finscott which could go high and, by the way, an outlet which could go down. You know, it could be completely squeezed. That's the economic difficulty. But, again, I'm not so afraid, in fact. I think you have a game there. The airline companies, they are shouting they have a lack of staff because they want the price to go down to provoke the overcapacity. It's a commodity business. So in fact, in our math, when you make the markets, I'm more afraid to have an overcapacity than an undercapacity by 2030. And for them, the game is to say, oh, look, we have a lack. But you know, the conclusion is that in Europe, we face another difficulty. be clear in Europe I explained I discussed it with a commissioner in Brussels is that today we are accepting stuff importing stuff from China from Chinese from China because the airline companies are feeling we are lucky but when you import from China on which be sure but they have all the I mean they are meeting all the criteria that we do in Europe and Investing in Europe in the new units when you have this stuff coming from China and so on, somewhere it makes a little sense. All this, it's a big difficulty for me on these molecules. It's plenty of regulated elements which makes a decision of investment not easy. But at the same time, let's move. So it's clear it's a complex market, but it is a market in which I think we have some good cards to play in this one. If we put together the integration, low capex and being sales, it will not be for us a major, it will be a source of revenue. I don't expect that to billions of free cash. But if it can help me to transform some losses into like we have done in Lamed, we went from minus 100 per year to plus 30, okay, it's fine. At the end, it's worth to make the investment just to because we have jobs, et cetera, et cetera. So that's fine. You know, that's the objective. Working capital. So how do you avoid to make it? It's good to make it by the end of the year, but I know that we have some systematic issue about fiscal, for example, in Norway we pay in March, so we have a big draw, big chunk of taxes have to be paid end of first quarter. For the rest?

There is no cash belonging to the company outside the company, particularly for your hands. But I mentioned to you during my speech that we benefited at the end of this year of exceptional elements, mainly tax elements. I will just give you an example. We are supposed to receive the bill from the German authorities in relation with capital and tax we generated when we closed the deal in Germany end of 2023. They're supposed to receive the bill during the course of the fourth quarter. We haven't received the bill. There is no permanent recall, so we received the bill that we will pay in the first quarter 2025.

Having said that, it's clear that the objective is to try to normalize this flow, to be clear. I'm on your page, because I would prefer to see that as a normalization, but I think there were some lessons that we have been drawn by my colleagues in order to normalize it.

That's the part.

But you can consider that you can trust by the end of each year that you will have more or less a stable situation. In your models, in your math, consider that we are able to do it. We've done it several, three years in a row. We know how to do the recipe and we can repeat it.

Okay. Thank you, Renaud. Doug Leggett from Wolf Research. Patrick, you talked earlier about $70, $80 oil is not a good time to buy things, but it might be a good time to sell things. In your 3% growth target through 2030, what have you assumed? What are the criteria? And I think of a couple of examples. As you're expanding your margin, you still have the UK. The UK has a windfall tax. You have Libya, and it's growing, and it has a 93% tax. So what do you think about the things that are offsetting your margin expansion, and what's your criteria for disposals? My follow-up very quickly is on Suriname. You talked about exploration in Namibia. You didn't talk about the exploration plans in Suriname. I wonder if you can elaborate.

Good question. Both questions are good. No, we continue to divest from assets. We are in 2025. We have planned to sell... in Nigerian assets onshore, so it's on its way to be closed, so it will be down. It represents $800 and $900 million of cash in, so it's a big deal. UK, we have worked on it in different ways. to try to find a way to combine fiscal losses with our tax bill. We were not successful. We had some few issues with some partners. But we are continuing to work on this one, and I'm very open to be clear. It's not a question of barrels. If there are opportunities to save $1 billion of taxation, we'll do it. Value is more important. Libya, no, Libya I disagree. Libya depends on the tax. Libya more, I think it's a long-term position, and there is a lot of oil to be developed, not with the present terms, but there are negotiations today. So, you know, we are working on it, and I think we can improve. the taxation rate in Libya heavily. Because we are, it's a country where it's very easy to develop. Cost of oil is nothing. It's onshore. Huge amount of oil. So I will not forget, forgive this position because the contract today are They will have to be improved if Libya wants one day to develop its reserves. That's a debate we have with them today, with the authorities. So it's a matter of continuing. UK, I see a little future, to be honest. And by the way, it's a country where, sorry, I'm in London, but... We will not explore in the UK because what happens to our friends? Well, they have explored, made discoveries, and today they have a debate who have the right to develop. It's just for me, it's not possible to put some exploration money in a country where I'm not sure to get the development license. I have to go to courts. I'm just observing it. For me, I prefer to explore in countries where I'm convinced I will get the development if I'm making a discovery, which is the normal rule of the game. Uh... Suriname, no, we have some exploration, but we are completely focused on, yeah, completely focused. By the way, I think we plan to drill a well, one well, in the block 64, which is another block. We have to fix that, you know. In the way we discussed with the authorities, what we call the development area of Krakbalu. In fact, the development area is covering all our discoveries, all the trends. And it's within PSE. So if we want to explore, to appraise, we'll offset the cost on the production. So this part, so we have secured and we have some, because I'm sure we'll have to come back on some of the discoveries we've done to better appraise, to reconnect, et cetera. So there is some potential. And then we have another block where we are interested to explore. We'll do it this year. So we didn't mention that, but... We have taken also, by the way, it's not in public, but two blocks, two licenses in Nigeria, the Niger Delta recently, in Iran. It's a very Niger Delta in Nigeria. There was no exploration during 10 years. We managed to reopen the books, and it's one of the most prolific Delta in the world. So there are still things to be explored. So Suriname is more... The Block64 is not the same trend. It's a more frontier exploration. But then we have to come back on what we have already discovered and appraised.

Matt Lofting.

Thanks for taking the questions, Matt Lofting at JP. Just two quick ones. First, Patrick, I wanted to follow up on the comments you made earlier on trading and just ask specifically on integrated LNG or gas trading, if you can share a sense of the contribution that you've embedded into 2025 cash flow and financial targets, given the comments you made earlier on the gas market perhaps. for example, relative to 24. And then second, 35 gigawatts of renewable capacity in integrated power for this year strikes me that that's incredibly impressive delivery on a target that was set five years ago, given the global backdrop over the course of the last five years. When you think forward, though, for the second half of the decade. Has the company's view on the pace and best sources of growth changed at all given the inflation and supply chain challenges that the industry continues to see in some segments at least of renewable generation? Thanks.

Okay. In fact, the improvement you have going from $4.9 billion to a target of six in integrated LNG cash flow. I would say part of it will come from absolute prices, which are higher, but I would say consider that there is an improvement on the trading gas of $500 billion. coming back to levels which were more in line. And again, I say that under the eyes of Stéphane, who is approving, so it's fine. He has to deliver, right? But that's the idea, again. So that's an improvement that we expect. So part will come from, I would say, the volumes, which are being developed. We have a little more volume, but also part of it is trading back to more volatility. And again, What we observe on the market beginning of 25 is giving us trust that this should be achievable by our teams. Maybe we'll do more. We'll encourage them. On the 30 gigawatt, 5 gigawatt. Okay. We have a large pipeline of 70 gigawatts. It's the U.S., Brazil. India, Europe, I would say. That's a key market where we think we can deploy. My question for me is much more important is again a sizeable business going to this 50 terawatt hour, 100 terawatt hour by 2030, more than 100. I think it's very important that we have a sizeable business and we are tracked because we are investing 4 billion per year to develop it. But again, renewable is a big part of it. We have this magic figure of 100 gigawatts. We have the pipeline. Do we want to develop all that? It will depend, of course, on the value of all what is coming. There are permanently opportunities and In fact, we can't find a partner. By the way, honestly, the gross capacity for me, if I'm investing the gross capacity in Ireland, I will have a big number, but not a lot of results, I can tell you. Because it's running only 11% of the time. So solar in Thailand makes volumes. It's not very expensive, but the result is not there. So be careful about the volume ID, in particular in the different markets. Well, I think we have, I'm convinced there will be a continued growth with the U.S., for sure. And some big countries in Europe like Germany and others are clear where we have a good chance to continue to grow. So I'm optimistic that we'll have a segment which will produce more than 100 TWh by 2030. Renewable capacity, the gross one, let's see how it's going, knowing that we have also some partners, we are growing it. India will represent, I think, 15 gigawatts, 15 to 20 gigawatts, but all of them are not equal, I would say. And, you know, it's that type of thing. Again, we will continue to invest in integrated power. We have this $4 billion per year as a matrix, which we will maintain. The way we split it between the, I think the batteries, for example, will be more important in our mix that they were when we said we need more batteries. It's quite clear to us. But battery is also a way to make to enhance the profitability and the returns on renewables and gas plants. So that mix is moving, and we are adapting ourselves to these conditions.

Kim?

Hi, thanks for taking my question. Firstly, I wanted to ask a quick follow-up on Yamal. In the past couple of months, the U.S. and the EU have sanctioned a carrier shipping LNG from Yamal. Is this affecting your ability to offtake cargoes from Yamal at all? Secondly, on U.S. offshore wind, I think you said back in November that you're pausing your U.S. offshore project called Attentive Energy. You said that's a four-year pause. So I'm just curious whether that's reflected in your low carbon capex figure. And then just curious to hear your thoughts on your involvement in projects that are exposed to, you know, at the mercy of political winds that can shift every four years.

Thank you. Okay, that's nice. But the concession is for 50 years. That means that, yes, we don't spend. By the way, the development team of 50 or 60 people in New York will be down to five. So it's very active. But I'm not sure. I think it will come one day. It's a matter of let's be patient again on this one. So there is... Again, a year of development in offshore wind is around $30 million per year, so it does not fundamentally change. In the meantime, we have taken more license in Germany, where I don't expect this type of change of policy. I think it will go through, even if there is a change of, there will be a change of chancellor, but a change of government majority, I don't see a change on this strategy or this policy. Yamal, I'm not sure. I don't remember. Aurélien is the expert or Nicolas. For me, I didn't see any impact on Yamal on any sanction. I've seen some impact on Arctic 2 for sure, but by the way, Arctic 2, we don't invest and we are not there. On Yamal, I don't see. Stéphane? I don't know which cargo you are thinking to, but we have no impact on Yamal from our side. We didn't see it. But, Orian, you want to take... Maybe you can answer, but I don't have that in mind. I can tell you we monitor the Russian sanctions every two weeks, so we have a permanent session.

Indeed, I was going to say, for the last three years now, we've been monitoring every two weeks.

Every two weeks, we spend 30 minutes on this topic.

So there's no sanctions. There are sanctions affecting the Arctic Energy 2 and the value chain of Arctic Energy 2, the supply chain of Arctic Energy 2. That is correct, and actually we've declared force majeure and taken the consequence of that, but not on Yamal, not at all, actually. And the shifts are not under sanctions for Yemen.

You have another question, maybe? No, it's okay. Okay, thank you. So maybe we can take a question online. We have one person, and then we'll go on the phone. Okay.

Hi, it's Anish Kapadia from Policy Advisors. I had a question around your net debt and interest costs. So when I look at the reported net debt versus when you add back some of the other items like the hybrids, the leases, the factoring of receivables, your net debt is then a lot higher, potentially $30 billion plus higher. So just wondering if you're still, when you think about all the other claims on the assets, you're still comfortable with that debt level increasing. And from an interest and financing cost perspective, can you give a sense of what the increase in financing costs is in 2025 in terms of the combination of traditional debt, hybrids, and the factoring of receivables, just given you've been re-terming your debt at a higher level. Thanks.

Does it work? Yes. We benefited from very low-cost debt because most of the debt was fixed between the interest rate increased. To give you one figure, it's largely below 4% the cost of debt we have at present time. And hybrid is something completely different. we decided to make some liability management regarding hybrid. But at present time, we consider that as the long-term component in our balance sheet. So that's why we decided to make some liability management and to renew the tranche that is supposed to mature in February, in fact. It's what we did during the first quarter. But honestly, most of the debt is fixed. So we do not see any strong increase this year compared to the previous year.

No, there is no increase in our planning for 25% of the debt. And I don't see an increase of the debt. And again, I accept what we said about the potential impact of the 3 billion that we mentioned. Okay, we have to go to maybe the phone, Paul Chang.

Paul, go ahead, please. Hello. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, loud and clear.

Hi, thank you. Patrick, I think you haven't talked about on the AI adoption. Do you believe that AI adoption will be an important factor for you in terms of driving down the course and improving efficiency over the next, say, two or three years, and where you see is the biggest opportunity, if that is the case, and how much of your investment going to be. The second question is, sorry, just one second. The second question is that is the U.S. administration, I know you're saying that we should watch and see, But clearly that they become lesser friendly to some of the renewable, I think ideologically that they are lesser friendly to the renewable energy and that they want to promote more drilling in the onshore and also offshore of Mexico, supposedly that will make more leases available. Does it change in the way that how you may want to allocate your capital, especially on the Gulf of Mexico, and also that for the U.S. renewable power business? Thank you.

Okay. On AI, Vincent gave some hints. I don't know if Namita is there. She wants to have some compliments on it. What I can tell you is that we are – it's important – we are we will establish in our in the organization of namita which is called one tech we will have a specialized line reporting to uh about all these uh digital and ai i would say uh tool uh we strongly believe it's a way to not only always occurs to be more efficient Does it deliver in the next two, three years? I'm not fully sure. It's programs. We will develop what we call a digital plan program in order to digitally look more systematically. We are thinking to make some strong investments. We are discussing today with some... companies in order to be able to connect all the real-time data which are in our different plants, either all the refineries or the FPSOs, in order to connect them and to develop some reverse modeling for advanced processing control. We strongly believe that there is a lot of things to win. This advanced process control, the APC, in our industry we try to mimic the physical equation, but it's difficult and it's difficult to adapt. There is obviously a very Strong improvement potential with AI if you can make based on data reverse modeling very accelerated and changing conditions. It's an obvious way. So these ones we have decided at the end of the year at the executive committee level to invest in this segment, to make these connections across the company. and to invest, including in terms of developing these, I would say, AI models. So that's clear. Does it deliver quickly? I hope so. But it's clearly on the top of the agenda, and the One Tech organization will be directly reporting to Namita as an individual, I would say, line. And not today it was in different segments, different divisions we want to regroup and to have a clear leader and to drive this move to AI and digital. On the US, Gulf of Mexico has always been part of our agenda. You know, you mentioned this year, I mentioned that there is two projects. Ballymore and Encore, which are where we are contributive, that's true that we decided to give up five years ago on one project because we didn't see the way to develop it in a profitable way. And we are not operator, we became non-operator. But we can be, I'm completely on the way to, I think that there is still some good exploration potential in the U.S. and we have some discussions with some potential partners to invest there. In Gulf of Mexico exploration, it's something on which we are even more as non-operator than operator because spending a lot of money to establish position is not really the best way to optimize our costs. On the renewable, okay, I know and I listen like you to the images or to the slogans. Having said that, if I just remind you that during the first presidency of President Trump, the solar, for example, was... still supported in terms of fiscal support, not at 30% or 40%, but 20%, 24%, which honestly, for me, is an acceptable level. And I think the debate at the Congress and the Senate between these congressmen and the administration will be interested because again in many of these states, which are also Republican states, they see some interest to develop these renewables. Remind you that the grid infrastructure in the U.S. is not so strong. It's a way also to complement it. I'm optimistic about the fact that it should not impair dramatically the way we envisage the future in the U.S., not only renewables, but gas power plants, which of course are encouraged, or batteries. I remind you that we made the investment in Clearway before the IRA. Then the IRA came, so it was a sort of additional profit to our investment. And the investment we've done in Clearway is in line with our expectations, so we are fine. It was even better, big thanks to the IRA. If we are back to the previous terms, it does not fundamentally change the situation. That's the way we see the development of this power. But again, the world is not only renewable. The integrated power and the last investment we've done in these gas plants are really quite profitable. So, there are ways to... Electricity demand, fundamentally, will grow. So the question is, do you meet this electricity demand in the future years? And all these data centers, they want that to happen tomorrow. It will take a little more time. So it's a good business when you have a strong demand. It's worth to continue to find ways to invest in it, just fundamentally.

We have Henri there.

Thank you for the update. Just one question, going back to the organic capex guidance and the move from 18 to 17, because if we go back to the October presentation, you're also expecting 18 billion next year in 2026. I was just wondering to what extent the changes that you've put through for this year are structural and you can see, again, similar organic capex in 2026 or... Whether the lower spending on some of the smaller projects that you talk about sort of an impact maybe on some of the... You have two ways for September.

Year by year. It's a good question. Again, you can take 17-18 if you want for 26 instead of 18. Thank you. Not sure it changed fundamentally the attractiveness of the share of total energies, but to help you.

Okay. So we can take the Bertrand question online? Yeah, of course. Bertrand, go ahead.

Yes. Hello. Two questions left on the LNG side. The first one, on your LNG strategy, the idea, as you highlighted it in in October is to convert NRERB into Brent when it comes to your LNG off-takes. At $3 NRERB and Brent, $80 per barrel works perfectly, but it works less so at $4 MDT NRERB and Brent 70, and it does not work at all at 60. My concern is not, obviously, for 2025, given current LNG dynamics and high spot LNG prices, but it's more beyond. How do you intend to mitigate an outcome where you will have much higher Henry than you had anticipated? And the second question is more very short-term on the LNG. Last year at $7, $8 per NDTU, we saw a surge in India LNG spot demand, Chinese LNG spot demand. Now that we are at $14, $15 per MBTU, do you see a reverse impact and LNG demand destruction in Asia?

No, but again, we have a view on this market by 2027, 2030. The reality of this energy market is that there will be some increase of capacity of 100 million tons, so 30%. It's a reality, and maybe it could drive the energy up high, but it will drive the energy price low. So the best protection is to move to brand, because again, on the oil, I would be surprised to see the oil establishing at $50, $60 for long by the end of this decade. You know, at $50 per barrel, you don't have a lot of shale oil producers investing. They are already disciplined at 70, so at 80, and the decline is 20% per year. So I think the fundamental of all these old markets is stronger. than what could happen on the LNG-1. If the NREAB is much higher, the answer that we need to bring on the total energy side is to produce more in the U.S., to have more U.S. gas production. That's the best protection for me. That's why we have made two deals, and we continue, and I answer to our friends that it's part of, for me, fundamental. We need to fill this gap. in our portfolio to have more exposure to domestic to shell gas or to gas because to face a situation where you have exactly what described higher energy price and lower energy that's clear so this one i i agree and we intend by continuing to do what we've done in 25 continuing to to stack some different opportunities in order to reach more or less 1.5 bcft uh Demand destruction at higher prices in China and India. I would say the country which surprised me in 2024 is India. In fact, India has increased its demand. I saw the figure this morning, 28 million tons in 2023. The price is not too low. In fact, they are buying, you know, five years ago, I think the same answer would have said $5, $6. Today, they bought at $10 more or less during the year. and an increase of demand. So India is investing in some gas infrastructure. What would be the reaction of 15-16? But again, 15-16 maybe is for a year. But demand destruction, no. Cautiousness, yes. And probably it would be a good incentive for these buyers to go again to Brent, which I think is they are more confident and less volatile, in fact, from gas. Do you want to add something, Stéphane, on this one?

No, as you just said, Patrick, India was very strong last year, and so far, based on what I see from January, we don't see a sharp decline of India consumption. So we have to wait for a few months to see if at 16 that starts or not, but yet that's not the case.

They will be reactive. Is the price going to be high in 2025? Is it structural? My answer is no.

Any last question?

Okay. Yeah, raise your hand. You had a question. I stopped you because Bertrand was coming, so Lucas, if you want. Lucas again. If you want to ask your last question, to be the last star. I've got to stand up.

It was just a follow-up question. It was simply, why do you factor out of interest? Why do you use factoring? as a process? What's the logic in terms of debt factoring? It was going back to Anisha's question earlier. Was there a particular logic to... It's not a decision made by the holding level.

Corporate level. Business by business, you know, we are a centralised organisation. Operational. We just control that it remains cheap. If it's not cheap, we say no. We control the cost.

Okay. Any last words, maybe, Patrick?

No, thank you. I think thank you for all your attendance first. I don't know. Renault loves to go higher and higher in London. I don't know if there is a message for the stock price, maybe. Yes, of course. It should go higher and higher. So I don't know if there is another one to visit next year. Personally, one of last year for me was a little better because I had a view. This year I had a view on tubes, on industries. Okay. But maybe there is a third one. So, again, thank you for having at hand. I think, honestly, our case is quite... We have, and the year 24, this last quarter, have reinforced all the fundamentals, and I don't think you would have a lot of surprise or negative ones in 25 from our company. Thank you. by Aurelien on March 27. It will be a one-man show by Aurelien and a Q&A. So for those who want to attend on the sustainability and climate report, Aurelien will be invited on the 27th afternoon, I think. Thank you. Thank you.