TotalEnergies SE (TTE) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to TotalEnergies Strategy and Outlook Webcast and the Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] I must advise you that this conference is being recorded today on the 28th of September 2021. We will start the conference shortly.

Good morning, good afternoon or good evening wherever you are on the planet, and thank you to attend this new session of our strategy and outlook for TotalEnergies. I am today together with the Executive Committee. I will introduce them to you after a little after. But first, I would like to tell you that today's presentation comes at a turning point for the company. It is the first one under our new name, TotalEnergies and our new colors. Just 1 year ago, we were coping with a deep crisis. Plenty of uncertainties on the fee front, fuel prices, which are turned around from now. So global pandemic, which is on its way to be sorted out. Thanks to vaccinations, we hope so. And climate change, which for sure, remains at the forefront. A year later, after weathering the storm and emerging stronger, while keeping the trust of our shareholders, we are moving forward towards achieving our sustainable development ambitions for just energy transition and a carbon-neutral future. We have a strong conviction. The world is changing at an accelerating rate, and this means that we must evolve and quickly seize opportunities to grow the companies in new areas, new energies or risk being left behind. Energy is indeed reinventing itself, and so are we. Leveraging our skills and global presence to provide more energy, reduce emissions and be always more sustainable. Our ambition is to be a leader in the energy transition and to play a positive role for society and the environment, i.e., to produce more energy with less emissions. More energy flowing from natural gas, LNG, which plays a key role in the energy transition has demonstrated this day with the growing demand for LNG, more than 10% per year for the last 7 years. And more energy flowing from renewable electricity as power is the form of energy benefiting the most from the fight against climate change. Less emissions, as we have the net -- the ambition to get to net-zero together with society for both our Scope 1 and 2 emissions from our worldwide operating activities, but also for the Scope 3 emissions of our worldwide customers. Our vision is to secure a future for the company, while it takes us from our first 100 year anniversary coming up in a few years all the way to our second centennial celebration. All that is a matter of sustainability, key to creating long-term value for shareholders. This vision was supported by 92% of our shareholders as of the last general meeting. And this gives us a strong encouragement to execute it. Our strategy is a balanced approach that takes full advantage of the assets and expertise we have accumulated. We are transforming the company to create long-term value for our stakeholders, but we are transforming while combining energy transition and shareholder return. We will not abandon or sacrifice value. And by leveraging our present portfolio, we will generate the significant cash flow needed to achieve our ambitions for the coming year. Yes. For the future, our expertise will turn increasingly to new energies, becoming 1 of the top 5 renewable power producers in the world by the end of the decade and from there on to biofuels, hydrogen synthetic fuels. There is enthusiastic support inside TotalEnergies for this profound transformation that we have embarked on. We are, by the way, rewarded with an environment today that is fast-moving and dynamic, with economies reopening, oil prices rebounding and notably in Asia and Europe, gas prices hitting record highs. Our oil and gas portfolio is capturing these upsides. The company is firing on all cylinders. The balance sheet is strong and the cash is flowing. We are committed to sharing the surplus of revenues above $60 per barrel with our shareholders. And considering the current high prices for oil and natural gas, we plan a $1.5 billion buyback for the fourth quarter of 2021. And our outlook for strong sustainable cash flow growth over the coming years supports future increases of the dividend. Our objective today for this presentation is not to revise profoundly our medium, long-term or medium-term outlook. But to give you more insights on its execution and to convince you that our transformation to a multi-energy company secures for TotalEnergies, the lasting role as a leader in the rapidly evolving energy industry for the benefit of all our stakeholders. As you understood, sustainability is at the core of our strategy of our projects and our operations. We have decided within TotalEnergies to create a new ritual. Before each meeting was starting with a safety moment. Now each meeting in the morning is beginning with -- starting with a safety moment. But in the afternoon, it's starting with a sustainability moment. And so as we are in the afternoon here in Paris, I will let -- you will have now the sustainability moment to launch this meeting.

Protecting the environment as an SGP is one of the main things we do after safety. We protect the people, and we protect the environment. [Presentation]

Yes. I think it was a good example, combining, by the way, CO2, climate change and biodiversity. These 2 key topics for our planet. So again, I'm happy to welcome you today. I am together with the 7 members of the executive committee. They are with me. You have, I don't know, from -- so right to the left, you have Nicolas Terraz who our new E&P President, you have Helle Kristoffersen. You know well she changed her position, now she is President for Strategy and sustainability. I don't introduce Jean-Pierre Sbraire, our CFO. Then we have Alexis Vovk that you know already, President, Marketing and Services. Namita Shah, she has changed also positions. She is now President for OneTech. You will have the opportunity to listen to her and supervising also People & Social Engagement Division. And we have Bernard Pinatel, our President for Refining & Chemicals. And the last one but joined recently as well as the Executive Committee, Stéphane Michel, President for Gas, Renewables and Power. So in this presentation, it's not -- it's a presentation which will be a multi-voice one. So you will have the opportunity to hear 6 of the 8 members of the executive committees. Helle, you heard here yesterday, and Jean-Pierre is not punished. But this time, he has worked hard to prepare all that with his teams, but he will, of course, participate in the Q&A, but he will not introduce -- he will not describe itself as well, but you have the opportunity to listen to him quite regularly for the results. So I will launch this presentation. And again, first slide, if this one is combining security -- safety, sorry and sustainability because, in fact, these 2 concepts, you understand are going hand in hand. We want to elevate sustainability at the same level of importance in the company. Safety is a value. We consider that operational excellence, safety, sustainable development go hand in hand. And on this slide, before to speak a little about safety, just to remind you what are the principal of actions that we are developing within the TotalEnergies to -- as a sustainable company. Of course, so respect of human rights is a cornerstone of our code of conduct. We have 0 tolerance against corruption and fraud in this company. And the last principal of actions, which is quite important as a rule of conduct in our engagement with society, whatever the subject will be is transparency. And through this presentation, I think we will try to translate what it means transparency by discussing some hot topics, but we are confronted sometimes. Safety, as I said, and this is, by the way, I never comment on this presentation as TotalEnergies is willing to become a multi-energy company, a broad energy company. We are not only -- even if we are classified as an oil and gas company, we will benchmark ourselves. You will see that in 2, 3, 4 different slides, not only against our peers in oil and gas, our major peers, but also against some of the largest utilities as we think that we want to enter into that field, and we will explain how and why we think we can develop some profitable business in the field of electricity, renewable electricity. So on this slide of safety, you can see that, by the way, the records coming in terms of safety by major oil and gas companies is lower than the ones of utilities, quite much lower. And that TotalEnergies has embarked in a continuous journey of improvement. We have improved our total recordable injury rate by 20% last 3 years. And the other important information in my eyes on this slide is that -- we have -- there are no fatalities within the company for more than 400 days now over the past 12 months, which means that this target of no fatality is possible, I touch somewhat, I think it will be many, many, many days without any fatalities, but I think it's important to underline it because life of our people is our most precious assets. So after that, let's see, as I said in my introduction, and this is, I think, the fundamental reason why we move from Total to TotalEnergies with these new colors and this new logo. Energy is reinventing itself because of climate change, because of technology because we want to change the world system to decarbonize it, and so are we as well. And I would say the plan, the program we propose to shareholders, to our stakeholders is fundamentally articulated about the 3 main axis, which is more energy for this growing population, population needs more energy. And TotalEnergies as an energy producers want to supply more energy, but less emissions, less carbon. So that means that at the same time, decarbonizing with energy. And because it's part of the journey to make a just transition, we need to put it in a framework of sustainability, so always more sustainable. And I will now explain you the 3 key, I would say, messages around these 3 thematics. But before just to tell you more concretely what it means, and I would not describe you the full menu. But it means that, in fact, we are building a multi-energy company to benefit a lot of stakeholders who are developing in 7 different energies. There are 7 symbols, no, Oil, Natural Gas, Renewables and Electricity, Biomass and Hydrogen. My colleagues will give you the details of the menu. Nicolas, Bernard and Alexis will come back on old and new energies that they could develop. Stéphane will come back on natural gas and as well hydrogen and biogas. I will come back myself on the Renewables and Electricity at the end of the presentation. So with all detailed strategy, we'll have all the details within these slides. Just to remind you that this strategy of being a major player in the energy transition has been supported by our shareholders at the last general meeting for general assembly of shareholders by more than 92% through resolution, which was proposed by the Board, which was the ambition for sustainability and climate and I think the key importance. So thank you for the support. And I think, of course, for us, it is the road map that we want now to execute. So the more energy first can be described through this scale -- through these slides. We already shared with you with objectives. So again, today we will more dig in the details, but I think it's important to repeat the next decade, the target is to increase our production of energies by 30%, mainly driven by 2 pillars: LNG on one side and electricity on the other side. I know there are some debates about the role of the gas in the energy transition, but we have this strong conviction, but gas has a key role in the energy transition. And I would say with what is happening this year is even reinforcing my conviction. Stéphane will come back on it. So we intend to grow this production of LNG by 30% in the next 5 years, double it in the next 10 years. Electricity from renewables is the other pillars for the oil. In fact, our intent is to follow, in fact, I would say, the evolution of oil markets, oil production from TotalEnergies will peak during the decade and then begin to decline slowly going through the market. So that's, I would say, the key message of this slide. But again, our strategy is until a growth to sustainably grow is not at all to decrease. The second one is through the sales. On the sales side, at the same time, we'll have gas and electricity sales, which will continue to grow going with our production, by the way, together. But on the liquid part, on the oil products there, we will have, I would say, have a more proactive strategy, which is to adapt to anticipate on the market decrease for all products, which will come because we are first, and you know quite exposed to Europe, and Europe is probably the primary market. We're primary continent where energy transition will take place. ICE ban by 2035, et cetera. But also because within Total, and Bernard and Alexis will remind you all that, we today sell more and we sell refine more than what we produce. And so what we intend to do is to realign our sales of oil products and refining capacities on our production of oil during the decade. So that's true but when we speak about transformation, I think it's symbolized by the 4 figures which are on the right of this slide. At the end of the decade, our intent or strategy is to fundamentally change the sales mix of total energies. Today, it's predominantly all products. Tomorrow, it will be 30% oil, 50% gas, 15% electricity and 5% biomass hydrogen. To execute this strategy, and I think it's probably one of the most simple but most important slide of the presentation. We need, of course, to invest. And this slide describes the capital investment strategy, which will fund this energy transition for TotalEnergies. We will invest for the next 5 years, $13 billion, $15 billion per year. Because it's a planning which is well supported by, I would say, a price of $50 per barrel and with which we are comfortable not only to maintain on one part, the assets that we have in hydrocarbons, but also to grow on both pillars that I described, Renewables, Electricity and LNG. So you can -- just to have in mind, $13 billion, $15 billion as an average, 50% of it is dedicated to what we need to maintain, I would say, the assets and the production, mainly the oil assets, it's through upstream and downstream. And the other 50% globally is for growth. Growing by 30% of production, as I described it. Half of this growth, so 25%, let's say, $3 billion per year is for Renewables and Electricity. And the other half is for LNG, hydrogen, biomass, et cetera. So that's the picture and the way -- and I think when you think do we think about -- when people ask us, are you aligned towards your ambition to get to net-zero. I think this is the answer. We allocate a 1/4 of our investments to, I would say, zero carbon energies. And we put another 1/4 on what we consider as key to make this transition possible, which is natural gas. Inside of this introduction, we selected to put it here is about Iraq because Iraq, that is a project that we announced a few weeks ago, beginning of the month is, in fact, the proof that this transformation is possible. But we can move from an oil company to a multi-energy company and that there are some competitive advantages, some that we can leverage in order to put into action this concept from moving from an oil and gas company to a broad energy company. Iraq is at the core of a region where we have a clear large footprint, number one, among the IOC, which is the Middle East. Of course, you could think that when we go to Iraq, we think to oil. And in fact, what we've done in Iraq is to go to discuss there with the authorities about fundamentally their main, I would say, issue which is today to provide electricity to their citizens. It's a country, plenty of resources and there is a lack of electricity. And for any people who experience some days in Iraq, is the reality for everybody. So what we propose them is, first, to gather some gas, which today is flared, which is wasted energy in order to, I would say, process it and to recover it and to feed some gas-fired power plants, which are available. By the way, by doing that, we will eliminate 100 million tons of CO2 over the next emissions of the next 25 years. So first project, gas to power. Power means also being able to develop solar renewables. It's a very flat land, very -- a lot of space in Iraq, finding the grid, we identify it. So 1-gigawatt of solar energy, another way to produce electricity. Of course, it's also a matter and we looked to how can we produce more gas. So we went to the Ratawi field, which is an oil field on which we can enhance the gas production and the oil production, let's be clear. But this hydrocarbon development fits perfectly well with our objectives, as Nicolas will explain you a very low level of emissions per barrel, 9-kilo per CO2 per barrel, very low cost of hydrocarbons. So that's the 3 pillars. And there is a fourth one, which is, as you know, in Iraq, there is -- It's an area which is under water stress. There is a lack of water, in particular, for maintaining pressure in the fields of oil fields. So we will build a seawater intake in other large one, 5 million-barrel water per day, which would be transferred then to Basra Oil Company in order to bring some water to the country, which is looking for. So all that makes, I would say, a clear sustainable multi-energy model. And I think it's a proof that we can use our strength to deploy this model. Of course, you ask what about the profitability of all that, I would like to say first that, of course, if we make this move, which represents a global investment of $10 billion, I know that there is a $27 billion, which has been reported by several agencies, but it was -- it is a sum of CapEx and OpEx about -- on 25 years. So keep in mind, $10 billion. It's already quite a large stake. We have do it. We, of course, it's not -- it will not be done under the technical service contract, by the way, TotalEnergies did not really accept in 2008, 2010. So we have been able with the authorities to develop a win-win framework through what they call a development and production contract around 5 DPC. I think that somewhere, if you look to [indiscernible] that it has a flavor of PSC, but it's a DPC with, I would say, royalty cost recovery, profit sharing with the revenues coming from oil, gas condensate NGLs. And so it's a very, I would say, it's a contract with whom we are very comfortable to invest. And of course, will be a win-win project, which means also for the Iraq and for TotalEnergies. What we intend to do, by the way, other characteristics of the frameworks that we will be paid in oil liftings for all these revenues, including for the electricity sales. We intend to keep 40% to 50% interest. We are underway to identify and some partners when we'll be ready, we'll come back to you. So planning for this project is to be able to fight, to sanction it before year-end fully. Now that we have the contractual -- the contract in place we are working to go to the next steps. So that was more energy. And we have a nice example of broadening or scope of energies. Now of course, the second aspect is less emissions. Again, I'm coming back to what we have submitted to our shareholders, which is to get to that zero at worldwide basis by 2050 together with society. Two ambitions there. So the first one is to get to net-zero on our operated activities, Scope 1 and 2. And the second one is to get to net-zero for indirect emissions, the emission of our customers scope free. In front of these 2 ambitions by 2050, we put some clear objectives by 2030 and our commitment I can say, commitment is to reach these objectives. And this is what we will work hard with the Executive Committee along the next year, it takes 10 years. The first one is on the Scope 1 and 2 to reduce by 40% with emissions. The second one for Scope 3 is to have lower Scope 3 by 2030 than 2015. I remind you that we will increase our sales by 15%. All that will be possible because fundamentally, we shift the content of our sales and the carbon intensity of our sales by -- and we will reduce it by more than 20%. So I will not enter into all the details of these slides because it's also for being able to discuss it during our future discussions with you. Just to let you know that this program of reducing Scope 1 and 2 is since last year, well taken into -- is well on board by all teams. We have developed in the last years, a stronger, I would say, low carbon culture with our CO2 fighters quad. They are tracking CO2 all around the operations. Of course, we reduced relentlessly methane. I will come back on it. There is a management of portfolio, which could help as well part to contribute to this reduction. And last but not least, for residual emissions only because the priority is, of course, to avoid and to reduce once we have reduced, then residual emissions, we can use carbon sinks. So we are on the way to reach our target, and we will report to you year after year about it. Just a word about carbon sinks. It's quite a heavy slide, but it's just to show you that it's 2 parts there. There are the carbon storage, I would say -- developing carbon storage. We have, in particular, in the North Sea. We are a partner of 3 projects, Northern Lights, Aramis, which has been announced recently in the Netherlands together with Shell and Dutch partners. And we are also a partner in the Northern Endurance partnership in the U.K. as a heritage, I would say, of an initiative of the OGCI. So we are working on these projects to develop, I would say, at least 5 million tons of CO2 per year of storage capacity in TotalEnergies share. The other aspects of our work, it's about natural-based solutions. I think you had the opportunity to listen to our colleague, Adrien Henry last February. So I will not be long on it. We are progressing. We have gave you an example of Congo. And there, again, our objective is to get -- to have a sustainable basis of high standard carbon credits by 2050, at least 5 million tons per year. Sustainable means, during the next 10 years, we'll accumulate these carbon credits step after step, projects after projects, being sure that they are at high standards and Adrien Henry is very keen on it, in order then to be able to offset part of the emissions on a long-term vision. These activities, by the way, a comment, are now under the responsibility of Nicolas because we wanted each division, business division of the company must have its share of the, I would say, the carbon journey and road map. And obviously, when we speak about carbon storage, E&P is well positioned. And for nature-based solutions, it's maybe less obvious to you, but in fact, the reality, there is a lot of synergy because it's to leverage our worldwide presence in many countries like in Sub-Saharan Africa or elsewhere in the planet, where we want not only to produce oil and gas reserves, but we have opportunities also to create some nature-based carbon sinks. Scope 3 now is the other part of the ambition of customers indirect emissions. Of course, for that, we'll have to work and with customers. Just this scheme explain you, in fact, the basics. The basics is that on one side, we continue to grow our energy production. So our sales will grow 15%. So in fact, the 400 million tons of CO2 emission Scope 3 by 2015. If they were only, I would say, hydrocarbons would be at something like 500 million tons. But at the same time, because we are broadening the scope of our energies, we decarbonize our sales, but at least carbon intensity will lower by more than 20% on the decade. And so that results that will be of, we will manage to have lower emissions in 2030 than in 2015. But again, in fact, what we didn't put on this side is the fact that we are eliminating so we are avoiding for the same amount of energy being sold to customers, we are avoiding 100 million tons of CO2 in fact, which is, in fact, the message that we must keep in mind as well. To do that, I said it will be done with proactive actions with our customers. And I think it's a strong message. It's not waiting for. We are in a position where we consider because energy transition, as I always repeat, is first fundamentally, not only a matter of supply, matter of demand. We'll manage this transition if we can change the demand for energies of our customers, their behaviors. That means that converting them to renewables. And for that, it helps, by the way, by selling them corporate PPAs will come back on it to give decarbonized energy to our customers, but also to convince them to substitute from all products to over alternatives like we do, and you know that we are committed not to sell any more fuel oil to produce electricity. And then, of course, there is a customer for -- sorry, is a key segment, which is transportation. Alexis will come back on that. But for us, this is a part where we are selling most of our products and working hard and you've seen yesterday that we have announced strategic alliance with Safran with the aviation industry, with the shipping industry, the car manufacturing industry is very important in order to be able to deliver to them the new energies that were required to decarbonize their own their own road map. The last word about Europe. I don't know why people think that our commitment and ambition is only on Europe, no, it's not true. Not true at all. It's a worldwide ambition there again, but for Europe, we consider that we are in a specific position. First, we are a European company. Europe has engaged in the green deal. Clearly, this continent will be at the forefront of the transition. We see that as a big -- a very huge opportunity for us because it's obliged us to move quicker than elsewhere. And so to, in fact, our motive is to be more agile, investing in our continent, in our framework that we know better, by the way, in new energy. So we support, let's be clear, TotalEnergies, we welcome the Fit for 55 package. We think that the commission is right to promote the generalization of carbon price to promote the massive development of renewables, to promote strong infrastructure development required for charging points, hydrogen networks and also, of course, to promote fuel mandates low carbon renewable ones, if we want to accelerate the transport carbonization. So all these tools are there. So we will work with them positively as an opportunity. And why we have said to ourselves because we want to be -- to contribute directly to the green deal and to this target Fit of 55. But between 2015 and 2030, we will reduce our emissions in Europe of 30%. So it's an additional, I would say, contribution of Total to Europe. The last part of the program, so more energy, less emission, always more sustainable. It's probably new to you. I spoke a lot about sustainability. It's because, in fact, when we think with our Board about what is fundamental vision of TotalEnergies for us not only about tackling the climate change, but also to embed that in what we call a more global approach, a sustainable approach to just transition, I would say. And that led us to develop, and we will do it in the company, as I said, through the sustainability movement to develop a more comprehensive approach to sustainability and to, in particular, think and this is what we deploy in the coming years. again, to elevate sustainability at the same level of safety in the company. And to integrate the SDGs into our strategy, projects, operations. Of course, obviously, providing sustainable and affordable energy is just fundamental. We just commit until this week to the UN for an energy compact that part of this energy will be dedicated to emerging countries among our ambition. But it's also not only the planet, planet for energy, planet for environmental performance where we need to take care of uses of scarce natural resources. It's also planet and people. And I think when we think the transition, we must have these 2 key elements in mind, planet and people. People our colleagues, our employees, obviously, as a responsible employer and operator, but the people around us, the communities we work as well. And in fact, it's creating value for -- and sharing prosperity for -- with our communities in our ops region. So all that is a program, which is what we call committed to adjust energy transition. And I think the debate that we can observe today with the hike of the energy price will put again the spotlight on this concept, which I think is just fundamental. We cannot change the system, the energy system of the planet against the people, even if it's major, it's absolutely fundamental for the planet, the survival of planet, we need to put everybody onboard and take everybody everywhere. So when we go to there from sustainability, of course, when we speak to financial investors, we speak about ESG, I must say that among the IOC peers, TotalEnergies is recognized as one of the leader. There are different classification on this slide. You can see that we are I think, 5 out of 4 times we are #1, and we are among the top 3. But there again, we want to progress and to progress I said on safety that we have better record at utilities. On this one, the utilities when we look to the results are a little biased, which is good. It's a challenge. So we -- on this chart, we not only put the score of TotalEnergies, but the average scores of utilities. And I see that as a way to continue to progress on these matters. And so this is, for me, the real benchmark for tomorrow to consider that we can be at the same level and recognize ESG at the same level in terms of ESG performance but with Peers. All that is going through transparency. We have decided that it's important that our investors, our stakeholders by the way, more largely, knows what happens within Total. It's a very large company. So we contribute to different reports with different frameworks. There are a lot of them. Maybe one day, some people will think to unify all that, but -- It's not an issue. We don't wait for unification. We refer to disclose the data and so that people can evaluate our performance. And for me, by the way, this reporting is also a way to progress internally. Because when you have a new question to ask, people could say, okay, it's a burden to answer. The one way to look at it is, first, why do we have the question. Second, can we be better on it? And for example, we have just decided we had recently -- we have some question marks about do we have -- do you have a decent wage or decent living wage. Can you ensure that within the whole company, you have decent living wage, that question came in some of this reporting. We just took the decision by the end of 2022. This will be the case in all the company, we will take care of that everywhere in the company, all our employees will have what we call a decent living wage wherever they are. So that's the type of things which helps. Okay. But everything is not perfect. When you speak about sustainability, I may be clear, we are TotalEnergies. We are involved in many operations. And so what I will do now maybe is not so -- it's quite original. I will speak about -- and I will not enter into all the details, but we have decided to put on the table because I think it's part of this idea of sustainable company and transparency, all the topics that we are facing. And I would like to have less, but I have topics around the planet, that's the reality of the company. And so just -- and I think it will be good also to have all this presentation to support the discussion we have with our investors and stakeholders. The first one, of course, came in 2021 is the case of Myanmar. Again, I will not give you all the details, but I'd be very clear that this is, of course, taken very, very seriously. We condemn clearly all the human rights abuse, which could have been -- have taken place in Myanmar since the military coup. We have taken immediately all the decisions we could take easily to stop, I would say, investing for the future in the country but we were facing a clear dilemna because we are producing gas. And the dilemna was, can we deprive millions of people of electricity. Can we take the risk that some of our people there could be exposed to forced labor or to criminal charges if we don't pay taxes. Honestly, you can answer, yes, easily in our share in Paris, it's more complex on the ground. So we took some decisions. There are maybe not shared, but we took some, I would say, brave decision, including the fact that we are depriving ourself from any dividend cash distribution from the pipeline so that there is no cash coming from this pipeline to the national company of Myanmar. We also said that for the rest, we need to pay our taxes because we consider that respective contracts, it's just a fundamental ethics behavior. But when we pay a taxation to the government, we'll pay the same amount to NGOs working in Myanmar. This will be fully transparent from third quarter results will publish every quarter what we pay to government as taxes and that will pay as the nation as well. So that's what I can say, will not be longer on it. Second topic is our project in Uganda. It's a major project in Lake Albert integrated project. And it's a major project because when you see the size of it, in particular, the significant in-country value to Uganda and Tanzania, it will create. We should never forget that. We don't do that just for our sales. Most of the value as such project is going to the countries, not only for taxes, but also for jobs. More than 60,000 jobs will be created during the works, more than 3,000 jobs when we'd be in operations, development skills attracting also other investments in the country. This project, as you know, is well on track. We signed fundamental agreements with both governments for the pipeline in April. Now the 2 parliaments are enacting the laws, transforming this agreement into, I would say, regulatory framework and fiscal framework. This will be done before year-end. We have given conditional awards of contract to all the contractors so that we can execute once all this paperwork will be done. And our Chinese partner, CNOOC is doing the same on Kingfisher and we work hand in hand. Of course, we know but there are some 2 -- I would say there are some challenges. Onshore projects, land acquisition is a challenge, and biodiversity is a challenge in such a nice environment. We took that, of course, very seriously, people have some doubts. I invite everybody to come and visit our operations. We have -- of course, we are applying the high standards, IFC standards when we speak about land acquisition under supervision of third parties. We have published all the studies about it, taking on board or recommendation from NGOs. We have finalized an acquisition for the Upstream Tilenga facilities, and we are on the way to do it for the pipeline. On the biodiversity side, there again, first let's avoid and reduce. So the first strong decision we have taken at the Executive Committee and the Board level is to minimize the footprint of the projects within the Murchison Falls National Park. We were as the footprint of the license was 10% of the park, we have relinquished 90% of it keeping a footprint less than 1% of the park. The second part is that we are working as well with some experts, and I thank the IUCN experts to work with us, by the way, on chimpanzees and we have the intent also to work to introduce black rhinoceros, black rhino in Uganda and also to improve the development of the park resources. So at the end, the commitment is to be net positive. So that's a real action. And I think that this project, Lake Albert integrated project will be again a demonstration of the sustainable capacity to put the stability at the heart of our projects. Biodiversity I just changed. I will not remind -- I would just like to remind you that last year, we took a certain number of commitments. We looking seriously to that. So this is a program. We have some areas of exclusion. We have some commitments to be net positive on special areas. We are reviewing not only the new projects, but the existing sites. So you can share that, but it's a comprehensive approach, which is promoted and within the company. Again, we understand perfectly that biodiversity is also a major threat for our planet. And we want to take that into account in the way we work with as that mean, but we renounced to make project. It means that we have to embed sustainability of diversity immediately when we begin a project and to look to all the challenges. But biodiversity, one of the hot topics of controversy we faced was about palm oil, that through. We studied that very carefully. We managed to develop alternative feedstock from palm oil for biorefinery. So we announced a strong decision that from 2023 we will not use any more palm oil in any of the facilities of TotalEnergies. I'm happy to see that some of the companies involved in biofuels, I've also announced the same type of commitment by 2023. All that obliged to be innovative but the teams of Bernard and he will come back on it have been in order, again, to find alternative feedstock. And there is there a positive momentum to develop this type of biofuels. Our conviction is that we need to get out of the 1G and to look more to waste and residues for the future if we want to develop this business. Another case for biodiversity is the Arctic. It is gaining momentum. So you know we are involved Novatek is the operator in projects in Arctic, Arctic 2 in particular. We'll publish this week. All there again, principal transparency, we'll publish all the studies we have done the plans and programs we are in place. I would like to say to everybody that in fact, all that has been possible and we have cleanly elevate the level of all these studies and programs, in particular, thanks to the close cooperation with export credit agencies and lenders. All these financial institutions are willing also to be at the forefront of biodiversity. So it's a close cooperation and the fact that we can have around the table, some Western financial institution is in my view, very important because, again, it helped us to upgrade the level of commitment we take for such a projects. I will not detail all the actions which are on the slide, but it's taken very seriously by the way, because for Russian contrary to what some people think, the Arctic is also a preserved area. They are very proud of it and when they think to invest there, they are taking care of the biodiversity, including of the people and the communities who are living there. Another case, when we speak about CNG, of course, is methane where it's more linked to the -- there are debates about methane. What I can tell you is that we took that within TotalEnergies at the top of our priority. We have already minimized and I'm not sure we can measure less than that, but the carbon -- the methane intensity in our operating gas assets is less than 0.1%. We have reduced by 50% of emissions. Our plan is to reduce it again by 20% in the next 5 years. Our emissions at 64,000 tons of methane, you have some examples of projects on it and some actions that we can take. So this is a matter which can be done. And the last case I would like to introduce because when we speak about CNG, we speak about the planet, as I said, I speak about communities, but the people are important. I said our employees are important. And of course, for me, diversity is just fundamental. It's a matter of collective intelligence. That's true that in our, I would say, oil and gas company, traditionally, the -- I would say, the share of the women within the management was not as high as it should have been within the company. If there was an imbalance, I recognize it, look, the figures in 2014. We have progressed from, I would say, an average of 16% to 25%. We are not yet there because we have 35 less 1/3 of the exempts are in the company are women. So I want to reach that level at least. And so the next target is 30% by 2030 -- '25. I think it's important and speaking about people, it gave me the opportunity to leave the floor to Namita not only because she's in charge of people and social engagement, also President of One Tech, and she will explain you because this transformation we want to do can be done only together with our people. So Namita, floor is yours.

Thank you, Patrick. So indeed, we cannot close out this first chapter of the presentation without talking about our people. Building a sustainable multi-energy company is an incredible opportunity for all the women and men who are working on our sites and our offices across the world. And this transformation, we will be doing with our people. What that means is that we will be putting in place a program, which is going to enable a just transition for our employees. It begins, of course, with listening, listening by many different means possible to the hopes and the aspirations and the opportunities of our employees and what they see in a multi-energy company, also listening to their doubts and ensuring that we provide the support that they need at every step of this transformation, at every level of the organization, whether they are managers or operational staff on the ground. It is going to be especially important that our employees are informed and that we have informed employees. It means that the employees must be able in order to participate in a multi-energy company, what all these new energies mean? What it means to have projects that are taking into account the energy transition? What it means to be a sustainable company? And what our climate ambition is? It is via concrete projects and discussion and presentations and information at all levels from peer to peer, from meeting, from talking and explaining energies, which are not within the business unit of the place where our employees work today that they will be able to develop the culture of a sustainable and a multi-energy company and also to develop themselves their careers within this transformation. We will be putting in place an enhanced learning program. Each employee will have the ability to gain knowledge in an energy in which they do not have a core competency today. And our objective is to be able to redeploy the engineering and the technical staff that we have today to accompany the growth of the sustainable multi-energy company. This has already started. It has started because on the 1st of September, we put in place an organization called One Tech of which I am the President, where we pulled together over 3,300 engineers, researchers and technicians from the different business units, as you know them from the exploration and production branch, from the refining and chemicals, from marketing services, from gas renewables and power under the One Tech umbrella. This One Tech organization is the heart. It's the engine of the transformation of the company. It is going to enable us to adapt to the new company industrial activities. It is going to help us, help our employees better develop their competencies in this new context and therefore, to retain them, and of course, to attract new talents, combining people who come from so many different experiences and backgrounds and putting together our research and development teams with our industrial operations on the ground helps to both foster and accelerate innovation, which is going to be vital for our progress in some of the new energies that we are looking at. This will also give us the ability to mobilize at our human resources, our technical resources as we do with our financial resources to mobilize these resources to work on the most strategic and the value-added topics that we need at the time -- at every point in time. And last but not least, it is going to be able to accelerate our capacity to deliver the carbon footprint reduction solutions that we need to put in place to meet our climate ambition. Everything that I am saying to you is not a pipe dream. And this slide is really to show to you that it is a reality that the talents and the competencies that we have in our organization today, our talents and competencies that we will be able to use to create the energy company, the multi-energy company that we want to put in place for tomorrow. Already, experts coming from the exploration and production projects in floating structures, in metocean data specialists are working on developing and managing our new offshore wind projects. Our engineers from refining and chemicals on process and chemical processes are working on building a eFuel road map. Our LNG experts in cyrogenic's are teaming up with our engineers from refining and chemicals to work on hydrogen and hydrogen options. And geologists and drillers have been working in the exploration area are now looking at how to use their competencies to help us build and grow our carbon capture and storage businesses. So all this is a reality. We have started, the teams together, the teams understand what it means to be able to leverage their skills to be able to build this multi-energy company. And as you all know, last and not least, we do have a world-class expertise in project management, which we can now use to deploy across the development of the solar portfolio that we have built over these past years and our upcoming offshore wind portfolios as well. And talking about world-class expertise in project management. I will now hand the floor over to Nicolas.

Now I'll present to you how it is contributing to our multi-energy company, and I will start with a brief snapshot of the oil demand and supply. This was presented by Elo yesterday. We see the liquid demand reach a peak in the decade. And you see the chart here, we forecast the oil demand to continue growing to the midst of the decade before starting to decline. What's important is on the supply side, the conventional oil decline is approximately 4% per year. And now if we take into account all the brownfield developments and the existing facilities, so all of these workovers, infill well stay back development. The decline of the conventional oil capacity or production base can be reduced to 2% per year. Still 2% per year is 2 million barrels per year of capacity only 10 million barrels per year after 5 years of reduction in capacity. So taking into account this decline, today, we estimate that 3 million to 5 million barrels per day of the new greenfield conventional capacity needs to be sanctioned by the end of 2022 to meet the '25 demand. So the range is 3 million to 5 million is basically depending on the shale gas growth, which is quite dependent on the oil price assumption. So 3 million to 5 million barrels per day is a lot of capacity when we compare it to weekly average of new greenfield capacity sanctioned over the past 5 years, it was since 2015, about 1.5 million barrels per day every year. So what we see here is that meeting the liquids demand and in the coming years requires quite a lot of investment. Now turning to TotalEnergies Upstream production. And Patrick has touched on this, but what we expected -- we expect growth in our Upstream production of 3% per year between 2021 and 2026. So in this growth, we see here our first oil, which is the red part. And we see our oil production growing to 2025 and before reaching a peak on plateauing, and this is in line with the demand situation. But more fundamentally, the growth of our Upstream production will be driven by growth in gas and particularly in LNG. And we forecast the growth in our LNG production of 6% per year in the next 5 years. And Stephane will give more details in the presentation on this. This forecast of Upstream production in 2026 includes Mozambique LNG production only in 2026. And this is relies on the assumption that the project activity will resume in 2022. So next year, if there was a further delay in Mozambique LNG project, the growth rate would be reduced by 0.5 point, so from 3% to 2.5% per year to 2026. Now in order to deliver this production on the red part of the Upstream production curve, we are targeting specific investments, which are in line with the company ambition. And in line with the company ambition means low-cost, low emission projects. So low cost in practice, the company has defined precise criteria. Low-cost means CapEx plus OpEx below $20 per barrel equivalent or an less OpEx breakeven below $30 per barrel for all our new projects. That's low cost. Low emissions in practice, it means that all the new projects are being screened or need to contribute to a reduction of the greenhouse gas emission intensity of our portfolio. So all the new projects basically need to have an emission intensity below the average of the portfolio currently or at the time of the function. So here, you see on the slide, 3 projects which are illustrative of these investments, generating strong cash flow for the company, but also in line with the ambition. Mero in Brazil, Lake Albert development in Uganda on [indiscernible] in Iraq. So just a few words on each of the 3. Mero in Brazil is illustrative of these deepwater projects with very large resources, very high productivity. We see here that on Mero will reach 600,000 barrel per day of production for FPSOs. The last part actually was sanctioned just a couple of months ago. First oil, pretty much 1 FPSO per year between 2022 and 2025. And you see CapEx plus OpEx in line with the criteria, greenhouse gas at a very good level, 15 kilograms of CO2 equivalent per boe compared to about 20 last year for our EP portfolio. Now our Lake Albert development in Uganda, Patrick have talked about it. Again, onshore development, large resources over 1 billion barrels to be developed. A project that's expected to start in 2025 with a production of 260 kbd. You see again the CapEx and OpEx below $20 per barrel. The GHG emission intensity of this project is very low. The reason why it's very low is because a lot of work has been done to include in the design of this Uganda project a number of units that allow to get the greenhouse gas intensity at a very good level. I will just mention 2. The first one is extraction of LPG in the Upstream part to be able to use very lean gas as fuel gas. And the second one is solarization of the pipeline to supply part of the power requirements for the pumping station on the heat tracing. Iraq, [ph] Hatavi again, Patrick talked about it. What we see here is a project with a very low technical cost, OpEx and CapEx below $10 per barrel or about half of CapEx, half on OpEx. On greenhouse gas emission at an excellent level, 9-kilogram per se per barrel in addition to the greenhouse gas emissions that will be avoided by the valorization of the gas that is currently flared on other fields. So what is common to all these projects is that they deliver very strong cash flows between $800 million per year and $1 billion per year for each of them from their first oil with a significant upside at high prices. And of course, these projects, what is also a common feature to them is that they will be implemented and they are implemented in a responsible manner, so in a manner that takes into account the best environmental standards and also a lot of attention to the in-country value and the benefit to the local communities. Now high grading our portfolio is, of course, focusing on low-cost low emissions projects for our investment, but it's also the management of the portfolio. You see on the map here, the 2020/2021 divestment activity. So if you account you have 12 projects, divestment projects over 2 years. So it's about a project every 2 months, to make it simple. On those divestments, they are focusing in line with the strategy on assets with high technical cost, high emission intensity. You have the figures on the slide. On average, these divestments, they are present $29 per barrel of technical cost and close to 50 kilograms of CO2 equivalent per barrel for the divested assets. This divestment program generates $2 billion of proceeds and contributes to improving the portfolio in terms of cost and emissions on one point that we are continuing to focus on is to maintain very competitive OpEx per barrel targeting 5 OpEx per barrel for our entire portfolio in the next year, which is to maintain, in fact, the level where we are today. So let me now turn to cash on what you see here on the chart is the cash flow from operations of the EP segment over the next 5 years, '22-'26 on the net investment of EP. So the result is that we expect the free cash flow above $5 billion per year at $50 per barrel, with a significant oil price leverage you see it on the chart and also with the ability to protect this cash flow in case of low price. Thanks to the flexibility on CapEx that the company has demonstrated several times. And lastly, in 2020, just to give you an illustration, in 2020, during the COVID pandemic, we went from 30 operated rigs to 20 operated rigs in just 2 months. Now in fact, we are rather in a phase where we are remobilizing some rigs to take advantage of the context. For those cash flows, a key lever is a short cycle projects, which gives a lot of upside and also a lot of flexibility. So the short cycle project is basically those investments that can be decided on where first oil will occur in less than 2 years after the investment decision. Today, we have 1 billion-barrel of reserves as short-cycle CapEx that can be sanctioned. Those projects, they represent very low technical cost, very low cost, $4 per barrel of CapEx on average. They are also low emissions because they don't require the construction of new processing facility. So they are well in line with the ambition and they will contribute to the strong cash flow profit. Well, as I wanted to conclude by this showing that EP is a cash engine, and I will now hand over to Bernard for the downstream part of it.

Thank you, Nicolas. So let's turn now to downstream. As Patrick explained earlier in his presentation, our oil product sales will be lower by 30% in 2030 compared to 2019, reflecting a lower market demand, notably in Europe. So it's obvious we have to anticipate and to adapt. What does that mean? First, it means that we have to adapt our integrated value chain, notably in Europe, where we have most of our refining capacity. As you see on the chart today, we sell more oil product than what we refine. And our refining capacity is larger than our oil production. With sales getting lower, we will have to adapt, obviously, our refining capacity so that by 2030, sales and refining capacity will match our oil production level. But adaptation means also that we have to work on our portfolio mix. We review our sales to arbitrate the lowest margin ones. And Alexi will give you more details in a few minutes about that. It also means that we will promote our low carbon sales notably growing the biofuels, and I will come back to this in a couple of minutes. Adapting to a lower demand will obviously translate into reduction of our Scope 3 emissions, but that will not be at the expense of a net cash flow generation as the adaptation will mainly target the highest breakeven points assets. And of course, as I explained, the low-margin oil product sales. So what I would like to do now is maybe to give you a little bit more detail on how we will adapt our refining capacity. Over the past few years, you know it, the European demand has been eroding and this trend is going to accelerate with a FEED 455 package. And of course, we expect the oil demand -- the oil product demand to drop by 30% in the next decade in Europe. So we have been constantly adaptating our refining capacity. As you see, we managed to reduce this capacity by 700,000 barrels a day over the last 10 years. And our most recent moves have been the reconversion of Grand fuel into a zero crude platform in 2020 and the sale of our Lindsey refinery in 2021. So we are doing the job, as you know, as you see, and we will keep doing it. So adapting our footprint is a key challenge, but there is a second key challenge for downstream that we need to address, which is to redeploy to size new growth opportunities because we are not in a declining mode. And what I would like to know -- to do now is to illustrate this point in the next few slides. So let's start first with biofuels, which is a great business opportunity. Biofuels today meet less than 50% of CO2 compared to the fossil fuels. So it's a readily available solution to decarbonize transportation, road transportation today and aviation very soon. Therefore, biofuels benefit, of course, from a very favorable regulatory support, and we expect this market to double in the next 10 years. In the biofuels market, we have identified a very attractive segment, the renewable diesel. It's an attractive one because it's a premium grade, commanding high margin, so a profitable one. We have entered into this market 3 years ago in 2019 with the conversion of lamed into a biorefinery. And the next step is going to be [indiscernible] in 2024 with this new biorefinery aimed at producing biojet. Of course, we have more projects in the pipe. Our target is by 2025 to produce 2 million to 3 million tons of renewable diesel in biojet. We also see synthetic fuels as an attractive business opportunity. It was discussed yesterday during the TotalEnergies outlook at length. I know that it's a great opportunity combining green hydrogen and CO2 to provide sensitive fuels is the next market for renewable fuels, and we intend to be active in this field as well. So I was mentioning hydrogen. Hydrogen is, of course, a key opportunity for refiners because as you know, refiners are large consumers of hydrogen, the so-called gray hydrogen, hydrogen made from natural gas. The issue there is that when you produce 1 ton of gray hydrogen, you emit 10 tons of CO2. So decarbonizing this gray hydrogen, of course, is critical for refiners. The EU Green deal creates a favorable framework to do it. And of course, we want to leverage it. Our target is to decarbonize the 300,000 tons of gray hydrogen we use in our refineries to have it clean by 2030 and that would represent a 3 million ton of CO2 reduction. As you see on the left-hand side, I'm not going to detail all of this, but we have projects all our refineries in Europe have a project to move from gray to blue or green hydrogen. Last but not least, as we become a player in the field of blue and green hydrogen, we also intend to size the business opportunities linked to new hydrogen applications created by the Green deal. Now I would like to move to the last business opportunity, which is a great one for downstream, petrochemicals. It's a growing market. You know it. It's growing by more than 3% a year. It's realized on San's basic, the demographics, the emerging middle class mega trends around the energy efficiency polymers being lightweight materials, they help reduce the CO2 emission of transportation. And of course, we see now more and more traction around the circular economy and the recycling -- plastic recycling, which gives an additional business opportunity. As you see on the left-hand side, we have been investigating and investing in this market very significantly over the last few years, always relying on a very few key principles to secure profitable business cases. We leverage our integrated platforms. We leverage cheap feedstocks such as ethane or propane, ethane in the case of our JV in the U.S. or propane in South Korea, where import U.S. propane or in Nigeria or cheap gas in Saudi Arabia. And for all these projects, we also stick to a key principle, which is to keep the balance in terms of integration between monomers and polymers. We also see the dynamics around the circular economy as an attractive growth opportunity, and you see on the chart, our 2 most recent projects, the one in [indiscernible], where we will have by 2021, 2023, our very first advanced recycling unit in France. And of course, our leading position in the field of biopolymer made out of sugar. We have made the first move in Thailand in 2018 we've joint venture with our partner, Corbion. And we are now moving to the next step with a new capacity. We doubled the capacity with a new unit in Grand Pias well in France. Our target is to have 30% of recycled polymer by 2030. And as you see on the chart, Petchem will bring a very significant cash contribution to the company with initial cash contribution of close to $0.5 billion by 2026 when all these projects will have started up. So I'm going to stop here now and I would like to leave the floor to Alexi who will tell you more now in the field of transportation and mobility.

Thank you, Bernard. The transport sector represents approximately 1/4 of worldwide CO2 emissions. So decarbonizing transport is key to fight climate change and meet our target of reducing Scope 3 emission of our customers worldwide. Each transport segment is very different and requires a variety of solutions, and I will briefly present them to you now. First, we are increasing biofuel sales. For our clients using biofuels mean a decrease of their CO2 emissions without having to replace the vehicles. Our first commitment then is to make biofuels more available, one example of this is that we have become, for example, the leader in France with more than 800 stations offering E85, which is a gasoline with up to 85% of biocomponents. More generally, by 2025, in line with the growth of our renewable diesel production, our ambition is to sell 7 million to 8 million ton of biofuels per year worldwide, which means that we will actually double our sales compared to 2019. Second, we are working hard to ease the customer journey and the energy transition for those clients switching to electric vehicles by providing them with the infrastructure they need. For that, we aim to operate 150,000 charge points by 2025. This will be a mix of different type of installation, but it includes 500 stations or dedicated charging hubs with superfast charges. With these charges located in urban areas and along main road corridors, we offer a solution for both long-distance trips and for intensive urban users such as taxis or last-mile delivery vehicles. For heavy-duty vehicles, we provide electric or hydrogen solution in particular for captive fleets. And here, we are partnering with truck manufacturers to develop them. We also propose gas mobility solutions with an infrastructure of 400 natural gas service station in Europe in addition to the 500 we have in the U.S. through our stake in Clean Energy. Important to note that will increase the share of biomethane in these networks to further decrease the carbon intensity of gas for mobility. For the Marine sector, we are developing our sales of Marine LNG, meaning our customers can immediately reduce their greenhouse gases by up to 23% and at the same time, improving air quality. We are extending our supply network to have a worldwide presence adapted to our client needs. After Rotterdam in 2020, methane by the end of this year, we will operate bunker vessel in Singapore next year. Major companies like CMA, CGM or MSC have partnered with us, and you should see us sell more than 1 million tons of bunker LNG by 2025. Finally, regarding Aviation, we will be producing and selling biojet primarily from our Grandpuits platform, Grandpuits platform. Our ambition here is to produce and sell at least 200,000 tons of biojet per year from 2024 until before if eFuel come to maturity. And here to partnership like the one we have signed with Saipem are key to these developments. This plan will contribute to decarbonizing the transport sector and accompanying our customers in the energy transition, they represent a commitment of $1.5 billion over the next 5 years and through substitution, they will contribute to avoid 13 million tons of CO2 per year. So decarbonizing the energy mix of our customers will significantly contribute to meeting our objective of reducing Scope 3 emission in Europe by 30% in absolute terms between 2015 and 2030. But to go further, we will be selective concerning the sales of the remaining oil products. We have reviewed our portfolio, identifying sales with low margins, high CO2 emissions and a lower carbon fuel alternatives. With this criteria in mind, we have already made significant decisions. First, we will favor direct client relationship with tailor-made solutions and aim to eliminate low-margin sales to reseller where our performance as a responsible energy company is not a strong competitive advantage. Second, in Aviation, for example, we'll focus on high-value airport locations while preserving a worldwide coverage. And third, from 2025 we'll stop selling heavy fuel oil for power generation because alternative exists, such as natural gas, biofuels or renewables, and we will accompany our customers towards this. And maybe as a reminder, we have already stopped selling high sulfur fuel oil for shipping for 2 years. So you will see a decrease in our oil product sales, especially in Europe, but this will happen with minimum impact on our net cash flows. Arbitration will be done on low-margin sales while CapEx will be directed to growth activities and new energies. Mobility is moving fast towards electricity, and the company has positioned itself along its value chain with the production of batteries and secondly, by developing an EV charging infrastructure. On batteries, 1 year ago, we announced the creation of ACC, a joint venture with Stellantis for the development of high-performance battery modules. A year later, we've just announced that Mercedes-Benz is joining ACC as a nickel partner and that the 2030 capacity target will be raised from 48 to 120 gigawatt hour. This is equivalent to 2.5 million electric vehicles per year, allowing ACC to reach 10% market share in Europe. In China, SaaS partner with China in 2019 in order to develop the production of lithium-ion batteries with a focus on 2-wheelers, increasing the footprint in the market, which should represent 40% of the global demand in 2025. As for charge points, we intend to operate 150,000 by 2025. Some will be obviously at our service station when they are on the move, the EV drivers have the same expectation as drivers of conventional vehicles, reliability, availability and speed. Hence, the 500 sites I mentioned earlier, equipped with fast and superfast chargers as time to chart will be a determining factor. They will also be at our B2B customer locations, but also on the streets through public concession. And here, there is a definite focus on major cities. Over the last 18 months, TotalEnergies have already secured 30,000 charge points through concession with emblematic cities. In Europe, we are now present in and around Amsterdam as well as in Paris, London or [indiscernible]. And in Asia, we have secured recently a strong position in Singapore and though not a public concession, we have announced this morning the setting up of a JV with China 3 Gorges to develop more than 11,000 fast charging points in Hubei. Last, along the value chain, the ability to offer 100% renewable electricity, along with our expertise in mobility gives us a strong advantage to succeed as a major player in electric mobility. The Marketing & Services strategy is clearly to maximize value while we transition towards low-carbon energies. It's realized on 4 strong pillars. In the retail network, our assets and our leadership position in Western Europe and Africa are a strong base to develop true one-stop shops to generate substantial nonfuel revenues. Regardless of what type of vehicles they drive, drivers need services, even more so for EV drivers who will have to say a bit longer to recharge the car. By 2025, we predict retail nonfuel activities we represent more than 40% of our cash flow from operations in Europe compared to 1/3 today. In the B2B, we will capitalize on our assets of 1 million strong customer base. Indeed, our customers have also energy transition concerned. So by offering them multi-energy solutions and innovative mobility products we are and we remain the partner of reference in that transition. Lubricants remains a strong pillar of our strategy and will grow value through premium product in the automotive, including EV fluids and also in the industry sector where we target niche market. And as for the fourth pillar, I have developed it in my previous slides, the development of new energy, obviously. These 4 pillars will contribute to the continuous growth of our cash flow from operations by $100 million per year over the next 5 years, and new energies will start to contribute around $100 million towards the end of the period. So to conclude this section on oil, what a great story to write, transforming our product mix and partnering with our customers in the energy transition journey while delivering a strong performance. And I will now hand over to Stephane, who will develop our strategy on gas.

So after the oil part, will lead you through the gas part or the energy of the transition. As Lucas [indiscernible] as shown yesterday, we are indeed convinced that gas has a major role to play in this transition. Because it's twice less emissive that coal for power generation and it's the most efficient way to manage and mitigate intermittency of renewable. So it's an obvious choice for fast-growing economy like China to address the challenge of more energy and less emission. In this context, it's not a surprise to see that the LNG market has grown at a 10% rate, so very fast in the last 5 years from 250 million tons to 350 million tons in 2020. And we are convinced that growth is going to continue to at least 5% to 7% per year in the next 5 years. This growth is coming from Asia, notably China, where it's quite impressive. In -- despite the COVID in 2020, the consumption was higher than in 2019. And if we look since the start of the year, the growth between '19 and '21 is an impressive 35%, and it's taking place both in residential and commercial power generation and industry. So we are convinced that, that trend will go on for the next 5 to 10 years. And it's going to be followed by other countries in Asia. In front of this demand, you have additional -- obviously, you have additional supply coming from notably the U.S. and Russia in the next 5 years. But we see in the chart that those volumes will find easily their place in the market. And so we are quite positive on the balance between supply and demand on the LNG market. In this context of growing market, TotalEnergies wants to grow. First, we can base this growth on a very strong portfolio of assets fully integrated along the value chain. An equity production of around 20 million tons, well diversified between Middle East, Russia, Asia and the U.S. on one side, a fleet of 20 vessel chartered in the long term, 20 million tons of regasification in Europe and some long-term sales, notably in Asia and Latin America. This strong portfolio allow us to size all the opportunities of arbitrage, and we see them currently in the market because we can either are going -- send our LNG to Europe or to Asia. We can optimize the freight, and we can as well integrate all those flow with our pipe presence in Europe and our presence on the gas and electricity market. So as usually say, Patrick, we want to build on our strengths and LNG is a strength, and that's why we want to grow that business. And as you can see, we want to do that by increasing our portfolio by 30% between 2020 and 2025 to reach 50 million tons. How to do that on one side by raising production on the other side by raising sales. So in production, it was mentioned by Nicolas before. We are -- we have today a portfolio of rough a bit lower than 20 million tons of production. And that production is going to grow, thanks to the projects that have already been sanctioned. Obviously, Arctic LNG 2 in Russia, but as well, Costa Azul, our Mexican project, the debottlenecking of the Train 7 in Nigeria and obviously, Mozambique. So we are confident that production of our own portfolio will grow to roughly 23 million tonne in 2025 and more with Mozambique coming onstream, as mentioned by Nicolas. So strong growth for the next 5 years, but as well some resources that have already been identified and on which we will be able to build our growth beyond 2026. And this reserve being either in Russia or in Mozambique and as well to mention our project with Papua LNG in Papua, New Guinea. But as well, for example, the debottlenecking of our plant with Sempra in the U.S., Cameron. So a strong growth of our own production. On the sales part, beyond our traditional contract with the usual buyer in Japan, in Korea or in China, we want as well to broaden our base of customers and to diversify our outlet. And we have worked a lot in the previous months to do that. First, in India, by the JV we have with Adani, where we are going to supply the JV with Adani to develop gas sales in India. So up to 3 million tonne of LNG to fuel 20 or so city gas distribution and a network of CNG station. In China, where we partner with Shenergy, the electricity and gas distribution company of the region of Shanghai, where we are going to supply LNG and as well support the development of LNG distribution by truck in the region. And in Brazil, with Compass, we are supporting the development of a new import terminal in Sao Paulo and support the development of sales. And definitely, we want to grow that business and to extend it, both in terms of size and in terms of geographies. Another aspect of our effort to develop LNG is what we do on bunkering, where we have now several customers, the first one being CMA-CGM that we supply with Bunker LNG notably in France, [indiscernible] Marseille and in Rotterdam. And we see that as a growing market on which we want to extend our presence internationally. So to summarize, that should allow us to increase our sales from 38 million tonne in 2020, above 40 million tonne in 2021 to the 50 million tonne I mentioned in 2025 with a part of our production. And so our integration along the value chain increasing over time, as you can see that the supply from third party will remain pretty much constant. In terms of cash, that should allow us to increase the cash flow generation by around 30% to reach those $4 billion level, plus or minus depending on the level of oil price taken. And that increase is going to come obviously from new volume, new asset and an improvement of the supply contract we have as well. Obviously, that portfolio will be sensitive to gas price. And we have shown on the chart the sensitivity of the cash flow to a $5 increase on both NBP and JKM. That sensitivity is coming from 2 side. One, which is linked to our production assets, which obviously are sensitive to gas price. And on the other side, the part coming from our trading portfolio, where it basically allows normally to capture the difference between the NBP and JKM and the [indiscernible] assuming in that case because it depends as well on our hedging policy that holds the curve move as a spot. Obviously, all that wouldn't be possible if we are not exemplary in terms of CO2 emission. And that's why we want as well to work on the decarbonization of the LNG chain. One, priority on methane emission reduction along the value chain. Second, on our LNG plant, where we want to raise energy efficiency where we want to develop project of sequestration of the native CO2, and it's going to take place because our project that we are currently studying in Russia, in Qatar, in the U.S. and as well by increasing the electrification of those plants, where the electricity will be generated by renewable energy, both solar and wind. And the last part of our action is to renew our long-term fleet because we see that new vessel today are issuing 40% less CO2 than old vessels. And so we want to renew that fleet so as to improve its efficiency. All in all, all those actions should help us reduce the full chain intensity by 20% by 2030. Beyond natural gas, we want as well to develop our sale of biogas. So we have started that activity this year by the acquisition of Fonroche in France, and we want now to scale up that activity in Europe to reach 1.3 terawatt of sales, so that remain limited. But still -- and in the U.S. with our JV with Clean Energy, where we want to invest in renewable production to supply the network of 550 stations where Clean Energy, of which we are a shareholder, is supplying renewable from bio-CNG and bio-LNG to trucks. And in Europe, beyond France to try to develop additional projects based on the expertise of Fonroche. Finally, and that will be my conclusion. A word on hydrogen. As you know, there is a lot of announcement, pilot project and interest for the various authorities on hydrogen. And on that subject, our ambition is clearly to be a pioneer in mass production of clean hydrogen with 2 ideas in mind. The first one, as mentioned by Bernard, is first to be able to cover our own demand on refining. And so we have a project of green hydrogen production for our own consumption of hydrogen in Europe, where we would be providing for sure the green electron coming from wind and solar and selectively invest on some of those projects. Beyond that, we are convinced that if hydrogen is developed, you will have to produce massively hydrogen and it will be done in country where those hydrogen can be competitive. And so we are looking at projects of either blue hydrogen and ammonia where you have very cost-competitive gas and huge capacity of CO2 storage. And one perfect example is clearly Russia where we could be partnering with Novatek. That's one. And the second aspect is green hydrogen, where you need to find countries where you can have huge production of both solar and wind to ensure a good load factor of fuel electrolyzer. And so that's what we are as well looking for with the idea that green hydrogen will mean a lot of renewable energy. And you see, obviously, the synergy of that part of our business for us. That I leave the floor now to Patrick as Patrick will present you our ambition in this domain.

Okay. Thank you, Stephane. I will speak about Renewable and Electricity not because Stephane is not able to do it, but just to -- because we consider that this is a really new part of all our new business. And the part where we really broadened and we built this sustainable company we want to build. It's important that I'm trying to share with you our ambition in it. The renewables and it's probably the parts where you have most of the questions will come or so. So the idea is, as you know, to scale profitable global business on Renewables and Electricity. First, it's a big market, a huge market. And I'm always smiling when people ask me, but you have many competitors. In fact, reality is that if really we are all serious about climate change. And we all know and it's repeated in each report of the United Nations to massive investments in renewable is required. So everywhere. So there is an anticipation in the momentum scenario, at least an increase of 3,000 gigawatts of capacity in the next decade of solar, onshore wind, offshore wind. Momentum, it has not reached, if I remember, 1.7 degrees, 2.4 degrees, more than that. And when Total speak about 100 gigawatt by the decade coming from 10, that means that we are targeting 3% of this increase, which, of course, is ambitious. But we are serious about we want to be in this renewable field as a major company as we are today in oil and gas. So our first point. Second point, renewables is a reality now in the company. I would say, 3 years ago, we had less than 1 gigawatt. This year, we'll end by more than 10 gigawatts, maybe next to 11 gigawatt even. So it's a reality in many countries. It's no more only as projections, figures, excel files. We have many projects. So we begin small one, large ones as well, we begin to be confronted, like Namita said, to the execution of these large projects like in Qatar we learned. And we will learn more and more because we have many of them. And also in offshore wind, we have a project in Scotland, one in Taiwan. So it's a reality. And in fact, the reality is not only on what we are building now and producing, but also on the portfolio. The portfolio we announced last year, an objective of 35 gigawatts by 2025. In fact, we have already a little more in our hand, but we stick to this project because I know that -- and this is the main task for Stephane and his teams to execute, to develop, to build this project. And in renewables, at the end, executing, building, you face also communities and you have some of stakeholders. So that's the point. So if we have the portfolio, it's largely this risk, with more than 65% of this portfolio is already covered by PPAs. Some projects will be developed partly wit some merchant risk, by the way, not all of it. And so what we plan after having grown this year by at least 3 gigawatts. From next year, it will be a regular increase of building up 6 gigawatt per year. So that's the way we see the growing from 10 to 35 through 4x 6 gigawatts. And again, this is now -- and up to us now to develop it. Then beyond it, we speak about 100 gigawatts. So what do we -- how do we intend? Some people say it's very ambitious. Again, yes, it's 3% of the increase of capacity worldwide, which is being planned. But in fact, we think that we have now -- we have built in giant to develop 6 gigawatt per year. So if we continue, it's an additional 30 gigawatts for the following 5 years. And then we will leverage some of our strengths. And we have 2 strengths on which we want to lever off. With one -- so first one is building on the TotalEnergies' global footprint. I will come back on it to address new markets for renewables in new countries. The second one is building on onshore wind. Namita mentioned some expertise. And when we work today, these projects have a longer time of development. It will come between '25 and 2030. And the third pillar will be to continue to be very selective on M&A. I'll remind everybody that this year, we have invested $2 billion in Adani Green in India, and they are worth $5 billion today. So we can -- if we are patient, smart and selective, we can find a nice way to create value through M&As. Again, not more building -- more looking to developers rather than existing assets, obviously. So if I'm going back on these 3 pillars, first one worldwide presence. We have launched an initiative. And it's we are building -- we are recruiting, in fact, a network of what we call renewable explorers where we'll not look for, sorry, Nicolas, for oil and gas, this one. But we'll be locating the same offices. It's leveraging on our presence of our knowledge of countries. So we have already recruited 50% or 60% of them, locating people in different geographies. You see Africa, South America, Asia, where we have maybe less competition, but there is a potential for renewables. And that is, I think, quite unique to do that compared to some of our competitors in the utility fields, which are more focused on less geographies, Atlantic basins. So that's a way not only to develop, to grow, but also to grow profitably because what we have observed in the last discussion in Iraq is that when you come smart, you have the capacity, you are well-known by the authorities, they trust you and you can leverage it to grow also in Renewables and Power in a profitable way. So that's the first one. The second one. Again, it's offshore wind. That's true, but we are late in this business, I must recognize. It's a little strange, but that's history Having said that, in the last 18 months, we already built a portfolio of 6 gigawatts of projects in Europe, Asia mainly. We are taken now seriously by many players. So we begin to have some Tier 1 players who are coming to us, and that's good because we are willing. We think that offshore wind, considering the large CapEx involved, requires partnerships. Sharing risk is just important. So we'll partner with Denmark, with Iberdrola, in the U.S. on the East Coast with EnBW. And so we are fine to feed this partnership, which will accelerate our growth. We have clearly there some competitive advantage, I would say, to bring to the market of floating technology expertise, our capacity of managing large projects and the supply chain and also the offshore logistics and, of course, our financial capacities. The third pillar to develop, and I think it's an activity which we grow. And I think it's one of the success of 2021 is to become more active on the corporate PPAs. I mean now that we have a large portfolio, it's much easier to us to leverage, again, our global footprint, going to our suppliers, our customers, by the way, as well to sell them some renewable, electricity and green electricity. We've done it first for ourselves between the renewable division of Stephane and the Refining & Chemicals with large PPAs. It obliged everybody in the company, including the trading arm to think about it, to structure it. And now we can -- this model can be developed, and we have already announced some corporate PPAs with companies like Amazon, Microsoft, Merck, Air Liquide, Orange. And by the way, it's a nice way for -- even for our suppliers to tell them, okay, you supply us services, but now we will supply to you electricity. So it's balance more than relationship. The target is to sell at least 20 terawatt hour of this type of PPA, which will represent something like, I think, 10 gigawatt, if we can do that. So the very key question then. So growth. How do we grow? You have the answer, leveraging of different strengths. The second part is our -- or do you -- the second question we have is why is it profitable? You tell us it's profitable, we have some doubts. In fact, to be clear, we tell you and we stick to that, that we want to develop a portfolio of renewables. We've an equity, an objective of return on equity of above 10%. And in fact, the more we dig into, the more we are convinced we can do that. We are facing 2 different, I think, markets. We are facing what we call the deregulating markets in the U.S., for example, where there is a lot of competition, where the market is moving more to merchant markets where it's true that the returns even post farm-downs could be lower than 10%. We recognize that. But it's also markets where you can leverage the integration, I think, more easily. And that's why one of the mission that Stephane is developing today is growing his trading teams in Europe, in the U.S. because there, there will be some imbalances. And you need to be able to tackle to have, of course, some assets to have some storage assets as well and to take -- to aggregate different assets. So there is some value to derive from integration through trading. And it has to be added on the top of what the projects will return to us. It's also markets where you could leverage corporate PPA opportunities. And then you have the other markets, the ones that renewable explorers will look for, which is what I call the regulating market, where, in fact, it's fundamentally more a matter of finding the projects, then you will have some PPA with counterpart. Of course, you have a risk on the counterpart, but you don't need -- you don't have to be fully integrated. This type of markets, if you are smart, you come as an early player, give you more than 15%, I would say. So the mix at the end of our portfolio is above 10%, and we stick to this target. And this is what we have today in our end. I'll remind you that our business model. And we also stick to it because we think it's a matter of risk management is, of course, to identify the project, to develop the project. We put some debt on the project. And then when the project is developed, we farm down 50%. Not only it enhances return on it, but more than that, it also derisks partly the projects. So that's the business model we will develop. So at the end, when we say we'll have developed and we'll have finance, develop 100 gigawatts of growth capacity that we'll do. In net production, we'll have the results of 50 gigawatts in terms of net production in our figures. So I'm just -- it's a little complex slide. We try to develop the strategy, which means integration, which proved that we evolved. By the way, it's also the fairy thing. But in fact, it shows you the way we see us along the value chain from producing electricity, trading aggregation, we could have added storage, by the way, to developing customer portfolio. I think when you look to Europe, clearly, we want to be along the full value chain because it's a way we think that in Europe, even if today renewables are developed in many countries through PPAs, it begins to be like in the Netherlands, like in Germany, more through merchant markets. And you need to have the capacity to optimize these assets. And that's good to be along the full value chain like, by the way, we've done in oil and gas. So U.S. is another deregulating market. We are new to it. So there, we approach it mainly for the 3 elements. We'll see in the future if we need to develop on both part of the chain. In the other markets, the regulated ones, like I described, when you go to India, when you go to Iraq, you can maintain, you can concentrate on producing from renewables. You could use maybe your portfolio if you want to go together with some large global companies to sell them some corporate PPAs. So this is the way we intend to develop and to integrate Renewables and Electricity, mainly on the regulated market with integration, not on the other ones. So what does it give in terms of figures? Just because all that are good words, you have the growth, you have the profitability index. But it's on the next 5 years, we intend, in fact, to grow our production up to more than 50 terawatt hour. This represents more or less equivalent of 200,000 barrels per day, just to give you a magnitude. To do that, this will deliver, by the way, it's more important to you, cash flow from operation of around $2 billion by '25, net operating income of $1.5 billion, proportionate EBITDA that means we -- because all that we'll be passing in SMEs of $3.5 billion, so to give you the magnitude. And we will have invested in the period around $15 billion of net investments. With the leverage, it represents gross investments of around $35 billion. So this means that by '25, investing $3 billion, cash flow from operation $2 billion. There is still a deficit. But when we invest in oil and gas in a new country, generally, it takes 10 years before to see exploration, appraisal, development and payback. So what we target and clearly in our model it works is to be net cash positive by 2030, maybe a little before, but let's say, by 2030, growing to 100 gigawatts. Now I'm taking the combination of all what we said, and thank you to all of you, Nicolas, to Bernard, Alexis, Stephane, Namita to have described all the assets. So I will make sum up with one message today. We, in TotalEnergies aiming clearly to combine the energy transition which we think absolutely necessary to contribute and to participate to ensure the sustainability in the company and the shareholder return. And I think we have demonstrated last year in 2020 in the worst possible crisis that we have been knowing that we were able to maintain the dividend and at the same time, I would say, to continue to invest in this Renewable and Power in a large way. We maintained the CapEx. This is what we intend to do for the future. Why are we able to do that despite a strong competition, which is a question we have. This benchmark show you in terms of EBITDA generation, cash flow generation and in terms of balance sheet, the gearing what is TotalEnergies compared to major oil and gas companies, but also major utilities. And what you can just see with the size of the bars, without digging into the details, it is clearly a company like TotalEnergies is #3 in terms of cash flow generation. So a strong cash machine and is also among the best -- the 2 best in terms of low gearing. So a very strong balance sheet. And you can see that, by the way, most of the oil and gas companies are above on both segments than the utility. So we -- it gives me the conviction, strong conviction. But even if we are newcomer in this field, we have in -- fundamentally, we are well armed to be able to be the leading player -- among the leading players of the energy transition in the coming 10 years. So we will invest, but we'll invest with discipline. We don't want -- it's not volume over value, let's be clear. We have also from the last 6 years as CEO with the volatility we face, we think it's better to plan our CapEx, frankly, on something which is quite stable. We've -- we took a $50 per barrel as a way to measure it. $13 billion, $15 billion, I described you the capital investment strategy, 50% in maintenance, 50% in growth with $3 billion in Renewables and Electricity. We have enough to make this growth as we proposed you. And so this is what we employ. You can see the impact, by the way, of the capital investment strategy I described to you on the capital employed on the various segments of the company. Of course, TotalEnergies is not a small company, it's a huge one. We have $140 billion of capital employed. But what is interesting in this chart is a trend. And you can see that the trend is in line with our move. When we say that we transition, we transition. You see the red line, which is E&P outside of energy is declining. You see the LNG continuing to grow. And at the end, the Renewables and Electricity is a green line, is almost by -- in 5 years at the level of capital employed as a whole downstream of the company. So we are, I think, putting the money according to the ambition and what we have to be, again -- to become a sustainable company and coping with our ambition to go -- to drive to net zero. The discipline also is on OpEx. I must say that maybe it seems odd to you and the barrel is at $80 per barrel, but again, it's a lesson learned. Last year, everybody was speaking about costs and savings. So we should not forget, even in February, when we made the presentation, we were more in that mood. Things are changing quickly. The teams are mobilized. We will deliver the $1.6 billion. But it's also true that today, we hear about more inflation with logistics, et cetera. But it's important because these savings are supported by some fundamental actions on the digital factory, the OneTech organization, highgrading the portfolio, which was -- we didn't make too much noise during 2 years, but in fact, we have seen that asset by asset, we have worked hardly. We have worked and because selling 12 assets is as much complex to sell, I would say a big one, but it's done. So this is, I would say -- and I encourage the teams in TotalEnergies to continue to work on it because this is a fundamental part of our business. We need to be disciplined on the cost. Then CapEx or the cash flow. We confirm today with 1-year delay, I will be very honest, but we will be able to deliver the $5 billion of underlying cash flow growth from '21 to '26. So 1-year delay is obviously linked to the delay on Mozambique. I will be even more transparent to you is that if Mozambique does not restart by '22, and you know that we do not control all the situation, a security situation in Cabo Delgado, this would impact the '26 target by $500 million, which does not change the fundamental message there is that, in fact and that the growth is coming like you can see, not only for -- it's coming from Renewables and Power for $1.5 billion; from LNG, $1 billion to $1.5 billion, depending on Mozambique; also from the Downstream, between Alexis and Bernard explained you that they plan to grow by $1 billion. And then we have some oil projects, Uganda, plus Iraq plus Mero, Brazil, which will compensate partly the natural decline to provide another $1 billion. So these are all these projects. Most of them are sanctioned. We need to execute all that. And that will -- of course, this underlying cash flow growth will support the future increase of dividend, as I said, in July. Another message here, we are raising, thanks to the quality of the portfolio and the work by the way, which is done in terms of highgrading this portfolio, divesting some assets to upgrade the return on capital. We were mentioning in our previous presentation, more than 10%. We have -- with the assets we have, we can reach more than 12% at $50 from 2025 despite the famous renewables, which are supposed to decrease the profitability. So it's a proof. But our model is from this -- there is a virtue in this model. Another message there, you see the impact of $10 per barrel, $3.2 billion, no change, so capturing the upside. We are more and more exposed to positively, I would say, to the gas spot prices. If NBP and JKM, both of them increase by $1, it should represent an increase of cash flows from $600 million. If you align by the way, $10 per barrel is more or less $1.5 per million Btu. That means $1 billion outcome. So this is also a message -- important message that growing in LNG with more of our, I would say, portfolio being exposed to this spot index represent a potential upside as well in our portfolio. So having said all that, we go to what is important. When I say combining energy transition and return to shareholders, this is a way of the cash flow allocation priorities, I would say. CapEx is a priority, but we've been in a disciplined framework, $13 billion, $15 billion, not more. Renewables and Power will guarantee them, I would say, $3 billion per year. So that's the first part. And this is okay to make this transition. The second is dividend. You know that we have supported it through the cycle. I just mentioned to you that definitely our aim is to deliver in coming years some long-term cash flow growth and that will support future increase for dividend. The balance sheet, we have been always keen to give a certain priority to maintain, of course, a grade A credit rating. Again, it's an advantage in the competition when we go to electricity compared to peers. So we'd want to keep this advantage, gearing at 20%. And last but not least, we announced end of July that we are willing to share surplus revenues with our shareholders above $60. Today, I know that you have made some math, most of you. We said it may be $900 million, $1 billion, $1.2 billion. What I announced to you, it will be $1.5 billion. Not because I changed the old 30%, but just because natural gas price are rocketing. And so we have obviously some additional revenues from gas. And so when we -- and as I need to give instruction to my CFO, I will not keep the moving target during -- week after week. So the decision has been taken to give him a target to buy back $1.5 billion of shares for the last quarter. And then we see if -- what will be the momentum on the hydrocarbon prices for next year. So I would like to conclude this presentation, which has been very colorful, I can say, like the colors of the logo. I hope you like the modernization of the slide -- by this slide. In fact, TotalEnergies investment case, what we propose to you, I think on the left side, clearly, I think we have demonstrated in the last 5, 6 years for different up and downs in the hydrocarbon price that we have quite resilient. We have a strong balance sheet with low cost of debt. We have a strong and reliable cash generation. We are supporting the dividend through the cycle. So the resilience is demonstrated. We are also, and I would like to insist today, able to capture the upside of higher energy prices. We are a low-cost producer. We have a production growth in our portfolio. And again, we have an increased leverage to gas markets. So that's what, I would say, the part -- the hydrocarbon part, which is fundamental because it's feeding, in fact, the cash flow is the engine to make this transformation possible. On the other side, I think it's a business model, and we have described it to you to build a sustainable model -- business model. We are really engaged in this transformation. We've clear targets, already established portfolio and we will deliver on Renewable and Electricity, recognized in this field as an ESG leader. We think really that we have some competitive advantage to prosper in the electricity world. I mentioned that to you again. In particular, our global footprint giving us access to new geographies, we have less competition and also the management of large-scale projects. And this investment case, of course, supports attractive returns to shareholders. We have a high dividend yield, maybe a little high, but we will be patient to see the rating of the share. We have, again, a long-term underlying growth if we support future dividend increase. And we have a policy which is put in place in order to share surplus from hydrocarbon upside through buybacks. So that concludes my presentation. But before to go to the Q&A session, I thank you for your patience. We have been through many voices, but in a dynamic way. I would like, of course, to thank again all the people who contributed to this presentation under the leadership of Jean-Pierre, in particular, Ladislas who is our IR President. I say Ladislas -- a word to Ladislas because it's the end of his assignment. He came twice in his position. Thank you, Ladislas. He will be assignor or representative in Washington to reward him from his dedication to the company. [ Hamelle, Aurélien ], because of COVID, maybe not all you know him will take his seat. [ Aurélien ] is already there for the last 3, 4 months, so he's learning a lot. And also to think all the team worked with them, both of them, I'm afraid I would forget one. So [ Bernard, Edward, Frederic, Benoit ] and [indiscernible]. So thank you for all that. I know it's tough to support all the executive committee to make such presentation. So thank you and, again, for the quality of it. So now we will listen to your question for the Q&A.

[Operator Instructions] The first question comes from the line of Michele Della Vigna from Goldman Sachs.

Perfect. Thank you very much for the very thorough and interesting presentation. I had 2 questions, if I may. The first one is on your CapEx guidance. You've reduced the top end of the guidance from $16 billion to $15 billion while increasing the spend on renewables and the energy transition. That certainly is a strong sign of capital discipline. But I was wondering if you could perhaps shed some light into some of the moving parts in that and where perhaps less capital will go into the coming years and what you were thinking 1 year ago. And then my second question is about cash return to shareholders. It's certainly very good news to see $1.5 billion of buyback in the fourth quarter. At this level of share price, it's certainly hugely accretive. But I was wondering how should we think about the framework for next year? The macro is uncertain, but seems to be going into a very good direction. You have effectively a free cash flow breakeven of $50 per barrel and you have huge exposure to gas prices, which are increasing substantially above your $5 per Mcf NBP price. Should we continue to think that longer term, you want to distribute above 4% -- sorry, 40% of your cash flow to shareholders between dividends and buybacks and you will think about the right balance between those 2? Or how should we start thinking about next year for that?

That is good review, Michele. But when you announce something, you want the future. So no, I think first -- on the first one, let's be clear. In fact, I've said everything in the presentation. When we we're speaking $13 billion, $16 billion, so $16 billion, to be honest, you need $60 per barrel to support it when I'm looking to the financial model. And again, it's maybe a lesson of what we have experienced last year. But we prefer to plan our CapEx to be sustainable at $50 rather than $60. So $13 billion, maybe it's only $1 billion. Okay, it obliged us to think. But by the way, you know if we want to be consistent with the ambition that we have announced and in particular, when we speak about the Downstream, that means that we have made our CapEx consistent with -- for example, when we say will reduce our all product sales, that means that I need to invest less or to be more selective exactly in the way we approach the development of networks. That's one example. We will continue to invest in some networks, but not necessarily in all the geographies as we were planning that 1 year ago. So that's one example. There is obviously -- and so I mean, it's some choices, which -- and at the end of the day, there is a consistency between the trajectory on the Scope 1, 2 and 3 and the CapEx for the hydrocarbon's part. So if we are spending more, then we will create an inconsistency. So financially, and we think ourselves, but again, let's be clear. The way we manage that, and I think it has been very well explained to you by Bernard and Alexis, we make choices, which have a little -- minimizing the impact on the net cash flow because, in fact, these are also CapEx, which were allocated to assets when you look to the net generation of cash was not so big. So what is more important, by the way, for you as a shareholder, it's not only the amount of investment, but the net cash generated by this investment. So that's the explanation. And again, we are -- we have made some few choices, but these choices are consistent with our trajectory. The second one, I think I said everything. You know that we told you that the dividend and the yield of the dividend today is around 7%, quite high. We said, and we repeat today that it will be an increase, will be -- will have to be supported by, I would say, some long-term sustainable cash flow growth. We'll have some next year. We'll see the way it will -- we will plan that. We'll come back to you beginning of next year on it. We also said in July, but in terms of return of surplus, we use 40%, objectively up to 40%. So the combination of all that is between 30% and 40% when you make the math. You will have no more insights to that. But again, what I can say to you to your customers, if you want to convince investors is that first, TotalEnergies did never decrease this dividend during 30 years and on the top of it, as you said, because we -- and I think we gave you some indications, we are more exposed to others -- than others to upside from the gas side. If we have more revenues, then we'll return more to our shareholders. And I think the signal through the $1.5 billion is in that direction, considering the upside on the gas price that we experienced this year.

The next question comes from the line of Christyan Malek from JPMorgan.

This is Christyan Malek. And look, thank you and congratulations on an extremely comprehensive outlook. And Patrick, it's clear to see the strategies to be everything to everybody in your sale of energy to customers. But it does seem your upstream outlook and specifically oil seems to mirror your view on sort of peak oil demand through the decade. So while clearly, we're biased towards our own views in an oil super cycle, if that scenario were to play out through a much delayed peak, is there a danger that your cash return may become less competitive compared to those that have planned for an increased quantum of oil barrels to reflect the peak in oil demand post 2030, sort of more in line with OpEx thinking today? My second question relates to plans to potentially harvest or carve out the renewables business. I noticed a number of comparisons in utility sector, which I think is absolutely right. But the reality is that the Clean Energy businesses sit within a large conglomerate. And if the equity market decides whatever reason, it's not willing to value a hybrid business model to reflect the rich evaluations of the low carbon business, at what point would you consider carving out a small portion of that business in the form of a listing? Or would farm-downs be a potential route to harvest value?

No, but I think if you observe, Christyan, I think the way we approach this transition is also -- I didn't plan the CapEx for 10 years. We planned the CapEx for 5 years, let's be clear. And obviously, we will monitor that precisely. I think we have demonstrated, and again, look, the last project's -- it's a global project in Iraq, but we are able to move on electricity, gas and oil. So we did not say no to oil. What we said, and I think we have a specific edge in some geographies. We are looking for low-cost oil. So my teams in E&P does not have a mandate to stop looking for more oil. They have to mandate to look for oil, which is low cost and low emissions. So planet can offer opportunities. So within -- so again, we gave you a sort of trajectory. The reality is that we are quite pragmatic. And we'll see at which pace this market will evolve. Helle explained you different scenarios. I know that some, by the way, Nicolas showed a slide, which was at the end, there was a spread against the landing point in 2030. So we have to monitor that. So we did never say that voluntarily, we decrease oil. I never said that. We said that we are pragmatic. We monitor it. And if we have good projects like the one we are finding in Iraq, we will develop it. I mean that's clear. So I mean, I'm not afraid by this aspect because, again, it's a matter of being selective, but monitoring according to the way the demand will evolve. So the second one, of course, is a traditional question. You are right to ask a question. I mean we have to be patient. I think we have embarked in TotalEnergies. We know that we could be perceived as an energy conglomerate. I think -- but my answer to you is that you should buy the shares today, they are not so high. In 2025, if really there is no rerating, then a spin-off of 35 gigawatts. When you see the valuation of renewables, I think my shareholders will be super happy. And so buy the shares, keep them, trust us and either the conglomerate will be rerated, which when I observe what happened to others some time to time. It's a matter of be stable. Or then, obviously, we'll have to take actions. But let's be clear, it's not a question mark today because today, one of the advantage, in 2025, there was an important figure. We'll invest $3 billion, we have $2 billion of cash. That vehicle could work today. We invest $3 billion, but we have 0 cash or almost nothing, $300 million. But they called us that work. So why should I go to the market to spin off, to have access to ask money to the market, but I could just finance ourselves with a quite a low cost. So we are comfortable, and the options will be there on the table. But again, I hope in the meantime, but this idea of the transition and that players can do these different synergies will be absorbed and agreed by the market. We'll see.

So one follow-up. If you were to flex CapEx higher in the context of stronger demand, would that be within the $13 billion to $15 billion envelope? Or would you consider raising it above $15 billion? Sorry to pull up.

No, because I don't think that you need to plan with $80 per barrel. It's a mistake. Each time we have done that, I've done it myself, to be honest. I've done it in 2017, 2018, where I remember, we announced you we have invested '17, '18 and then price went down. So I think, honestly, with the transition, energy transition is somewhere putting more volatility in these markets. There is -- because we create interactions between the different energies, and it's quite complex to fully see the value stream. I'm not sure, but none of us would have bet 3 or 6 months ago that the natural gas price will be today at $20 per million Btu. So I mean, we need to be humble. And I think I prefer to manage and -- learn to manage the company by, again, being disciplined on CapEx, returning shareholders with we have upsides and managing the plan. So no, we do not intend to suddenly increase the CapEx because we have more money, we'll see. Let's see. It's difficult -- again, in February, at the beginning of the year, we were more looking to $40 or $50 than $70, $80. So I think we need to monitor that carefully rather than changing our mind every 6 months.

The next question comes from the line of [indiscernible].

Thank you very much for this very helpful and informative investor day. Yesterday, during the presentation of your latest energy outlook model, you touched on key differences with the IEA net zero by 2050 scenario such as more gas and a different oil trajectory. Also a limitation of climate change to 1.7 degrees. And you mentioned the important role you already in place in your investment decisions. I was curious to know if it will also result in a review of your existing emissions reduction targets. And I'll say this model is reflected in the assumptions and estimates based in your financial statements, for example, when estimating the lives used in calculating asset retirement obligation. And finally, regarding the oil-related investments, should we deduce that it will also be for oil that 50% will go to maintenance and 50% to new developments?

No, I think you will have to -- Helle will come back to you. In fact, we didn't say 1.7 degree. We presented yesterday what we call the Rupture scenario and stating that this one will be below 2 degree, was 1.7, 1.8. And we made another -- an alternative, which is called Rupture plus. And this is the one which makes 1.5 degree, which is a one to be compared to the IEA net zero. So keep -- you have to look to all what we said. So we never said 1.7. We said different scenarios, 2.2, 2.4, 1.7, 1.8 and 1.5. So that's the first point. Second, the role of oil investment and review of strategy investment. But I mean, again, we -- you know and we said it yesterday, but there is -- yes, we disagree. There is one point where we do not understand and I would like to know, by the way, how the IEA manage to reduce the demand for oil in 2030 to $70 million barrel per day because this is that trajectory. We do not see, and if somebody can explain me where it comes from, I would be very happy to listen to it and maybe it will influence our strategy. What would be the technologies of the change of demand patterns, which could lead to reduce this demand for oil to -- by 30% in 10 years. I don't see it. The technology we all mentioned is shifting EVs to -- ICE to EVs. This is 2035, not before. So again, as long as we do not -- and again, we in our portfolio -- in our scenario, we see a decrease for oil demand by around 10%, but not by 30%. So -- and if 10%, then that means that we need to continue to invest selectively, like I said, selectively in some oil projects. And so we'll continue to make selective investments, which will allow us to be on the safe way because it's fact the safe being to be low cost and lower emissions. That's the way we look at it. The value used in retirement expense, I think we have exchanged with you several letters, but maybe Jean-Pierre wants to say something about it.

Yes. So we have just the scenario after the drop in prices in mid-2020. So we have an increasing price to the plateau between 2025 and 2030 and afterwards declining to [ low $15 billion ] by 2040. So that's fully coherent with the vision we have regarding the oil demand over the next decade.

This value has been adjusted last year. We'll not adjust it every year. But a way what we made in our statements, if I remember very correctly, we give the sensitivity of a change of this long term oil price on the potential asset value, and it's quite minimum. So you have all the data. So I think -- and by the way, I know that the French stock market authorities have made their 5-year annual review of our financial statements, in particular on all these assumptions. And if I understand correctly, there's a letter I received, they seem to be fine with what we have done, 30-page of exchanges. So I mean, we are ready to -- also to explain you what we do. The last one, I'm not sure to have understood the question, to be honest, on the 50-50 maintenance growth.

Yes, it's because in your presentation today, you mentioned 50% in growth and 50% in maintenance. So I wonder if it also applies to oil.

No, no, no. So no. I said, globally, the $13 billion, $15 billion are split oil, there is no growth. So if there is no growth, it's mainly maintenance. The schematic was clear. So what we call maintenance is maintaining. It's a company which will not grow anymore. We would keep the [ Monte ] company as it is. No ambition to grow our energy production or energy supplies. We need $7 billion, $8 billion -- $7 billion to maintain it as a plateau. That was a left part of the cake that we show you. The other part, and I said clearly, the 50% growth is oil for renewable and electricity, oil for natural gas.

If we call it a new development, does it make a difference?

I cannot answer to a question, which is today not the reality.

The next question comes from the line of Oswald Clint from Bernstein.

Thank you very much, everyone. Great new data today and certainly across the new 7 -- and oil businesses. And the good thing over the last year or so is we can use, or at least we can use the data, start to work out the free cash flows by business line and really do long term this kind of cash flow modeling and really to get to the value of the company, the value of the shares. And the interesting thing when I do that is we end -- I seem to be getting a minus 5% decline in terms of a terminal growth rate that's embedded into share price, just thinking about cash flow growth beyond 2030. I'm assuming people trust you for the next 5, 6, 7 years because you've -- I mean, Total have been very good in terms of guiding in terms of numbers. So I mean, it's clear that beyond this plan today, which is well laid out that the market is still worried about some collapse in your free cash flow beyond that period. And I just wanted to get your thoughts on that comment or maybe how you would start by convincing us that suddenly things don't untangle post-2030, please? And then secondly, a lot of really good data this morning on the electricity sales growing threefold by 2030. I guess my question is here is in terms of a risk. I mean lots of capital into generation. We're recycling the capital, we're adding new generation, everybody is. And I wanted to ask about transmission. And my concern is it just can't cope or follow the same pace, especially considering things like permitting, et cetera? So I wanted to get a sense of how critical transmission access is for you to physically deliver your electricity.

Thank you for your comment, Oswald. Positive comments. As always, you asked a question where we do not, honestly, to describe to you the future post 2030. What I would say to the investors is, I don't know why they worry because, again, when you look to the way we manage our transition, yes, on one side, we definitely grow our Renewable and Electricity business. But on the other side, when you look to the hydrocarbon price or hydrocarbon, we continue, I would say, to offer a trajectory, which is going on the LNG side. And Stephane mentioned different projects, which are feeding the growth 2030. And in fact, there is more to come beyond. We have some positions like Russia, Mozambique, where we can continue moving on. There will be more projects to come with our partners. So this part, I think I can -- at a certain point, planning post 2030 becomes to be a little more an excel file. But in terms of assets, we continue to look for assets to feed this growth. And on the oil side, there again, I repeat that we said that we have a peak in the decade. At the end, we are landing more or less to the point where we are today, a little lower. We will continue to look for opportunities like the one in Brazil, like one in Iraq. So you will see Total active in some oil opportunities to fit the future portfolio for oil and gas. So it's a matter again on oil. We put some selective -- selectivity. And so then we have to be smarter than before to be able to identify the opportunities. But I'm comfortable and Iraq has demonstrated. And we might participate to Brazil auctions if it fits again with our profitability or cost per barrel and our emissions targets. A question on the transmission. Maybe I will leave the floor to Stephane on the transmission part.

Yes. On the transmission part, it's a really valid question. And it's something that on each investment we are doing on renewable, we look closely at. Now the situation is really varying depending on the country where you invest. I would say that in Europe, globally, it's less of a concern. It can be in some region in the U.S. where you have development and where you definitely need to invest on the transmission yourself, if you want to -- that to happen. But in some region of the U.S., not all the region of the U.S. And it's a key question. If I look at the [ Iraqi ] subject where we are going to develop 1 gigawatt, that's clearly something that we look at seriously. What I would say is that, with the growth we plan, I don't see that as a limiting factor for the time being over the 5, 10 years apart from some very specific location after we will see. Then there is another way to answer the question is that if you develop at the same time, solar and wind and if you increase like we look at on every project, the battery capacity as well, that's as well to answer part of the problem.

I think the question you asked, Oswald, just a general comment, is a valid question, but more globally for all of us, I mean, which is -- and I know that some of our colleagues in the utility are advocating the fact that at a certain point, we will not be able to grow all the renewables at a scale that some -- I don't know, Green 55, Fit for 55 is planning because we could face a real difficulty of transmission system. But from this perspective, I would say it will be the same for all the competitors in Europe. So it might be, I would say, a global issue. Is it an issue for us as TotalEnergies? It's something on which we need to take to take care. And again, it depends on geographies. I think it's very different. And the fact that we are looking the way we want to develop and grow in this field looking to a global footprint give us different opportunities. So there is not one answer, but I know that the situation in India, for example, there are today some discussions about underground transmission lines, et cetera, which could, again, but it will be the same for all competitors. I think there are -- to build the 3,000 gigawatts extra capacity, we need, in the next 10 years, probably we'll face obstacles globally, but TotalEnergies has no reason to be penalized from this point of view. Okay.

The next question comes from the line of Lydia Rainforth from Barclays.

I do like the colors. Two questions, if I could, please. The first one on renewables and the returns there. It does look like the bottom end of that return range has fallen to 4% to 6%, I think, from 5% to 6% before and yet the cash flow numbers and the net income number actually, if anything, slightly higher. So I'm just wondering if you can talk us through that. And then the second part was on the carbon offsets and the idea basically, if I look at it, nature-based solutions, you're spending $100 million a year by 2030, you're expecting that to be, I think, more than 5 million tonnes per year. And equally on the carbon capture side, it's again $100 million a year with 5 million tonnes CO2 capture with the year by 2030. And I'm just surprised that those two amounts are pretty much exactly the same. So maybe you're not seeing a difference in the pricing between the CCS and the nature-based solutions side?

The second question, there are -- it's really separated. There is $100 million for NBS and you have an amount which today can add on the $100 million for CCS. So it's this to -- so it's 100 plus 100. So do different topics, nothing that there are, by the way, the objective is not the same. When we develop carbon storages, it might be for us. It might be for others, for some customers. So we develop a capacity of carbon storage in Norway, in Aramis, in The U.K. Some of it will be used by, [ Bernard ], maybe to take CO2 out of his H2 production but -- and sort of decarbonizing our refineries, but some of it might be available as a business offered to our customers. We could imagine that when we say, if we want to go [ undeniable ] customers, some of them still manufacturers, will ask us, okay, do you have some capacities. So it's why we do not integrate the 5 million tonnes of carbon storage in the way when we speak about Scope 1 and 2, we did not integrate that. So it's something additional. It's another business, again, part for us, part for others. The NBS on the contrary is clearly for us only. We'll not share that. It's purely dedicated to offset Scope 1 and 2 emission. We did not intend to use these carbon credits, high standard carbon credits for customers because -- and this is where the people made the mix there which we, I would say, voluntary carbon markets, which is another -- a different topic. So I hope I clarify this question. The first one, no, I think you remarked that we put an 8% on the regulated markets, and we put also 15% on the other ones. So you know when we say the average is above 10%, so there is no change in reality. Why do we have -- I'm not sure we have much higher cash flow numbers. Cash flow numbers, again, today, I'm more certain about it with Stephane because as I said during the presentation, the 35 gigawatts of projects are, I would say, firmed at 80% or 90% today. So we know what we have put behind. In the meantime, we have invested in Adani Green. So we have the figures. We know what we are able to deliver. So we have the model. So I'm -- to be clear, honest and frank with you, Lydia, I think these figures, if we have been so able to speak about EBITDA, net result, cash flow is because we have a global confidence in the different projects as the model that the teams are proposing us, we have been able. So I'm consider that what we propose to you as cash flow numbers on renewables and electricity are correct. And thank you for the colors.

The next question comes from the line of Alastair Syme from Citi.

A couple questions. So Slide 70, I missed, apologies what you said on the interpretation of '25 and 2026. Is all the move in cash flow related to Mozambique because I thought you didn't said that Mozambique was only $0.5 billion of cash flow in 2026. So apologies, if I do that wrong. Secondly, was wondering why you chose -- why you are choosing to do partnerships in renewables? I know partnerships have been a big feature to oil business for years as a derisking tool. Why follow the same model in renewables when the risk profile is a bit different? I understand where they might come about where you're sort of farming into projects, but many of your bids can say that U.K. and France have had the partners included at a grassroots level, including some private equity players? Just interesting perspective on that, please?

Okay. First question, no, I think -- I mean, I just clarify. I just told you that the 2026 figures and bar that you have on Slide 70 or 71 by the way, I think, 71 includes Mozambique LNG start up beginning of the year. So it includes $500 million of cash flow from Mozambique LNG. So the plus 5 includes this $500 million. If Mozambique LNG, and this suppose that we are able to remobilize people next year, '20 to '22, beginning next year. We'll see. We have some -- there are some positive evolutions on the ground, but it has to be consolidated. There is a war. So we will not -- what we will not do on Mozambique is remobilizing to really mobilize. That's clear. So if we are not able to remobilize beginning next year, then the delay in Mozambique LNG, this $500 million could go to '27. So I wanted just to make a warning so that things are clear between us. But again, the conclusion, $4.5 billion [ or ] $5 billion is not fundamental, does not change. So profile of the cash flow growth profile may be a delay. So that's the other point. The second question is related, I think, to offshore wind, if I understand, because this is where we put some partnerships. I think, yes, I know it is true because you know when you bid to acquire seabed rights in the U.K. or tomorrow in the U.S., that's not for free. I will tell you. And this model where you first bid for seabed rights, then you will go to find the electricity price for PPA, there is a risk. So I think sharing this risk with some another company uncomfortable. I prefer, honestly, and I understand what you said, maybe it's better to farm down later. But there is another reason, to be honest, also with you. We are late in this business. And you know in offshore wind, what we have observed, not true for floating offshore because it's still early stage. But it's in the fixed bottom competition, it's -- you have some players like Macquarie, I must recognize, is why we have partnered with them. But we made, by the way, an interesting partnership with Macquarie. We went together in the U.K. and Scotland, and they -- because they were interested for all floating expertise to develop that in Korea with them. So it's a win-win, but we must recognize that it's also true that some players who have spent 2, 3, 4 years to accumulate data on some specific locations are well better positioned to bid rather than when you come late and you don't have the same capacity. So this is why we are looking for partners to be able to cope with the fact that we were late in this business on certain geographies. And that's the reason why. Maybe Stephane wants to add something on this one. No?

On the noise, and in addition to what you said, Patrick, I think that especially in offshore wind, that still remain an industrial project with some risk on which it's good to be able to have partner as well to get the most experience to mitigate them.

Patrick, so can I come back to the first question. I sort of quite understand why the buyer in 2026 seems to move up more than $0.5 billion? Is there something else that's in there between the 3 years?

I understand your question. No. No. But you know between '25 and '26, no, but you have other projects coming in '26. You don't have only Mozambique, in fact. In '26, you have Ratawi, if you look to the presentation today. And you have also a project in Angola, which is Block 20/21. So you have -- in fact, there is -- yes, there is an increase between '25 and '26, which is yes, the delay of Mozambique from '25 to '26 compared to last year. But new projects which have been introduced in '26 last year, we're only looking to '25. So you didn't have any [ debtors ]. which is, in particular, Iraq. And again, a project in Angola that we have acquired, an offshore project Block 20/21, on which, by the way, we have made a positive appraisal this year. So we'll move on. So -- in fact, these are the reasons why you have an increase, additional projects as well.

The next question comes from the line of Biraj Borkhataria from RBC.

First question on the upstream. You highlighted on the short-cycle optionality and one of the slides that you reactivated 6 rigs or plan to reactivate 6 rigs. Could you talk about where you're increasing activity. And any details around the production impact or payback periods of those investments? I know you have plan on $80 oil. But given, you say that sort of $4 per BOE capital intensity, short-cycle project, is there anything more you can do there? And then the second question, just a very quick clarification. Did you buyback any shares in Q3 at all?

Second question, I think I answered because I told you I gave instruction for Q4. So that means there was nothing in Q3. And by the way, I think Jean-Pierre cannot buy before -- we are entering into shadow period. So we cannot buy today. But -- so it's -- nothing has been done in Q3. So we keep all that for Q4. Nicolas, the countries where you want to reactivate your rigs, I suppose there is Angola, what else?

Yes. Typically, in Angola, we went back to 2 rigs. We went from 3 to 0 and back to 2. Same in Nigeria, we have 2 rigs working. We just completed some infill on OML 130. Totally different example. For instance, Barnett, we are considering remobilizing rig, but -- so basically, pretty much in the locations where we have the short cycles available.

Now to just to complement that, Biraj, I think we are still under COVID in certain countries. So we have also -- yes, we can remobilize from a pure, I would say economic analysis. But we have also at the management level in mind but often in some geographies are still under, I would say, sanitary constraints. And so we are permanently monitoring that with the MDs or with subsidiary to ask them -- are you sure you can really take into account on board additional rigs without putting and jeopardizing the safety. So I think it's why we want it. But again, we are right. We have identified these short cycles. If we see the oil price being maintained, we will continue to activate that. So it's a matter of remobilizing. Like, I think Nicolas explained, it's easier to demobilize but to remobilize like always in this type of case. But we clearly think so we give some signals to our teams what they can think today to remobilize and they are doing it, but that takes a little time in the COVID environment.

The next question comes from line of Irene Himona from Societe Generale.

I had 2 questions, please. Firstly, a question on the One Tech people organization. I realize it's early days yet, but can you perhaps talk a little bit about some of the obstacles, perhaps to completely retraining, what are very skilled personnel's area of expertise and to successfully changing those? And then secondly, a question on 2 of the 7 areas, hydrogen and biofuels. If you can share with us some of the risks in those areas, in particular, green hydrogen, how do you see the technical risks to scaling up and to making it cost competitive? And then on biofuels, any concerns you have perhaps on risks to feedstock availability needed to meet the regulated levels?

Okay. Namita, first one on One Tech, then I think that Bernard can take the biofuel.

So as far as retraining professionals is concerned, one of the words that you used, Irene, was completely retraining. And I think that, that's something that -- it's -- I wouldn't use the word completely retraining. I think we have a couple of things going on. We have to -- we are in the process of identifying a number of skills that we know that can be used in other businesses, and that was the purpose, a little bit of my third slide. In the trajectory that has been shown by my colleagues, we're not reducing our activities in oil and gas. And so there is still a significant amount of work for the colleagues who have those kinds of skills. And as far as our new businesses are concerned, what we have also looked at is selectively recruiting where we know that we need either to go fast, and we will not be able to reskill immediately or where we don't have those competencies at all. But our plan in terms of reskilling and upskilling is to use the time that we have in terms of the trajectory of the businesses to gradually make -- to identify gradually what we need to do and to develop that over the next 5-year period to make sure that we give the right opportunities for reskilling. I'd say the biggest obstacle today is really to show our employees that the skills that they have are actually for a large part, quite easily transferable into a large part of our new businesses. And the fact of keeping people together and keeping them informed and exposing them to new businesses, gives them a great deal of confidence that they have the wherewithal to transfer their skills to some of our new businesses.

Yes. I think honestly, around One Tech there is an idea which that, as renewables and electricity business was growing, we had a choice over to create a new, I would say, manufacturing division within GRP or not to do that, but to propose, to integrate -- to use part of the competencies to grow it gradually, I would say. So there are a lot of synergies in process, technologies and all these guys, it's easy to use them immediately [ versus ] reskilling them. Of course, when it will come to geologists one day, but we still need -- we know we have some reservoirs to manage. We continue to explore. So we need people. Having said that, it's also true. You probably know that we have proposed to some of our colleagues, we have made which we sort of thought of voluntarily redundancy plan, where 1,100 people have elected. And it's clear that there are some part of the company like geology, where we don't think we will recruit a lot because we prefer to adapt itself. But again, your question is right, but it's not so massive because this is the interest for me to preempt to begin early stage so that we can adapt gradually and prepare the future, not to be in the wall and suddenly to say we have a big problem. It's not the way. it's not in the DNA of TotalEnergies, I would say. We prefer to make it gradually and to anticipate and to put on board the people. Biofuels obstacle to feedstock for biofuels, that's a good question, Bernard.

So there is, of course, more and more debate about the so-called one, first generation feedstock, which competes with -- for the food application. So the market clearly is moving more and more towards waste and residue, which are used cooking oil or animal fat. So that's a type of resources everybody is looking for. So there's a competition for that type of feedstock. It's clear. The way you mitigate the risk is, of course, to be as flexible as possible to be able to process as many types of waste and residues as possible. And this is what we are in the process of doing because we learn as we entered the market a couple of years ago. We also leveraged our trading arm, which is -- who is able to source more and more alternative feedstock. But it's true that there is a competition for waste and residues. And as we said yesterday, if you remember, we see biofuels more as an intermediary step between oil and tomorrow synthetic fuels. Synthetic fuels is more towards renewed 2030. By the way, you saw that in Fit for 55 package, the European Commission has set a mandate for e-fuels, 0.7% out of my head, starting in 2030. So there will be, I would say, first step to close this gap that will be around biofuels and waste and residues, and then we will come to the e-fuels.

Well, your question is good, Irene. I think there is a limitation somewhere and that's -- but we'll see. But the policymakers maybe -- but we'll be in particular in contradiction in Europe between [ 1G ] and increasing targets for biofuels because there is the question of waste and residues. And the 2G, as you know, the 2G technologies for the time being are quite immature, in fact. So we are -- so this is why maybe -- hydrogen complexity, I think there is a lot of things to say. The most complex part is that it's expensive. That's clear. So hydrogen is a matter of being able to combine on one side, a very low cost source of energy, electricity. So it's a matter of optimizing your wind and solar production or your nuclear production when you are a French -- in France, plus then you have the electrolyzer farm, I would say. Stephane, do you have any hints that you want to say, some specific points on the technical risk? So the question for me will be, if we want to scale down the cost, we need to find the customers, if we'll be able to scale up the project in order to make mass production. But Stephane?

As you mentioned, Patrick, the first thing is that you have to scale up the electrolyzer capacity because today, you are talking about tens of megawatt. And simple project as the one we plan on refining to supply green hydrogen for refining. You are talking 200 megawatts. So that's one order of magnitude. And if you want -- really want to be at scale, you will need to multiply that by 10. So first, a challenge on electrolyzer. Second, as you say, a challenge on the integration between renewable on one side and electrolyzer on the other side. You have to work on the [ Gucci ] because on one side, you have something intermittent and on the other side, you want to electrolyzer towards -- to produce 100% of the time. And the last question will be, if you end up with land constraint, notably in Europe, that means that green hydrogen will have to come from abroad and be produced elsewhere and then you have to work on the logistic cost and chain. And so that's a lot of challenge to be addressed to imagine a full hydrogen industry at scale.

And the next question comes from the line of Martijn Rats from Morgan Stanley.

Can I first just say that, I feel like you've presented a pretty broad set of plans. I mean you covered a lot of ground and given us a lot of complexity to digest, but it's been pretty comprehensive. I want to ask you 2 things. First of all, it seems to me that expanding into the renewables the biofuels, hydrogen, everything you talked about is mostly a matter of -- well, project management, but perhaps less about technology and innovation. But I still wanted to ask the question, to do all of the things that you talked about today, does Total have all the technologies in-house or is there still a piece of innovation to be done and part of the puzzle to be filled in from that perspective? And then secondly, I wanted to ask somewhat of an old-school question about the upstream, but I was wondering, if you can give us an update on Suriname and the pace of development that we could see -- you could expect there? And also how Suriname fits into the plan that you presented today?

Suriname, I think, we are appraising. As you've -- as you will -- we have, honestly, to be transparent, I have to be, because, we have made 5 discoveries, I think. For the time being, the appraisal of the discovery is a little challenging. So that means that, in fact, as you know, we are finding a lot of hydrocarbons, but we are looking to develop quickly a pool of oil and without too much gas because, we will not fill as a gas, obviously, but does not fit at all. And filling gas is not possible, but I think neither for TotalEnergies nor for Apache. And so that means that, if we have to -- tackle the gas, it makes development more complex because you have to find an outlet for gas. And Suriname, Guyana are not big markets. So we'll -- wet space. So at this stage, we continue, we have -- we still have a lot of things to drill. We have at least 2 or 3 very good exploration targets, and we continue to appraise in parallel. One rig is exploring. One is appraising. But for the time being, the pool of oil that we are looking to launch, I would say, a quick development is not identified, even if there is -- there are 2 important, I would say, appraisal wells to come. Second, on the first one, which was about a project -- yes, you're right. No, of course, it's a lot of project management, to know hydrogen, I don't see a lot -- for me, a big massive hydrogen plant is not so different from a big LNG plant, in fact, I mean, fundamentally. There are some piece of innovation, which we do not manage. I mean, like Stephane said, H2 Tanker. I think there is a lot of things to be done. If you want to look -- because the liquefaction point, the temperature of liquefaction is much lower on LNG. So you have some -- clearly some innovation to be done, but project management is important. To be also, I just would like to clarify, we have a very clear plan on renewable, solar and wind. We have opened over chapters, biogas, biofuels. Biofuels, I think, we see a strong synergy between converting the refining plants and growing this business. It's a way to adapt to convert. So biogas is new to us. And so we have acquired some assets. We look at it, and we'll see. It does not mean that everything will grow, is a conglomerate at the same pace. And I consider that we have a clear vision of what we want to do in, for example, renewable power. I'm not too clear today about the size of the business. We will develop in biogas or tomorrow in hydrogen. By the way, hydrogen today, we are clear, again, like we said, and about greening or decarbonizing the refining hydrogen, but it's a small quantities. On massive scale project, I think the idea we have is to identify 1 or 2 big pilot projects, 1 blue hydrogen, 1 green hydrogen in order to be involved and then to learn and then to see what are the uptakes. So a lot of people are thinking to that, little theoretically. My view and my experience is that, let's embark in, let's find the conditions, and we have some ideas. Maybe we'll come back to you sooner than later. But when we will have some, I would say, clear ideas on some projects with figures, we will come back to you to answer your questions. But don't consider we'll do everything on hydrogen. Obviously, we'll have to find some experts in electrolyzer or [ neutralizers ] that's so complex to find. I mean, there are plenty of nice companies to deliver with.

The next question comes from line of Christopher Kuplent from Bank of America.

I have 3, and I promise they'll be quick. The first one, I just wonder, Patrick, whether you could talk about the dividend payout policy. You've rebranded the company and yet your excess free cash flow is paid out, linked to Brent. Now we all appreciate that Brent is still an important cash flow driver, but I wonder whether you thought there may be another payout ratio concept that you might include going forward to make it a bit more straightforward? Second question on the return on equity that you've highlighted has gone up, but I haven't noticed your cash flow outlook going up at the same time for 2025. So can you maybe explain to us what's happening to this denominator? Is your return on equity growing because of the numerator or because of denominator shrinking faster. Thanks to your buybacks and higher expected payout levels? And my third question, really just a confirmation. I know your CapEx budget is always including a net of inorganics. Do you think that will be a wash? Or do you plan for these inorganics to always be positive even after disposal proceeds?

The last question I have the answer, it's minus 1, I think. It's more -- we intend to sell a little more than what we divest, more than what we acquire. So there is a plus and minus. It's a little negative in terms of -- so it's a wash in your language, I think. But again, it's part also of, I would say, the trajectory that we have on some assets, as it was mentioned in the oil assets, downstream mainly. First -- the second question, I'll leave it to Jean-Pierre, are we going up?

It's clearly in line with growing net income, of course, because the denominator will remain more or less the same.

So you have the explanation. And the dividend policy, I did not understand at all the question, because I don't think we have never expressed a policy of -- in terms of dividend linked to Brent. I mean, since I am CEO, we've ensured earlier, expressed it. So I'm not sure -- the only thing we have done for the first time is to express the buyback as a level of the amount of buyback -- the sharing of surplus revenues beyond $60 per barrel. Obviously, it's because we consider that this upside is more linked to for sure to hydrocarbon business, but we have some upsize rather than to the other businesses. So I'm -- I know where you want me to go with expressing a shareholder return payout policy and percentage of, I don't know, if cash flows of the results. We didn't -- but it's not linked to Brent. So it's not the way we manage it. That's all what I can tell you.

Okay. And Jean-Pierre, just a quick confirmation. So your net income expectations have gone up, but your cash flow expectations into '25 has largely remained the same compared to last year, yes? So cash conversion is going down from net income to cash flow?

Yes. So you have more or less the same trend regarding FFO and the net income. And so that explained the...

Chris, I suggest -- Chris, that you either call Ladislas and his team, and they will answer more specifically to your question.

The next question comes from the line of Lucas Herrmann from Exane.

A couple, if I might, on gas. Firstly, you've given us an indication of the sensitivity of the overall portfolio to changes in gas prices, you've used $5 and $6.5. If I look at the forward curve for either NBP or JKM today, and I appreciate forward curve, but let's just say we use that. Current price is around $18 or sort of $13 higher than the assumptions you make. And if I apply that to your sensitivity, I would say that, cash flow next year would be broadly $7 billion higher than the numbers that you've guided us towards or supporting this presentation before. Why is that calculation not going to work, leaving aside abstract comments? And secondly, just staying with gas, do you want to talk at all about markets what you're seeing, particularly given the robust view you've got on LNG growth, which is, I would say, pretty hard to reconcile with prices standing where they are today? But just your thoughts on the gas market or globally, Patrick, and how you see things developing?

I don't understand your math because I think we gave a sensitivity around $250 million, $300 million per million BTU, if I'm correct, I'm sure. So times 13, it would be $3 billion, not $7 billion. So I don't know where the $7 billion is coming from. By the way, it's a little more complex than that. And Stephane can explain you that, in fact, when you manage the gas portfolio, you are hedging part of it. So it's not -- so Stephane, can you explain it, please?

Yes. As I mentioned in the sensitivity, you had 2 package you had the one that was linked to the production asset and which is increasing with times sensitivity mentioned and which will be linked to the price nature. And then you have the trading portfolio aspect, which is edge forward. So it's clear that if you want to see the sensitivity, that means that all the forward curves have to move in parallel with the spot price, which we see in the current market is not the case because the spot price is much higher than the forward curve. That's one. And then you will materialize that sensitivity when you are going to roll over your [ weight ].

So to be clear and to clarify for everybody because part of the sensitivity is linked purely to the production, either for Norway, U.K. So the fact that we have some pipe gas, which is sold at index price. So obviously, this production is following the curve, okay? We have also part of the LNG portfolio, but it's a minor part. It's something like 10%, 15% of our LNG sales, which are linked to this index. So that represents half of the sensitivity. So it's the $250 million, mentioned, $300 million, $250 million this year, next year. It's increasing a little because, as we are developing the LNG portfolio in the future, this part will increase. That's -- this was dynamic. Then, there is another part, which is the one which is mentioned by Stephane, which is not only for linked an absolute value of the increase, it's more the relative value between Henry Hub, the Asia and Europe. So that's the game on which -- because we have different positions, and we -- in fact, we are short in Henry Hub and longer on the other one. We can make some optimization, if I understood correctly. So that's why your math does not -- you cannot just multiply it like that because you have some time effect and some hedging effects. The second one, growth in the global market, two comments. First, what I observed is that for the next -- for the last 7 years now in a row, we have more than 10% growth. Even last year, by the way, when the crisis was there, we had the growth. It was not 10%, which was not far, by the way, 8%, I think. But we had strong growth. So I know that everybody tried to plan, even my economists and my market analysts, they told me, oh, it's 4% to 5% for the future. This time, it we wrote 5% to 7% because, we are always behind. And I think it's one of the issue. Of course, there are some key countries in front of us. One of them is obviously China. And I was looking carefully, by the way, to the demand, which has been announced by Sinopec CNPC, the increase of Chinese demand for the next 20 years. They plan an average of 3.5% per year on 20 years. So -- and the domestic production for the time being does not grow a lot. So still -- of course, there is a risk that this could be honestly, damage with high prices. As a strong LNG player, I'm afraid. I'm not very much -- I'm not very happy with what is happening because when you discuss and we are investing in India, for example, in LNG, obviously, you don't have a market in India for $15 or $20 LNG. And that could even be damage the confidence of people to invest for having -- for using LNG. I think to Pakistan, I think -- by the way, these are the first countries which we acted very quickly. So that could -- because beyond China, we need to look to where the growth for LNG will come from. These are the countries. So these countries, obviously, will require probably, and I can think that the discussion with customers in this country might become more complex, like, for example, the customers in the bunkering fuel. When people came to shift from fuel oil to LNG, and suddenly, you see the price going up, that could damage the -- this -- I would say, emerging demand. So that's an element which we'll have to observe, but -- so for me, yes, there is no -- I mean -- by the way I would like to make another comment, Lucas. If you looked carefully to the slides we were providing to you in 2018, 2019, we were announcing in all of slide, you can look at it. All the market was above too much supply by 2025, and we were putting a slide each year where we are showing. But maybe there will be too much in '25, but not enough in '22, '23. So there is no surprise to me in what is happening today, unfortunately. I mean '21 is 1 year earlier than expected by us, because of the hike of the demand. But I'm thinking it's quite -- it's easy, in fact, to look, and '25 is no more '25 because the COVID last year postponed some of the projects. So it's more '26, '27. The reality is that, as we -- and the more I observe the market, LNG is benefiting and natural gas is one of the energy transition because we need -- at the end, even in Europe, look, why -- we need to explain that. I'm looking to some comments in newspapers by policymakers, we are quite astonishing. I do not understand why the price in electricity in Europe is going up. It's just because, when you have less wind and less renewables, you need to activate some, what we call pilotable -- manageable source of electricity, which are gas-fired power plants. And these ones, obviously, the market price will go to the marginal cost of producing electricity. So yes, it's true that today, the electricity in Europe is driven by the gas-fired power plant because we have to activate it and you have the gas price plus the CO2 price. It's increased the cost of electricity. So that's point on LNG growth. So my view is that, yes, there is a robust growth -- but let's be careful, it could be damaged, if price remain high.

The next question comes from the line of Bertrand Hodee from Kepler Cheuvreux.

Yes. Thank you for the very detailed presentation and some quite inspiring topic, especially on the just transition. I have 2 questions, if I may. One on natural gas sensitivity coming back on Lucas' question and the second one on shareholder retail. So on natural gas sensitivity, so I clearly understand the upstream part. It's $250 million to $300 million. As for the JKM part or I would say, your spot LNG exposure in a way, we are unable to know your position of hedging in advance. So my question is very simple. I have $7 next year in NBP and 7-point something in JKM or a bit more. If I were to rise by $10 MBTU next year assumption, ballpark is plus $3 billion, okay? And it's not plus 6 because we have no idea of your trading position, except, if you have total -- if you have 100%, I would say, of your excess supply contracted that will be exposed to spot. That is my first question. The second question is, the buyback rules that you set for 2021 was, in my view, very, very clever. How should we understand 2022? I know you don't want to commit on dividend and this, I understand that, is that buyback rule of 40% of excess cash flow at 60%, which is a comfortable environment for TotalEnergies, could be applied again in 2022?

The second question is easy. The answer is, yes. I think -- I don't think my -- the cash allocation table is not dated. We put the rule, and we just said Q4 '21 is 1.5. And so second question, the answer is, yes. We intend to continue. And if we face this type of environment, I think we think normal but we gave -- we share the surplus with our shareholders. I think they have been patient. It's part of the model. So I have no problem. So answer is that, on the dividend, I just told you that, is cash flow is growing, dividend will be supported. That's all will be supported by cash flow -- of long-term cash flow growth. So not -- so the dividend will not follow. Let's be clear. It's not because you have $70, but suddenly, the dividend will be high. But what we will analyze, like we've done this year, what is the cash flow, which is linked to $50 to $50 environment or $60 to $60 environment because we have higher growth, production because we have new projects coming on stream. You have an increase of the underlying cash flow growth. And this one will be reflected in the dividend. And I think, we gave you many indications today, and then up to you to guess and then up to the Board, by the way, to decide. And you know in the same way that last year, the Board of TotalEnergies did not overreact in the first quarter -- second quarter and third quarter. I think today, it will not overreact obviously, by announcing a new policy just because we look to the screen, we see $80 per barrel. So I think the message is very clear. We are on the trajectory that we will continue to increase the sustainable long-term cash flow, and that will be translated in the growth of our dividend in future years. Buyback, you have the rule, which has been proposed. Net gas sensitivity, I mean, if you have $7, you multiply 7 by 250, and you have the answer. You have $10. You want to have $10...

Instead of $7, so a difference of 3.

It makes more or less $1 billion.

My question was, should we be conservative enough to just apply your sensitivity, given on NBP, which is very straightforward. It's based on your upstream gas production. As for the sensitivity on JKM that you've provided as well, this is more, I would say, a question mark because we don't know your hedging position and your real spot exposure -- even if we know that your spot LNG exposure is growing. So on paper, you should benefit from that, but it's difficult to model in terms of timing.

So take the surplus and guess that is positive, that I mean, let's be clear. Today, we gave you everything, again, from the assets either the pipe gas in Europe plus the share of the LNG, which is linked to index, the sensitivity take if you want 300. Some people will be 278 or just a figure, nothing, let's take 300, okay? So you have it. Then you will have some extra revenues coming from this capacity to arbitrage. But to obtain a figure for my traders, I can tell you, I will send you in Geneva and you are better than me. So it's -- what I can tell you. We prefer to be -- again, it's clear that this type of environment, as Stephane explained you, is quite positive. And I can tell you, that you will see in the third quarter results, already some positive impacts, not on the asset side because the asset side is quite clear, and we gave you some ins, but on the trading side, I think that gas renewables and power results for Q3 will be above the historic records that we have observed before. I'm sure about it. It's just now a challenge for Stephane and for the traders.

The next question comes from the line of Paul Cheng from Scotiabank.

Two quick questions and then a request. The first question, Patrick, have you and the Board ever consider using variable dividend and sale buyback as the alternative vehicle to distribute the excess cash, given over the past 12, 18 months in the U.S. a lot of investors has been warming up to the variable dividend? So I want to see that whether you guys think it may fit into Total's model? Secondly, you have indicate that by 2030, you're going to reduce your refining capacity to match the production -- oil production. So do you have a percentage that how much of the -- that extra capacity that you're going to reduce is going to be converted into biorefinery and that -- and what percentage is going to be shut down? And then what percentage is for divestment? And then the request, given you're going to spend about $3 billion a year in the renewable interest of the business. And you also gave in your presentation a very clear financial objective by 2030, have the management consider to break out renewable and elasticity as a stand-alone segment to be report? And by doing so, that I think that will substantially increase the probability, Total will be able to get credit for that operation because that the people can actually see quarter in quarter out, what is the result?

The last question, I understand it. I think we have already -- every quarter, we disclosed a lot of figures. At this stage, same management, I prefer to keep it as it is. But I take the question and I'm not sure we will not wait 2025 to make what you want. It's a matter of growing. I want that to be sizable enough and stable enough, but you have -- I mean, honestly, we are giving a lot of data quarter-over-quarter. And so people who want to evaluate the value of this portfolio, I have a lot of information. But -- so today, it's premature, but we keep that in mind. The first question, no, honestly, Albert is very fashionable on the other side of the Atlantic. Sometimes buybacks, sometimes variable dividend. You know in Europe, we are a little late to think to that. Honestly, I mean, we never consider that as a way. We don't want to -- I mean, I don't see a big difference. But today, we've -- honestly, I see a difference. From a pure company point of view with the level of the share today, so buyback is more efficient. The share is quite -- from our point of view, the share is quite cheap. So it's better to make a buyback to them. The third -- the second question, we cannot enter into all these details. I mean if we have to -- I mean, the model, which is to -- as we said, to transform some refineries and biorefineries works well, then as we answered to year-end, it's a matter of finding the feedstocks and the markets, I would say no. Bernard?

I mean the model we have -- so lot's so far has been to convert not to shut down because it's part also of our social responsibility to reposition the assets we have towards the new markets. So it's more converting than shutting down. After, as we said, we have -- on the slide we showed on Page 38, this year, whereas, in 2019, and in the meantime, we have also be active on Grandpuits and Lindsey which were an additional $200,000 a day. So you mean, we are moving into the right direction from that standpoint, but it's more converting than just shutting down and with no repositioning for our people and the assets.

The next question comes from the line of James Hubbard from Deutsche Bank.

Just one question. That's easy. And it's -- I listened in yesterday, of course, and the momentum scenario makes perfect sense to me, and it clearly drags your strategy, you can draw a line from the conclusions of that to today's presentation. And in my view, it's probably right. It's probably at this point in time, the most pragmatic view to take, given the NDCs we have and the laws as they are around the world, especially Europe and U.S. But things change. And in case lawmakers do get there together in the coming few years and enact regulations that cause something closer to your Rupture scenario or even maybe not Net Zero 2050, maybe that's out of reach, but something between Rupture and Net Zero 2050, it seems to me the downsides for a large oil company talking about 2.4 degree C and flat oil production for another 9 years are significant. So I'm not thinking about standard assets, I'm thinking about from society and from investors. So I'm wondering to what extent have you prepared this strategy? Did you contemplate, when it comes to oil production lease, thinking about some scenario towards Rupture rather than Momentum? And hence, talking about an explicit targeted decline in oil production by the end of the decade rather than this flat scenario you've come up with?

But first, the question will be, in case you have an acceleration to Rupture, again, at which pace -- we are not Saudi Arabia. I would love to be, but we are -- I mean, it's a question we don't have very long reserves in front of us. The average duration of the reserves of Total is 20 years. So this is the answer. I have 20 years in front of me. I don't have 40 years. So even when we invest in projects by 2040, if we don't -- we will -- it will decline easily. So -- and the second answer is that, again, we are very strict on the way we invest in oil, is these low-cost barrels. That means that even if you go -- you have -- what I'm sure is that you will continue to evolve. So if your portfolio is positioned on low-cost producer, I think it was an important figure, which is $5 per barrel of OpEx on which we are keen to maintain and the way we invest less than $20 per barrel. That means that the portfolio of all we'll have -- will remain, I would say, producible and not stranded. So by -- I mean, I think the strategy -- the way we manage the [ oil ] investments is some people will tell us you don't invest enough. In case you have more demand then you will not benefit of it. But on the other case, if you have an acceleration of the lower demand, we could be stranded. So my view is that, we try and that's the most complex part of the equation we have to find -- to tune, I mean, to find the right balance between continuing to serve our customers and on the other side, preparing various options. What is true is that when we make some choices in the downstream to reduce the footprint and not to benefit from potentially some markets because we decide to not to expand as we were planning before, then we lose some opportunities. In terms of value, it's not the same amount of money. So I'm not afraid with the way we pilot the choice in the new investments, but Rupture would happen contrary to, if not Momentum. We did not express a choice. We just wanted for the presentation to show and by the way, Momentum even to happen, everybody has to be sure that they will execute in this season. So I mean, we are -- I think we are -- our strategy on oil is resilient to both scenarios, again, because we -- as long as we stay stringent on the way we select the oil projects.

Okay. Could I ask a follow-up, please?

Yes. Yes. Go -- move on.

Yes. Sorry. I guess putting it another way, if the market derates oil production to say 3x forward earnings at some point in few years, would you consider what oil production you actually want in your mix in that scenario and maybe accelerate oil sales in that case?

No.

And the final question comes from the line of Jason Gabelman from Cowen.

I wanted to ask one question on the E&P business and one on renewables. On E&P, if I go to, I think it's Slide 5 or 6. One of the first slides, it does look like production is moving modestly higher from Slide 6. So it looks like production is moving modestly higher from 2019 to 2025. And I would imagine the production that's coming online is higher margin because it's lower cost versus the legacy production that's facing natural decline. So I was anticipating some of the cash flow growth from now to 2025 would be from that E&P business, but that doesn't seem to be the case. And I'm wondering if I'm misinterpreting something or if you're layering in some divestments or if something else is going on? And then the second question on the renewable power business. In February, you provided some detail on the trends in your PPA contracts and it showed pressure in those prices as would be expected, just given all the investments more -- or sorry, declining values in those PPAs. Can you just update us on where those PPA contracts have trended since then? And if they're still moving lower, how do you reconcile that with the increase in cash flow guidance for that business, despite keeping the power generation outlook flat?

The PPA prices were declining because the costs are declining. In fact, what you have in our portfolio, you have historic PPAs because we inherited from [ Qatar ] others when we acquired these companies from historic PPAs. But at that time, the cost of the project was also much higher. So in fact, the question is not absolute PPA price is the margin, the difference between the PPA price and your cost of the projects. So from this perspective. But by the way, this elements will be updated. I don't know if we do that every quarter, every year. We do it every quarter. So I think the -- to answer to your question, Jason, I think [ Deffontaines ] and Ladislas and his team send you the figures because it's updated regularly. So we have nothing too hide. We think it's good for the market. But honestly, there is no inconsistency and the trend, we did not see an acceleration of the decrease of PPAs. Today, in fact, the reality in the renewable market, you have an inflation. So I will be interested to observe what will be the impact of the inflation on the future PPAs at which level people will bid, it might go in the reverse way. Now but it's through E&P, as I said, among the $5 billion, I mentioned there was $1 billion coming from E&P. It's also true that I said, I answered to a question that we are acquiring, we are divesting. And so part of it will come from E&P. It's clear. So we will continue to high grade -- I would say, or to be selective in the portfolio, in line with the strategy. So you have a natural decline from some oil fields. You will have some -- also some divestment which will be done. So at the end of the day, part of the increase is coming from E&P around $1 billion. But part of that -- part of the increase coming from new projects, yes, you're right, the $3 billion is [ erased ] because you have to fight around against a natural decline. And we have also planned in the way we think that we might divest some assets. I understand this is the last question.

Yes, it was. It was the final question for today.

And so thank you very much to all of you. I hope -- thank you for your attendance. It was a long session. Many -- I know that the presentation was quite exhaustive, but I think it was also the opportunity for us to continue to explain what TotalEnergies wants to become. I think I did not have many questions, the sustainability part, but I'm sure it will feed a lot of a discussion we will have in the coming weeks with investors as we have -- as we will go around. Thank you again for your attendance. Thank you for the quality of the questions. And again, thank you to all the team for having put all that together. And thank you to my colleagues of the Executive Committee for their presentation today. And I hope to see you all of you very soon. Thank you. Goodbye.