TotalEnergies SE (TTE) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to TotalEnergies Strategy, Sustainability and Climate Presentation Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] I must advise you that this conference is being recorded today, the 24th of March 2022. I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Patrick Pouyanné, TotalEnergies' Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Please go ahead, sir.

Good morning or good afternoon, wherever you are today, and welcome to this TotalEnergies Strategy, Sustainability, Climate Investor Presentation. Before to enter into the presentation about the strategy, sustainability and climate, I cannot avoid, of course, to begin by having a strong thoughts for our colleagues in Ukraine, and we think of the Russia-Ukraine situation. Within TotalEnergies, all meeting in the morning begin by a safety moment and all meeting in the afternoon by a sustainability moment. Today, this is my in turn for sustainability movement with this photo of [ Yietzen and Maxim ]. Two of our Ukrainian employees who have joined the Ukrainian forces since the beginning of the conflict. I want to pay a special tribute to them and to all of our friends and colleagues in Ukraine. [ Yietzen and Maxim ] are heroes in the company. We received photos for their new life and we follow them as all our employees in Ukraine. 7 are still in Kiev, and we assisted them as well as all the other ones. And by the way, a full employee namely [ Yietzen ] as well has enrolled himself yesterday in the Army. These are life-changing events for them and [ in it ] for everyone. So we take this moment to reflect on our people as well as the company are affected. TotalEnergies condense categorically in Russia aggression. And I want to reiterate of solidary with the people of Ukraine. We see the tragedy of human suffering from Ukraine today, for Russia population tomorrow, a [ freight ] to the peace of Europe and to the world. We are mobilized to help of course, our Ukrainian employees but beyond to provide assistance to Ukrainian refugees coming to Europe. We provide fuels and other equipment to the Ukrainian authorities. And without reservation, TotalEnergies supports the scope, the strength of the sanctions put in place by Europe and the U.S. And we will implement these present and future sanctions regardless of the consequences on our activities. We support sanctions because we believe they are the only nonviolent means to try to put an end to this strategy today. We are, of course, deeply affected on a personal level by the crisis. At the same time, we're responsible for managing the assets of the company. To act responsibly as a European company and in accordance with our values, we have defined some clear principles of conduct for managing our Russian-related interest, and we published them 2 days ago. First, as I said, TotalEnergies has and will continue to act in strict compliance with European sanctions existing and future ones regardless of the consequence on our activities and assets, no doubt about this. It's important to point out at this [ partage ] we do not operate any oil fields, gas fields or LNG plants in Russia. We own minority interest within non-state companies. And in fact, the headcounts of employees of people of TotalEnergies, which were secondees in these companies were quite limited before the beginning of the conflict 11 secondees. We have initiated a progressive suspension of our activities in Russia, while ensuring the safety of our staff. And as of today, only three expat secondees are remaining in the country. In the same [ freight ], we have stopped all the business developments for batteries and lubricant businesses in Russia. The second principle of conducts, and we immediately stated it is that, obviously, we will not provide any new capital for projects in Russia, and this applies as well to the Arctic LNG-2 project. Given the uncertainty created by the technological, financial sanctions and the ability to deliver this full project, we have decided to debook all proved reserves for Article LNG-2 project from our accounts at the end of last year. Third, we have been criticized for not announcing that we are abandoning our assets and withdrawing from Russia. I want again to clarify that abandoning [ business ] interest would only enrich Russian investors by more than $10 billion in contradiction to the very purpose of the sanctions. As we are not operators abandoning the minority interest held by TotalEnergies will have no impact on these companies' operations and revenues. Furthermore, current environment of European sanctions and Russia loans controlling foreign investments will prevent us from finding a non-Russian buyer for interest and would have to transfer that for zero. Finally, under the existing contracts, abandoning our interest could open TotalEnergies up to significant potential liabilities. We monitor this situation very carefully with the Board. Last part, last principle of conduct is, of course, that TotalEnergies' mission is to supply a clean, reliable and affordable energy to as many people as possible. And in this specific case, the reliability, the security of energy supply for the European competent is of essence. It's not up to TotalEnergies to decide if we need to bring gas to Europe. It's up to the government to decide what we should do and then to act accordingly. Of course, as you all know, Europe does not have the same domestic resources as the U.K. or the U.S. and gas is, in particular, a critical issue. European governments at this stage, consider that Russian gas is necessary for the European population. As you know, most the experts think that we need 2 to 3 years given legalities of the European gas logistics, if we want to avoid to be severely impacted or to have to ration some gas in Europe. But again, it is a shot of government decide if yes or no, we must get rid of gas not to private company like TotalEnergies. Situation is different for oil and petroleum products because we can access alternative supplies and to ensure the security of supply to our European customers. This is why we have decided to halt all our purchasing for Russian oil and petroleum products as soon as possible and then the latest by the end of the year. Since February 25, we have stopped all trading operations from the spot markets, on oil and petroleum products, and that has been extended to gas since February 25. We have also -- we have some term contracts to purchase Russian oil and petroleum products that end at the latest on December 31, '22, primarily to cover supplies for the Leuna refinery in Eastern Germany, which is served by the Druzhba pipeline from Russia, but also to cover supply for diesel, gas, oil to our European retail networks and marketing activities. In close cooperation with the German government, we will terminate our Russian oil supply contract for the Leuna refinery as soon as possible and by the end of '22 at the latest. We are putting in place, and we have already some capacity -- logistic capacity in place, to bring alternative solutions by importing oil via Poland. Considering the diesel supply, let me remind you that around 12% of European diesel was imported from Russia in '21. And unless we receive any contrary instruction from European governments, we will also terminate our Russian diesel purchase contracts as soon as possible by the end of '22 at the latest. We will instead import petroleum products, and in our specific case, we will dedicate our share of diesel being produced by the [ Antwerp ] refinery to Europe. By sharing these principles of conducts in a transparent way, we allow our investors or stakeholders to verify that we act in a responsible manner. Again, we monitor this critical situation very carefully with the Board. And obviously, the point of view of our main shareholders is of essence for all of us. Since the beginning of the crisis, our Investor Relationship team is in close contact with most of them, and their advice is very precious. Just second slide on Russia, I want to comment is a recap of our exposure to Russia in a transparent way. I would say that -- and you know it, that we have a deliberate policy within our company for many years, which is that we do not want one single country to represent more than 10% of our global portfolio. This is the case for Russia. And as you can see, our capital employed in Russia were at $13.7 billion by the end of the year and at 10%, and we knew that we could have some opportunities, but the Board was already, before the pricing, asking itself up to which point can we continue to develop our position. Mr. Putin has answered that question. But again, it was there, a policy, which is at the core of the way we manage our political exposure in the company. In terms of cash flow, in 2021, our Upstream assets were representing $1.5 billion compared to a base of almost $30 billion. Results were $2.1 billion to be compared to our global results of around 11%. The cash flow, 5% are lower because, as you know, part of the results are linked to our Novatek participation, which -- and we receive only dividend from Novatek. In terms of exposure, a [ word ] about potential debt service default on the financing warranties that we have given. This could represent $500 million regarding the financing of Yamal LNG and $800 million on the financing of Arctic LNG-2. The volumes are more important. 17% of the production is coming from Russia, 21% of our reserves. But what is important for shareholders is a value that we can give -- what we can derive from these volumes. The volumes are impressive, but they are linked, in fact, to the Novatek volumes where we are shareholders, which are mainly domestic gas with a low margin and cash margin per barrel. That's why we have 20% of volume and 5% of cash flows. So this is very manageable at the, I would say, global corporate level. And we will go through whatever again, the consequences are. You have the list of the assets that we own, minority interest in non-operated assets. You have also the term contracts that we are managing. And I already discussed the oil and petroleum products contracts. We have a maximum of 1 year. And of '22, we have no more commitment. On the LNG side, it's different because we have 5 million tonper year, which have been long term contracted with Yamal LNG. And we have only -- we have 0.9 million tonne, which is under a 1-year contract that we will not renew obviously. These contracts, of course, in case of sanctions, against Novatek, are force majeure clause, which would be activated by TotalEnergies if it is the decisions of the governments -- European governments. So now after this introduction on Russia and Ukraine, we want to -- I will come, I would say, to what was the core initially of the presentation, but I would say that speaking about strategy and sustainability, I think Russia and Ukraine are at the core of both, and so it was important to introduce this debate immediately. But we will enter into the presentation that we planned some months ago in view of the Annual Shareholder Meeting of end of May. And I would say we do not know at that time that the invasion of Ukraine will affect us going forward, but you must recall is as well, but there are another crisis building that also demands our attention as the IPCC new report [indiscernible] reminds us of the climate emergency and imperative. And so today, our objective is also to explain our ambition and to show how it's being put in place. And I think it takes its full meaning despite this tradegy in Ukraine and Russia. In 2021, as you know, our shareholders broadly supported this ambition through their vote at the Annual Shareholder Meeting. And today, 1 year later, as it was a commitment by the Board, we are publishing our first sustainability and climate progress report. With several objectives. One is to show, our ambition is reflected in the deployment of our strategy and in our investment decision. And second, to share our 2021 achievements, which demonstrate, and I hope we'll be convinced, and illustrate the path of our transformation in order to meet our 2030 objectives, which are clearly commitments and get to net zero by 2050 [indiscernible] of society. This report also provides an opportunity for us to explain clearly and transparently our climate ambition or progress, the pertinence of our 2030 objectives and our ability to meet or exceed them. And again, in doing so, we want to show to all our stakeholders that we are already on the right track and the progress we are making in transforming TotalEnergies into a stronger company with a sustainable and profitable future. I will share this presentation today with Helle Kristoffersen, our President, Strategy and Sustainability, and we have Namita Shah, our President OneTech, which is also supervising the people and social engagement activities. You will also find in this report some new targets that will be detailed. And we will, along the presentation, you will see some signals, new, because it's, I would say, a permanent for us, quest to become better, to enhance our proposal, to take into account the scenarios, the technologies, the innovations, to listen to the society in order for us to find the best road map. And I'm confident that with what we will present you, you will be convinced that we drive the transformation, our industrial model to shape the TotalEnergies' transition to which our societies aspire. So let's go into the strategy part that I will first cover then Helle will cover the climate and environment part. Namita will cover the well-being of people part, and then I will come back about how we share the profitability that we are creating with our stakeholders and conclude. It's true that energy is reinventing itself, and so we have decided to embark into this journey to build a multi-energy company, sustainable and profitable. It's a matter, of course, of delivering reliable, affordable, clean energy. The world needs more energy, but less emissions to develop a more sustainable business model and of course, ultimately, to increase the returns for our shareholders because this is also our objectives. This strategy is underpinned by the evolution of the energy markets we anticipate. There are two fundamental trends that I just mentioned. More energy because the population continues to grow and is aiming for higher living standards around the planet. So there is a growing energy demand despite all the energy efficiency gains that we must do as well. And then you have the other imperative of climate neutrality for the planet. So it has an impact on the evolution of the energy mix. And fundamentally, today, the energy is made of coal. We are not involved. So I will not discuss that energy, but oil and natural gas. All we see and we observe an acceleration of innovation to substitute oil use. And we consider, we take as an assumption that the oil demand will plateau and then decline beyond 2030 with some impact on long-term prices. Natural gas is a transition fuel. And I would say 2021 has demonstrated more than ever that it's a transition fuel, between coal and decarbonized energies. And so there is there, I would say, a growth in natural gas, in particular, in the LNG segments. But then the transition will be made possible only if we, on one side, develop new molecules, biofuels, biogas, hydrogen, e-fuels. And I would say that for oil and gas company, which is a molecule company, this is, I would say, a natural trend, leveraging our competencies in chemistry, in refining, in all the downstream part to look to these new molecules. But also the transition is a matter of electricity. And we know that carbonize energy, the electricity supply should be multiplied by 2 in the next 20, 30 years if we want to meet the net zero policies. Of course, when I say electricity, it's fundamentally decarbonized renewable electricity. And then the last point of this, I would say, [indiscernible] of energy markets, that is the last market, which is developing carbon sinks, which will be required to achieve net zero. So what we have decided within Total, and this is, I would say, the road map of our strategy, is to enter not only to continue to be part of the energy of today in oil, to maintain with no growth, I will come back on it, to grow in natural gas as a transition fuel and to engage the company in these new pillars of the future energy system, new molecules, electricity and carbon sinks. I have often the questions why investing in power, which is obviously is an activity is a business with lower returns than oil and gas. We -- on this slide, you have the motivations of our commitment to invest in this energy, which is electricity. And fundamentally, what we think is that we can develop, and we will develop, business model with higher risks, creating higher returns from integration, arbitrage, flexibility, but a traditional business model of utilities, which I would characterize by lower risk and lower returns. And in fact, the fundamental idea is what, we want to approach the electricity market as we are managing today, the oil and gas markets. These are commodities. We know that the commodity is volatile. We know also the fundamentals to manage this volatility. And the fundamentals are to select low-cost assets in order to lower your breakeven and the other fundamentals is integration to be along the full value chain from the generation to the storage, to the trading, to the aggregation, to the supply for the electricity value chain. You know, today, in the oil markets, with the increase in the oil price, I see the downstream business is suffering. But of course, we rebalanced at the profits and revenues from the upstream part. It was a reverse 2 years ago during the public crisis, where our downstream businesses were more resilient than the Upstream. So integration, low cost are the DNA of the company in oil and gas. And this is a model we want to transfer in order to the electricity, in order again, maybe to take higher risks than some competitors, but to generate higher returns. There is, on this slide, you have the arguments and you will understand. But first, we are a premium to early mover. Today, we are willing to secure long-term positions on the land, on marine, on green interconnections, which are [indiscernible] resource exactly like oil and gas concession in the oil and gas business. We have an example of what we have done recently in the last New York Bight tender where we secured for 50-year lease -- by [ EnBW ] production in, I would say, in the marine domain, in front of New York and the New Jersey to produce 3 gigawatts. This acquisition in the company an asset which will long -- which will be there for long, and we will deliver future revenues and profits to the company. In this growing market, we have also a positive outlook for electricity prices because of the complexity of electricity market, which is secondary energy. We also think that and I said, managing commodities, we know to do it, which means like we've done with the LNG in the last 20 years. But the way we'll approach the electricity market is a combination, I would say, of long-term contracts for 70%, what we call PPA, and 30% of the production will be exposed to markets. [ Not ] to take some risk, exactly LNG. You know in the '90s, we developed the LNG business by securing for each plant the equivalent as a long-term contract. It was a point-to-point industry, I would say, fully secured. Then since 2000s, we changed the model. We decided that we could -- our company will offtake part of the LNG, so to put some energy on our own balance sheet. And this strategy is delivering more and more results. 2021, again, has been a demonstration. But yes, we took higher risks, but it creates higher returns. So this is exactly the view we have, again, for the electricity market in order to reach, and this is what we do today, more than 10% return on equity. And last point I mentioned is low-cost assets, which have to be -- in order to be on the right part of the cost merit curve on a local basis because electricity is a local energy. Last but not least, we can do -- we can implement such a strategy of higher risk and higher returns because we benefit from a strong balance sheet with a low [ gain ] rate compared to most of the competitors in the utility competitors. Then a second slide, where to introduce our strategy. To answer the second question, you say that you have the ambition today to see -- to be a net zero company in 2050, but what does it mean for TotalEnergies to be a net zero company in 2050? So with this slide, we want to give you a clarity of the vision -- of our vision that we have today with -- and again, it will evolve in the future, but I think it's an important adding -- addition to the ambition we described last year. And to do that, we have read carefully the net zero scenario from the IEA and in particular, the landing point in 2050 of the net zero scenario of IEA. We do not agree with the trajectory to go there, but we agree on the landing point. So we took that as a reference. And the IEA described a world of energy of 20% of fossil fuels, 20% of bioenergy, 60% of the carbonized electricity and 7 billion tons of carbon capture and storage. So for TotalEnergies, if we try to translate this landscape in the vision in 2050, what we want to build years after years is a company which would be 50% involved in [indiscernible] electricity. So we need to make steps in the next decade, 500 terawatt-hour per year of production, net production. We think, and we find also to engage in the new molecules for 25% to produce 50 million tons per year of biofuel, biogas, hydrogen. [indiscernible] e-fuel, which is a way to recirculate hydrogen for CO2 is giving e-fuels or e-gas. So 75% of the business would be in, I would say, the decarbonized energies and 25% will still be in fossil fuels because as it was mentioned in the IEA scenario, we still need some of it fundamentally, gas and LNG, 25 million, 30 million ton of LNG compared to today, our production with around 20 million, 25 million tons. So there's still some room for growing in this business and also some oil, probably 200 million, 300 million barrel of oil fundamentally for petrochemicals and polymers on which we will come back. So this is a vision. And how do you translate this production mix into emissions? By 2050, we consider that with the technologies, we will reduce our Scope 1 and 2 emissions to around 10 million tons, which will be compensated by 10 billion tons per year of natural-based solutions which is very manageable, and Helle will come back on that. This scenario, this mix represents 100 million tons of scope-free by 2050, which would be compensated by a mix of carbon capture and storage that we will offer to customers, service storage to customers for 50 million to 100 million tons. So we need to engage and to invest in this business. But again, as IEA said, 7 billion tons at the world level, 500 -- 50 million to 100 million tons for TotalEnergies. This is also, I would say, the right measure without overstretching the company, which represent 1% to 2% of the market, which is more or less our share in oil and gas. And last but not least, of course, achieving this vision means that the life cycle carbon intensity of TotalEnergies, the net zero life cycle carbon intensity would be zero. And so reducing our life cycle carbon intensity by 100% to be clear as we add some questions about what is the end target. So maybe this vision will help to understand what we want to build. It will take time. And now I embark you in the next decade on which with my management team, with the executive team, we are fully responsible to implement. There, it's not new. You heard it last year. So this does not change. We want -- on the oil again, we will not produce more by 2030 than we were in 2019. So a quarter impacting '21. There is a small rebound in '25, but -- so there is -- the objective is clear, maintain. On the gas, as I said, through LNG continue to increase, to deliver this transition fuel, which is required by many emerging countries to shift from coal to gas. And electricity renewables, it's, I would say, the offtake of our productions on both renewable and flexible generation in order to deliver, I would say, a firm power to our customers. So globally, on this decade, we want to produce 30% more energy by 2020 on the LNG -- for LNG and electricity. On the sales side, this is also, as I said, we want to adapt the company to the future decline for oil products demand that we anticipate beyond 2030. And so we will diminish our oil product sales by more than 30%. And in fact, the objective is by the end of the decade, to realign what we saw, what we will sell and what we will produce around 1.4 million barrel of oil per day. The gas is following, I would say, the increase of the production, so a multiplication by 2. And electricity, same multiplication by 3. So that makes a mix. And you can see that there are the new molecules, which are on the top of the liquid part and the gas part, which we could put aside, but this is the new category, which will represent around 5% of our mix by 2030. So if I go through each of these energies, on [ oil ] the objective, again, no more growth, maintaining and then we will decline beyond 2030 with the demand -- when the demand will exit the plateau that we anticipate, which means that there is a big effort being done on the downstream. This decrease, by the way, Helle will explain to you, is a new objective that we set to ourselves. So we will commit the scope-free emissions for oil will be decreased by 30% between today and 2030. It's a new commitment, 120 million tons of CO2 Scope 3 emissions of our customers will disappear. We will do that, in particular, I would say, a new strategy that we implement in the Marketing & Services business, where we want on one side to preserve the net cash flow by arbitrating some low-margin sales, but also by increasing some nonfuel sales, benefiting from the, I would say, the retail network that we have to increase these revenues. And so, by the way, we implement this strategy as we have explained you in February in '21, it was plus 15% of net cash flow by the Marketing & Services and minus 20% of sales. So this is possible, and we'll continue to develop it. On the Upstream part, we focus only in order to maintain the production. I will come back on it. We need to invest in some new greenfields. We need to -- but we restrict ourselves to low cost and low emission oil projects that will come back. And information -- or exploration CapEx is limited to $500 million for the next few years. And last, but not least, we are divesting noncore mature high-cost and high-emission assets. Last year, we exited Venezuela heavy oil, because we do not intend to allocate any future CapEx to some hydrocarbons, which clearly cannot fit with low-cost, low-emission oil projects. On the gas, you know our strategy. It was not impacted by the Russia case because we have a very rich portfolio to feed off low-cost LNG growth. Clearly, the growth will not come from Russia. I want to be very clear. There is no more capital, which will be allocated by TotalEnergies to Russia. But it will come from other projects. We have Cameron in the U.S.; [ CCI ] in Mexico; Nigeria,[indiscernible], and there is a lot of gas onshore Nigeria to [indiscernible], not far from Europe, which is a new LNG market open to us. Mozambique, Papua LNG. Yemen is an option in our portfolio, which can be revived if there is an agreement with Iran. And we are studying other U.S. options. Again, something in front of us give us, I would say, the Russian crisis, of course, no future for growth in Russia, but there is a new market, which is a European market for LNG. And so this is a market where a new opportunity for us to implement our strategy that we have defined today. So no modification on the strategy. Projects might be different, but the same, I would say, belief and -- but we can leverage our integrated LNG position for all these markets. Of course, this means that we continue to focus on investment in first, second quartile, low-cost long-term competitive LNG projects. I remind you that our portfolio -- LNG portfolio has a leverage to high oil and gas price. We gave you the indexation in February. Nothing changed. And there is one condition to do that, is that we need to be very serious, more than serious. We need to aim to zero methane emissions. And we set ourselves, Helle will come back on it, a new target by 2030 to reduce our methane emission by 80% compared to 2020. Our last remark, some people tell us, it's not so true that LNG is going to replace coal. Coal continue to grow. I would say that -- and I think it's a comfort to us. But today, we sell our LNG. 99% of our sales were sold to net zero countries. So this is part, it's a demonstration, that yes, it's a transition fuel for many countries, and it will contribute to the -- for these countries to reach net zero targets. Electricity renewables have been long. So I will not comment more on this slide. The targets did not change for 2030. We are on the way to deliver them. We explain you, we reached 10 gigawatts last year. We'll do for 20 -- for 16 gigawatts in '22. So a target of 100 gigawatts and I already explained you. And to be net cash positive on these segments before 2030 to fuel the future cash flows and net cash flows and returns to shareholders. A slide on the new molecules, which will be required for the energy transition. We just joined recently a group of companies, which have the ambition to double circularity within the next 10 years, which means a circular economy, recycling. In fact, these new molecules are a good way to do it. In biofuels, we give a clear priority to waste and residues, in particular, for SAF, for sustainable aviation fuels. We have an objective of 5 million ton per year of biofuels. We will produce 300,000 tons of SAF from '24. In recycling and in polymers, it's a priority being given to recycle than biopolymers as well with an ambition of 1 million ton per year of high-value circular polymers by 2030 for different technologies. In biogas, which is -- there is more and more strong demand for bio-LNG, bio-CNG. A lot of customers which have engaged in gas want to make biogas today like shipping. There is more demand than supply, to be clear, because the scaling effect is not so easy to grow, but we have a target of more than 5 terawatt-hour per year by 2030. We have all the assets in France, and we have just soon launched and produced our first projects in Texas. And last, but not least, hydrogen e-fuels, which we put together because the e-fuel is derived from hydrogen. It's linked to electricity, if we do it a green hydrogen, CO2 gas, if it's a blue hydrogen, gas plus CCS, if it's a blue hydrogen. So we'll manage these technologies. We have engaged refining our oil refinery to, I would say, have a clean hydrogen in all our European refineries by the end of the decade. We made some progress in Normandy recently. But also, we are looking clearly to the way to develop first projects in e-fuels. And on green hydrogen, the first project has been selected by the French government in La Mede among the European supported projects, which will be developed. I mentioned as well that in Abu Dhabi, we recently partnered with Masdar and Siemens Energy about a pilot to make some sustainable addition fuel from green hydrogen. So it represents only 5% of the CapEx during the next few years, but I'm convinced this will grow in the future. It's also linked to the demand. It's a matter not only of supply. And again, on biofuels, biogas, clearly, for me, today, the bottleneck is partly on the feedstock that we need to mobilize. And then it's a matter, I would say, more on hydrogen e-fuels of demand that we need to also to identify in order to go further. So this strategy is supported by a capital investment allocations to build this multi-energy company. 50% of our CapEx, between $13 billion, $16 billion, but on '22, '25, are dedicated to growth, growth in renewable electricity, growth in the new molecules. I would say, so 30% are on the new energies, and 20% on LNG and gas. The other 50% are contributing to the maintenance of our old system. Among the 50%, I had also some question about it, 20% are, in fact, dedicated to new greenfields and exploration. So you see we invest less in new greenfields and exploration, then renewable and electricity. I would say another way to illustrate our strategy is where do we invest in terms of R&D? Or do we plan the future? And I think it's quite an interesting slide to show that the transformation is well advanced. You see that in the last 5 years, we shifted our R&D expenditures, 70% were in hydrocarbons in 2017. Our budget today is 40% only. So it's a clear shift and a clear ambition. All that is led by Namita and his team since this global organization called OneTech, which is supporting the transition where we put together all our technical R&D skills in order to implement the strategy. You can see that in 2022, the new energies, it's some CCUS, some batteries and all the other fields of technologies. Two last slide to demonstrate again as we select our hydrocarbon projects as it's compatible with our climate ambition to get to net zero. We want to ensure the sustainability of the portfolio and the profitability of the portfolio. So as I said, we select low-cost, low emissions projects. This is -- you will find the details in the report. These are the 8 projects which have been sanctioned in '21. All of them have a technical cost under $20 per barrel and a breakeven in the $30. And all of them have emissions, which are lower than the average of the portfolio, which means, by the way, that the average is going lower year after year. So this criteria will be more stringent. The new assumptions in our way that we appreciate the profitability of the projects, we are using from now $100 per ton from 2023 in all the projects. The idea that it gives a guidance to all our teams to select the projects to abate CO2 emissions. So we give a new guidance to our teams. If you have projects which was cost abatement of CO2 is less than $100 per ton, we are ready to finance and to develop in. So I think it's important because it's part of the Scope 1 and 2 road map. Another piece of information about, I would say, the sustainability of our portfolio linked to the European taxonomy or some resilient tests that we are doing ourselves. So for the first time, we are publishing, in this report, not only the eligible CapEx of the taxonomy as per the regulation, but also the aligned CapEx that we evaluated. It's not mandatory, but we thought it was [indiscernible]. And you will see that as a proportionate view, 23% of our CapEx are [ sale ] as being aligned on the taxonomy. It was only 9% in 2020. So I think the transition is well underway in driving TotalEnergies. We tested the resilience of the portfolio to different ideas. What happens? What is the impact on the value of our portfolio if instead of $100 per ton, the CO2 would be at $200 per ton, the impact is 9% or the NPV 7. We also tested the resilience of the portfolio to the price scenario of the net zero of the IEA compared to what is our reference scenario, which is today at $50 per barrel and $100 per ton. The net zero scenario of IEA is going down to $25 per barrel quite quickly. It would have an impact of 17% or the NPV 7 of the portfolio. So it's, I think, some important informations, again, for investors to understand [ our ] resilience is -- it is resilient to invest in TotalEnergies shares. So this is a strategy, and now we'll go to the second part, which is to show you, and it was the core of the, I would say, resolution, which was voted last year [ how ] we integrate sustainability into the strategies, the projects and operations. And Helle and Namita will go through, I would say, the climate part, the environment part, the people part, and I will come back on the share prosperity. So Helle, the floor is yours.

Good morning, and good afternoon, everyone. I'm going to cover our strategy and 2021 progress in the following two areas that Patrick just mentioned, less emissions, sustainable energy and caring for the environment. First, on sustainable energy, meaning less emissions. To set the stage, I would like to point out the following external assessment of our net zero ambition together with society. Back in November, transition pathway initiative came out with this statement saying that, "TotalEnergies is one of the very few oil and gas firms that have set emission reduction targets that are ambitious enough to reach net zero by 2050 and therefore, align with TPI's 1.5-degree benchmark." So that was just what I wanted to share with you on 2050, and let's now talk about the next 10 years. Here is where we stand with respect to our 2030 targets and how we have performed in 2021, it's in green here on the chart, on our direct and indirect emissions, meaning the emissions related to the use of energy products by our customers. The data for 2020 and '21 excludes the impact of COVID so as to be comparable with respect to 2030. As Patrick said, we have signed up for several new objectives, and they are in the table here. One related to methane emissions from our operated activities, we want to reduce them by 80% by 2030. And another one on our worldwide Scope 3 oil-related emissions, we want to cut them by 30% or more by 2030. I will come back on each of those two objectives in a short while. If you look at the table, and of course, you'll have the time to do so, you will see that we have improved on most, if not all the objectives in 2021 versus 2020. I know that routine flaring seems to be going up, but it's actually a rounding effect. So I just wanted to make that a little comment. It's flattish. I will now cover each of these indicators in more details and share with you some highlights from our 2021 accomplishments. First, on Scope 1 and 2 emissions from our operated facilities. You know it, our goal is to go from 46 million tons of CO2 in 2015 to less than 40 million tons in 2025 and a net reduction, including carbon sinks, of more than 40%, 40% or more, in 2030. Let me flag just a couple of elements on this chart. First, as shown, these targets cover our new businesses. And so in particular, they cover our CCGTs. Secondly, and more importantly, we've tried to assess the relevance of this goal to reduce by 40% or more in 2030 by looking at some external benchmarks and rebasing everything to 2015 since this is the year that we use for our evolution. The results are shown to the right on the chart. In the IEA net zero emission scenario, worldwide emissions are down by 39% in 2030 versus 15%. So very close to our target of 40% or more. Likewise, the EU "FIT for 55" goal, which goes between 1990 and 2030, the 55% reduction, that becomes a minus 37% reduction if you rebase it to 2015. So again, close to minus 40% or more. Also, following COP26, we ask to recognize climate experts to undertake a study on the greenhouse gas reduction commitments of all those countries that had pledged to be net zero by 2050. The work was done by Carbon Cap (sic) [ Carbone 4 ] in France and by the University of Columbia Center on Energy Policy in the U.S. As you know, when a country pledges to be net zero, it considers its direct national emissions, excluding imported emissions. It is therefore the equivalent of corporate Scope 1 emissions. And the outcomes of the two studies show that at best, the net zero 50 countries will reduce their emissions by 40% with respect to 2015. So I would say that our own target looks pretty well calibrated. The next chart here summarizes how we're going to achieve that target, using best available technologies and following the three steps: Avoid, reduce and compensate emissions. We've discussed this before, so I'll go fast. We'll start routine flaring by 2030 with a pretty tough intermediate goal for 2025. We're also reducing nonroutine flaring. We're improving the energy efficiency of our sites, lowering the overall energy consumption and recycling or optimizing lost energy. This has been one of the focus areas of our digital factory in 2021. We're electrifying our operations using green power. You may recall the two large Go Green projects that we announced last year, powering our sites in Europe and in the U.S. with in-house renewable power. Finally, we're working on decarbonizing the hydrogen use in our refineries, and we are also developing CCS projects for our own use. Coming now to methane. We are fully aware, as Patrick said, of the importance of tackling methane emissions. It was highlighted by the IPCC report back in August and of course, by the Glasgow COP. We've been acting 4 years. And you can see it here on the chart, with almost half methane emissions from our operations between 2010 and 2020. So again, we've introduced two new targets on methane from our operated facilities, and they are shown here. The reference for those targets is 2020 aligned with the COP methane pledge. The only reasonable long-term ambition is to aim for zero emissions, full stop. We intend to get to near zero as quickly as possible and we target to cut back methane emissions by 50% in 2025. And as Patrick said, by 80% in 2030. This target is consistent with external benchmark shown to the right provided by the IEA net zero emission scenario and by the EU gas market framework. In our full report, you will also see that we have several leading-edge innovation and R&D platforms working on the support of this target. As you may recall, we're investing $100 million per year in nature-based solutions with the ambition to build a portfolio of 100 million tons of carbon credits based only on the highest standards of certification. These credits will be available for our own use from 2030 onwards to offset any residual Scope 1 and 2 emissions. We're talking about more than 5 million tons sequestration capacity per annum from that year onwards. We've closed several deals in the course of 2021 and '22, two of them are summarized on the chart here. The rest, of course, you'll find in the report. By the end of last year, our portfolio amounted to 7 million tons of certified credits. Our committed funds represented 23 million tons of credits by 2030 and 31 million tons by 2050. The message is that we are investing deliberately for the long term. And since the goal is to actively contribute to the preservation of natural carbon sinks, be it forest or wetlands, as a matter of consistency, we've introduced a new requirement for all new projects on new sites. They must result in zero net deforestation. Otherwise, we won't invest. In addition to reducing CO2 from our operated facilities, we're also taking care of our non-operated emissions. We are showing here a new disclosure on Scope 1 and Scope 1 and 2 emissions in equity share, so included non-operated facilities. The total is 54 million tons equivalent in 2021. The bulk of non-operated equity emissions comes from Upstream and refining as you can see on the chart. Last year, we worked with our partners on carbon reduction roadmaps for assets such as Ichthys in Australia, SATORP in Saudi Arabia or HTC in Korea, just to name a few. Here is another new disclosure. The geographical breakdown of our emissions on a worldwide basis. You will see that there are very few emissions in the Americas. The chart here covers both Scope 1 and 2 emissions that we've just discussed and Scope 3 emissions from our customers that we are now going to review in a little more detail. So let me provide some color on our indirect Scope 3 emissions from energy products used by our customers. In terms of methodology, we are accounting for the highest emissions along our integrated value chains in oil and gas, meaning, in this case, sales for both oil and gas, as you can see on the chart. The sum of these emissions leads to 400 million tons in 2021, flat versus 2020 all, of course, excluding COVID for the reasons I mentioned earlier. The chart here shows, first to the right, how we're going to reconcile 15% growth in energy sales in this decade that Patrick mentioned, and our 2030 target to reduce global Scope 3 emissions below the ceiling of 2015. The answer is the change in the sales mix that you can see here to the right built into our strategy. As Patrick showed, we will align oil sales on all production before the end of the decade, which induces a reduction of 30% or more in oil sales. At the same time, LNG sales here in blue are going to grow strongly. To the left then, you see the new commitment that Patrick also referred to. And it, of course, stems from our strategy. Again, it's to decrease worldwide oil-related Scope 3 emissions by 30% or more in 2030 versus '15. It means savings on 120 million tons of CO2, so it's absolutely huge. And we will report on this new metric from now onwards. Here is another perspective on our Scope 3 emissions, trying to respond to questions that we get now and so often. As you know, we haven't committed to reducing Scope 3 emissions in the EU by 30% in support of the green deal. And of course, we will deliver on that goal. Outside of Europe, which in our case, mostly means in Africa and in Southeast Asia, we expect emissions to go up. As we serve the increasing energy needs of poorer countries, that simply won't develop and improve living standards without more energy. This is very much in line with the call for a just transition that was expressed in Glasgow. Moving on to CCS. CCS is part of our multi-energy customer offering, and it will clearly play a role for us to achieve net 0 by 2050 together with society as Patrick explained. The chart here summarizes where we stand with respect to 3 largest CCS projects enabling us to offer CO2 transport and storage services to our customers from roughly the middle of this decade. I think you are familiar with the projects, so I won't elaborate. Just note, however, that they're all centered on the North Sea, which has the attributes to become a world-class competitive carbon storage hub. Overall, we are targeting 10 million tons of CO2 storage capacity by 2030. And again, Patrick already mentioned this, we are aiming for 50 million to 100 million tones CO2 storage per year in 2050. To reduce Scope 3 emissions, we much, of course, act on demand. You've heard us say this often and specifically act on mobility demand, which is one of our larger markets. So here, you see our roadmap to decarbonize mobility between now and 2025, and some of the key milestones that we achieved last year. I won't comment everything, I will let you read that. To the far left, we've broken down the overall demand into light-duty, heavy-duty, shipping and aviation, and then we show the energies that we are promoting as a substitute for oil. We have a lot going on in this space, as you can imagine, and 2021 has truly been a year of acceleration of our various initiatives jointly with our customers to build profitable low carbon transport solutions. Taking now another angle and focusing on B2B customers, we announced a couple of weeks ago the creation of a new customer-oriented entity within the company focusing on clients from a dozen of energy-intensive industries, and they're all listed on the chart here. The task of this new team will be to help these customers decarbonize thanks to our multi-energy offering. To the right, you see 2 illustrations of how we engage with B2B customers. In our renewable power business, we've closed a significant number of new corporate PPAs in 2021, with large creditworthy customers in Europe and the U.S. We've also signed up multiple new customers for our distributor generation offering with great momentum in Southeast Asia, for instance. Second illustration is that we continue to be selective on our oil product sales, as Patrick already mentioned. Moving on to our advocacy efforts, we, of course, make sure that they are aligned with our climate ambition. You can see here the 6 principles that we use in our yearly assessment of trade association memberships, principles that led us to exit from the API at the beginning of 2021. And again, I'll let you read the chart. This concludes the update on our climate and emission reductions. You'll find many more details in the full report. As you can see, we've been pretty busy in 2021, we worked hard. And I think it's fair to say that we are definitely delivering on the strategy that we presented a little less than a year ago. I'm coming now with a couple of charts to how we embed caring for the environment into our strategy, our projects and our operations. Actions to preserve our shared planet, its biological diversity and its ecosystems, are an essential part of sustainable development. They can take many forms. We at TotalEnergies have chosen to focus on 3 areas in priority: biodiversity, freshwater resources and circularity. First, on biodiversity. We came out with a new charter in 2020, which we then enhanced last year with a report highlighting some of our concrete action plans and providing proof points, if I may say so, with respect to our undertakings. We are summarizing the biodiversity commitments of our company and from the charter to the left of the chart here, and you can see the 4 large categories of commitments when it comes to biodiversity. As I mentioned earlier, we've also taken a new commitment recently namely 0 net deforestation for any new project on any new site. We are also part of the task force on nature-related financial disclosures, which kind of mirrors TCFD for matters that pertain to nature. In 2021, 8 biodiversity action plans have been initiated or implemented in connection with new projects. The most visible and publicized action plan is shown to the right of the chart, and it relates to our Tilenga project in Uganda. As you know, it's tailored to generate a net gain for biodiversity. Second area of focus, preserving scarce freshwater resources. Early this year, we joined the UN Compact CEO Water Mandate. That encompasses providing stewardship and improvements in the 6 core areas listed on the chart here. I will let you read them. We've also defined new environmental performance targets for 2030, having achieved the ones that we have set out for ourselves for the previous decade, and those environmental performance targets include 2 objectives related to water that are also on the chart here. And finally, circular resources. Earlier this year, again, as Patrick said, we decided to join PACE, the Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy, which is launched by the World Economic Forum and hosted by the WRI. In connection with this new initiative, we have looked at how we can double circularity in our businesses within the next 10 years. And we've come out with the 2 new objectives that you can see here. First, double circularity of feedstock. This is very much related, as Patrick already said, to our biogas and biofuel businesses that do use different forms of waste and residue as intake. Second objective, double the circularity of our top line. You'll find more on this in the full report, and you will also be able to read about how we are doing as a founding member of the alliance to end plastic waste, and how we've banned single-use plastic bags from our retail networks in Africa and Asia in 2021 after having already done so in Europe. And now I hand over to Namita, who will present where we stand with respect to caring for our people and building an inclusive and diverse work environment. Namita?

Thank you very much, Heather. Good afternoon or good morning, everybody. I'm going to spend a little time talking to you about people well-being because I think, as we all know, if we want to be sustainable, we need to ensure that the people who work for us, that the people who work with us and the people who are impacted by the projects and the things that we are doing on the ground all need to be looked after in order to ensure that we are creating as we are growing a sustainable environment. Let me first talk to you about health and safety. Health and safety as you all know, is our core value. It is something on which we spend a lot of time. One of our most important contributions or objectives is, of course, to make sure that we have 0 fatalities. Unfortunately, in 2021, we had 1 fatality in Kazakhstan in our Dunga operations, which is extremely regrettable, and our objective is to ensure that every man and woman who works for us goes home to their family at the end of the day. The last 2 years have also shown that the health and safety of our employees is extremely important in the context of COVID, which we have all managed and made sure that we have kept our employees safe while ensuring that our operations continue and that our operations continue without any industrial accidents. Despite the challenges that a lot of us have faced over the past year, we have been able to maintain safe operations. And you can see that we continue to decrease our TRIR rate over the course of time as illustrated in this slide. Let me talk to you a little bit about enabling a just transition for our employees. As you have heard over the course of 2021, and as Patrick and Helle have explained to you before me, we have embarked on a change at TotalEnergies. We have embarked on a change where we are becoming a multi-energy company. It is extremely important that the 100,000 men and women who work for us are also embarked on that change, that we leverage their skills in order to build this multi-energy company, and that we ensure that none of them feel that they have been left behind or that they will be left behind during the course of this transformation. So we have launched a program called transforming with our people. Clearly, it is extremely important to continue to listen to our people, to understand what it is in this change that is making them uncomfortable, what their concerns may be, what their needs may be in terms of development, in terms of understanding, and to ensure that we meet those needs. We need also to make sure that everybody understands the different energies of a multi-energy company. And that is something that we're going to be doing by sharing across the company the achievements and the developments in all of the different energies that we are working in today, and in which we will be working tomorrow. And last but not -- but very important is training. We are going to have to make sure that the employees who want to be part of this multi-energy company and who feel that they may not have the skills to be part of the new energies that are coming on tomorrow will all be able to participate in all of the energies and in all of the businesses that will be growing over the next few years. And it is important that this works in all of the census. Every employee, old or new, must be part of this multi-energy company that we are building and be able to understand all of the energies in which we are going to be working. In order to achieve our goals, we are going to need a lot of innovation, a lot of new ideas, a lot of collective intelligence and that is, of course, very much best met by promoting both diversity and inclusion. It is clear that we need to reflect the world in which we live in, and we live in a world of over 130 different countries with 100,000 people who come from all kinds of diverse talents and backgrounds. In order to ensure that we continue on our path to promoting diversity and inclusion. We have ensured that we have clear targets as far as both gender equality and international diversity is concerned, that are well communicated within the organization, and on which our senior management are going to be judged. One very, very important aspect, as I'm sure you all know, is that setting targets to promote diversity is not enough to ensure that these different talents grow and contribute and feel part of the organization. And therefore, the work that we do in terms of inclusion is extremely important. And I'd like just to give you an example of what we are doing with people for disabilities because what we have done is embarked on a program where when we have somebody with disabilities who joins a particular team in our organization, we ensure that we accompany not only the person who enters our organization but also that person's manager and colleagues to help them understand how people need to think about and adapt to disabilities. I'm also particularly proud that these -- all these policies go beyond what is happening in terms of just being in headquarters or in developed countries. Once again, I think for disabilities, you will all agree with me, we are lucky enough, most of us, to live in an environment or in countries which look at issues with the disabilities but there are a lot of countries in which we operate today, where people with disabilities and very often even gender issues are not really addressed by local legislation. And our ambition is to make sure that these good practices and inclusion for all of these people happens across the world. And as of today, we have 41 countries who have themselves voluntarily signed up to put in place very specific programs for people with disabilities. This idea of embedding sustainability in our social policy, the idea that sustainability is not something that is limited to a particular parameter, but something that we need to push across all of the countries in which we live and work is very, very important to us as an organization. And in order to do so, we have pushed forward quite a lot of initiatives, which make sure that people living in countries across the world who may not have access to the same level of understanding or rights will, if they work for our organization or when they work for our organization, we make sure that we promote these issues. As some examples, workplace dialogue. So working with unions is perhaps not something that is systematic and required by law in all of the countries where we work, but we believe that it is extremely important that all of our employees are represented and that all of our affiliates put in place programs and organizations and systems where employee representation can have a direct link to discussions with management. Similarly, when we talk about worldwide equal pay for men and women or about gender-neutral parental leave, it is not something that is evident depending on all of the countries that we live and work in, all across from the United States to Papua New Guinea, every employee who works in our organization will have equal pay, whether they are men or women and will have access to gender neutral paid parental leave. And that is something that in some of the countries that we work in, a tremendous step forward and very important for us to continue to promote. Let me spend a little bit of time talking to you about human rights and respect of human rights. When I began my presentation, I said that it was important for us to look after the well-being of the people who work for us and also the well-being of the people who work with us and the people who are impacted by our projects on the ground. Our human rights program is an extremely well organized and well-designed program. We have ensured that we identify our salient human rights issues according to the United Nations Guiding principles. And we have made sure that we do an analysis of our different businesses and the impact on human rights that they might have in the context of the work that we do. To give you just a few examples, so first of all, we can see that because we are working in so many different countries around the world and because we do a lot of local content and we work with contractors across the world, issues regarding child labor or forced labor, discrimination, and just and fair working conditions is something that we need to be very vigilant about. And we have been working with our contractors and ensuring that our people in our companies working in these different countries, as well as the contractors with whom we work with, understand what our policy is and put in place systems to be in line with our policy. We have -- we follow up on this by doing regular audits, both internally and externally, and have done 80 audits of our contractors last year in order to ensure that our human rights policies are looked at when we are working with our contractors. Another specific example is the work that we are doing in Uganda. Helle talked about our Tilenga pipeline, our EACOP pipeline in our Tilenga program. Once again, we have specifically identified the salient human rights issues that could arise the work and the construction around this. And we work with baseline studies as well as third-party organizations. We do a transparent reporting of the findings that we have published on our website we make sure that we follow up on all of the actions, programs that we have put in place to achieve the ambition and the goal of looking after the people that are impacted by our program. And last but not least, another example is just the voluntary principles on human rights and security, which can come into play in certain of countries where we have an overlap of the work that we are doing and military or police personnel are working in that -- in the same areas. And we have a very strong program where we ensure that the military or the police personnel are well trained and we provide training programs in order to make sure that these human rights principles are followed up on. All of this can only work if we have robust grievance mechanisms, which we have put in place in 100% of our subsidiaries across the world, where we can get feedback and receive complaints from the people who are impacted by our operations. So those are the main areas. If you look at our sustainability report, you will have a lot more information. And now I hand over to Patrick for the concluding part of this presentation.

So thank you, Namita. Thank you, Helle, for this information about the way we deploy our sustainable ambition in the company. I think we set ourselves some key objectives, and we progress, thanks to all these reports because for me reporting, is also a way to benchmark ourselves and to go to good, better practices. And I think this is a way to improve the company on a global way and as being -- becoming more sustainable. So the last part, of course, of our, I would say, sustainable ambition is looked to shared prosperity with our stakeholders. And I would like to highlight some few elements about it. Of course, we create quite a lot of shared value. It's -- the importance is not only for our employees, our shareholders, or primary stakeholders, but for others, and I would emphasize, of course, we have the local communities in which we work and developing and engaging of local content when we have giant projects. Of course, it's important that they see some, I would say, pragmatic concrete benefits for them, and that's also something on which we professionalize or approach with some community liaison officers, for example, in Uganda, but also in other countries. -- and/or we have a lot of people and actions to support the socioeconomic developments and in connection with local contents. Another aspect is the suppliers. We have -- we -- I think we spent more or less $25 billion per year. And we have decided that we need to have a stronger and more sustainable supply chain. It's not only some requirements, it's also about climate, by the way. So we took some initiatives this year. When we think about Scope 3 in a company like Total, we look at a lot of the downstream, which was described by Helle, 400 million tons. So it's a Board focus. But I was reading yesterday evening the new SEC guidelines, and they were -- we are speaking about Scope 3 upstream. It means beyond to come it's in fact fundamentally the supply chain. For TotalEnergies it's more complex with a it, it's around 10 million tons. So it was not the primary focus when we embark, to be honest, in the climate ambition. But now we think because it's not only the 10 million tons for me. It's that TotalEnergies can be, I would say, a sort of driving force. We have to lead by example, and to be steward to our supply chain to be better. And what they will do for us, we will do for others. And so we have a multiplication effect on our upstream Scope 3, I would say. And so we have engaged with 1,000 suppliers, which represent, I would say, 80% of the Scope 3 in-house gas emission Upstream 1, as I said, in order to engage them with some new initiatives to have a dialogue with them. We wrote them some letter to tell them it's important for us. It should be important for you. And for the top 40 of them -- for 40% of them, 400 of them, we asked them to set themselves some targets for 2030 to reduce emissions. So we will monitor this, I would say, this new initiative. And again, it's not only the impact for or the Scope 3 of TotalEnergy. It will have a multiplicator effect on all the actions of the supply chain. So I think it's important. And thank you to the people working on procurement, which are very strong to make synergies and to deliver, I would say, the best available, the best equipment, the best price but also to drive these efforts. I would also to -- on this slide, to highlight a new report. You have heard a lot of the word transparency. I think. I think that Helle demonstrate you that we have -- we think, to progress transparency of essence, emissions, by country, by product, by operated/non-operated, all that has to be put on the table because when you look at it, you benchmark and you improve. So again, tax transparency is a requirement for the society. So next week, probably the beginning of next week, in the same time, we work hard today in many parts of the company in recent months. There will be a new tax transparency report, which will be disclosed where we'll publish what is called the CBCR data, which normally are delivered by a company like TotalEnergies only to fiscal authorities in an undisclosed way. It's a private way. But there is a new European regulation, and we have decided not only to anticipate, but to enlarge the regulation. And we'll publish all the CBCR reports and data for all European countries of course, for the non-cooperative countries in line with the open legislation, but also for all the countries in which we have some attractive industries. So they are much beyond Europe. It's a very large report. So I know that some stakeholders are very keen for that. We were a pioneer with the EITI initiatives for many years. We have also, by the way, a very last Board, adapt I would say, a new -- not new because there was a fiscal policy in the company, but we have modernized it, I would say, and included some key principles, in particular, all the responsible tax principles promoted by the B Team we work together. So stakeholders are important. Of course, it's a matter when we said about sharing value, it's a matter of value creation and how do we split it. So we have there a chart on which way that the value created, added value which was created by the company in '21, almost $50 billion. Where does it go? It goes to first to invest in the company. Last year, it was around 30%. But I would say the image, which was there, is more or less stable. It was also, of course, to our employees, which are first, I would say, stakeholder. The company would be nothing without them. More than 100,000 employees. 65,000 of them are shareholders. So there is a good connection that the shareholders are employee in the company. We make annual programs for -- dedicated to employee shared -- reserved shares. Since I am the CEO, I'm a strong believer, but the best alignment is to have employees being also shareholders. So they represent 6.8% of the capital. 20% of the value creation is going through them through social charters. It increased a little last year, plus 3.4%. it will increase more in '21 -- in '22 because we have -- also we have to cope with inflation. So we have a more generous, I would say, policy for people in '22. So results were better. We have also, of course, our shareholders, dividends and buybacks, which represent around 20% of our allocation of added value. And last but not least, this is a share of taxes. And these ones, by the way, I want to -- it's a comment because I know there are debates about taxing super profits of energy companies. But in fact, we are already quite highly taxed, not maybe by the consuming countries but by the producing countries. The figure which is there of $16 billion that we paid last year, more than $11 billion. By the way, we have paid to non-OECD countries. So it's a contribution to, I would say, the development of these emerging economies. It was only $6 billion in 2020 when the price was very low and the COVID was there. So in fact, and the added value, jumped by $10 billion, $11 billion. But most of the addition of added value was, in fact, paid back to producing countries. So our industry is, in fact, heavily taxed in particular, when you have super profits and the producing countries are taking most of it. Last element about shareholders, we have and maybe it's a new information because we didn't have all the records. In fact, we have 1.3 million individual shareholders. It increased in the last 2 years by 150,000 new share individual shareholders, 150,000 it's quite remarkable. Maybe during COVID, people were locked down at home, but they were using their savings to invest and they invested since they've invested heavily in TotalEnergies, which is delivering good dividends. So these guys are quite smart. They represent 13.5% of capital. And clearly, our policy is to try to develop that trench of our capital. Of course, our Board is really there to support all our sustainable ambition. We have -- each decision is judged by the Board taking into account the environmental, social challenges in each investment file, we spend some time on it, and we explain what we will do, we will cope with the sustainability of the investment for the -- it's, of course, very important for the long-term benefit of our shareholders. Our Board is diverse, very, I would say, a very high level of attendance, more than 99%, so very present. And clearly, we spent a lot of time on, I can tell you, strategy in climate, an annual seminar of 2 days and more sessions each time we need in order to have the same understanding. For example, this year, in '21, we invited [ Fati Berole ] to explain to the Board the net-zero scenario, and we had a very interesting debate. So that's a committed Board. The Board, of course, is trying to -- is at the core of the strategy, implementing the strategy, in particular, on the capital avocation framework, which is of course, a fundamental element of the Board decision, which is to allocate our capital. So this does not change. You know that slide for several years. We are consistent. CapEx, we maintained a discipline. We'll spend $13 billion, $16 billion next 3, 4 years until '25. In '22, we gave you a range. In February '14, '15, no change. The dividend, of course, we want to have -- we have a, I would say, a long policy of supporting the dividend by underlying long-term cash flow growth. We announced that the '22 quarterly interim dividends will be announced by 5%. Russia does not change anything to this commitment because it's supported by more than only some few Russian projects. So I think we are, as I said, resilient and we will manage that -- this crisis from this perspective. The balance sheet is strong, gearing at under 20%, I think Jean-Pierre reported to you 15% by end of '22. So we have some margins there to maneuver. And of course, the share buyback, sharing the surplus of cash flows. Nothing new to say as well. We are committed to execute a $2 billion on the first half, and then we'll see for the later with our results and different events what we will decide for the second half of the year. But it seems that the price are quite and even higher than the assumptions that we had in mind when we set that first target. So maybe we were right not to announce a program for the full year for the benefit of shareholders. Board also is asking us, and I think it's also important to share that with you, regularly to present some benchmarks on our ESG performance. Why benchmark? Because it's a way to improve. So we present this benchmark, and we analyze them in detail with the Board, not only, by the way, on our oil and gas peers but also with the utility peers because they are different companies, not exactly the same, I would say, challenges, but it's important, it's interesting, as we want to go from being an energy company, it's not becoming a utility. Let's be clear. It's both. Taking the best out of both categories, I would say. And you can see as we position ourselves on the different benchmarks that we are sharing with you. It's a little busy in this slide, but there are a lot of benchmarks. Maybe it's an area of improvement for investors to have more, I would say, a global ESG benchmark. It will help probably. You can see that we are generally very well positioned compared to our oil and gas peers. We have some few gaps compared to utilities. Sometimes we are better. But again, for me, what is important and reason was, I attach an importance is that for me, it's a tool to become better. And so we analyze the gaps -- and when we have a gap, we see, okay, why other companies are doing better than us. If somebody else can do it, there is no reason why TotalEnergies will not do it. This is, I would say, a principle of management, which led me in managing the company. Of course, the Board also wants to align and it's also important, between our strategic objectives and transformation of the company, the capital allocation, the ESG and to integrate in the way we incentivize the management on the ESG criteria, but also, of course, of the financial elements. So you have there on this slide, I will not give you the details, just you will see that more or less the ESG criteria, either the CO2 emissions or diversity, of our other elements represent for me, 40% of my own, I would say, variable pay for senior executive it's 30%. And as well, it has been integrated since last year. in the way we evaluate or we allocate the performance share at each every 3 year. So this is something in mind. So I think 30%, honestly, we think going beyond might be tricky because also it's a matter of financial performance, which is important. We know that sometimes some shareholders have some debate about the right criteria. So we think that we are there at a right level among the best practice within the industry. So that's also important. So I think we have -- we can conclude now this presentation. It has been 1 of 30 minutes of a lot of information. But I invite you to read the sustainability and climate progress report. It's published today. It will be on Internet site, it should be now, in French, in English. Thank you to the teams who have worked hard during the last 2 months. When you issue a new report, it's a lot of work of many levels of the company. But again, it was a commitment of the Board last year at the AGM when we submitted the resolution. So the commitment has been fulfilled, not only by publishing, but by the content, I would say, of the report. And we have taken a new -- another decision, which we think is that, in fact -- in the same way, we submit to your vote, I would say, our financial accounts. We will submit to the vote this progress report, which, as you have understood today, is not only what we have done, but it's also the opportunity for us to enlarge the ambition. You have seen a lot of small signal view. So this report is a way for us to progress. And this is, I think, what our shareholders should expect from us because a new scenario came like the net zero emission, new technologies progress, customers speaking now about e-methanol for shipping. Nobody was speaking about that 1 year ago. So we need to take all that on board, and to have, I would say, some strategy, not to change but to integrate these elements. And again, I hope that what we have done, we will be convinced that yes, we are building a multi-energy company, which will be sustainable, profitable and which we get to net 0 by 2050. And the last slide, which is a summary, we'll not comment it. It's just -- but sometimes during our road shows, we need to have, I would say, a demonstration of what is TotalEnergies, why is it a compelling investment case. We speak about -- I think when I describe to you at the beginning of the -- of my presentation why we invest in electricity, why we think electricity might -- will become for us a high return business, in fact, I just repeated all the fundamentals of our business model. Low cost is just fundamental. We're in our commodity business, integration, and to take benefit of the integration, leveraging our balance sheet. And also, of course, which I think is very important to continue to have an attractive and sustainable policy of return to our shareholders and also to our stakeholders with a shared prosperity. So thank you for your attention. I will -- no, I think I will invite by the way, Jean-Pierre in case you have some financial questions or more, to join me with Helle during the Q&A session. In the room here, unfortunately, and I hope it's the last time that we do that, I would say, not in presence. Next time, if COVID permit, we should meet all of you in end of September in New York for the next presentation, and having more time with all of you. But today, we'll open the Q&A session and thank you for, again, your attention.

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

I had 2 questions, if I may. The first one relates to your 5 MTPA of long-term LNG contracts from Russia. if a further tightening of sanctions, forced you to call force majeure on that supply, how would that change your exposure to spot LNG pricing and the $800 million of cash flow sensitivity to $10 change in NBP? And secondly, if you had at some point to let go of your Russian business, which is about 10% of capital employed and free cash flow, it would take about 2 to 3 years of growth from the rest of the business to make up for that loss. In terms of dividend, should we assume that over that time period, the dividend would most likely remain flat as the rest of the business growth makes up for that potential loss?

The first question, I think, is proportionate. So we produce -- these long-term contracts represent 5 million tons, global long-term contracts represent it now in terms of production. So it's -- no, the contract is a downstream. The production itself is not 5 million tons for Yamal. It's only 2 million tons, I think. So 2 million tons out of 20, so it's 10%. So you have the math, it's around let's say, $100 million. So it's not major in terms of sensitivity. First point. On the -- yes, it's a fact on the second one -- my answer is no. My answer is no. We have been in Russia, that does not mean that we -- again, as you have seen, the impact on the cash flow is around, I think, we said $1.5 billion per year. So it represents according to our plan, 1 year, I would say, of increase. 1.5 year of increase. We told you that we will increase our cash flow by $1 billion per year during 5 years. So that would represent 1.5 year. So maybe one of the year would be affected, but not the global idea. But we will increase the dividend. And again, I repeat to you what I just said that, that the first 5% that we have announced we will deliver to you for '22. So not the answer to you is it might affect 1.5 year out of 5, but not more. So again, for me, the impact of Russia is more about in this LNG business, we will clearly stop and loss of opportunities. But if I remember, I was emphasizing 1 or 2 years ago, I remember the presentation, that we have a portfolio of energy opportunity. It's much larger than what we want to deliver. And we will continue clearly after what is happening there. We are working to see if we could have another opportunity in the U.S., maybe which is not today in the portfolio. So that's the flexibility of what we could have in a large company like us.

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

Thank you both for the transparency answer showing the stories of your Ukrainian color. I actually have 3 questions, if that's okay. The first one, mainly in terms of Russia, there is still cash flow being generated from there. Is that going into a ring sense of pounds or how are you actually giving with the cash that's coming directly from Russia at this stage in terms of continue to sell the cargoes from Yamal? The second question was on the business between your scenario and the IEA net zero pathway. Are you seeing challenges, whether it's in terms of finances or from banks or from investors? I think that the strategies aren't exactly aligned. That actually the endpoint is to say that when the IEA talks about not needing new oil and gas budget, does that become difficult? And this final question, if I could, for Namita, in terms of the -- you talked about the supply chain and working through that, looking at the human rights and forced labor and child labor, are you seeing a difference in terms of -- is there anything that's been uncompetitive so that the cost base has increased significantly for Total versus others that aren't acting in the way that Total is?

On the first one, again, it is, I would say, moving answer because in this story, sanctions are changing regularly and the Russian legislation are changing as well regularly. So yesterday, we have some statements from Russia that we should pay in ruble. I don't know, by the way, if it's only for the pipe gas. LNG, in fact, today, at this stage, to be clear, it's offshore accounts with dollars. But then we are very -- we are analyzing all the elements of sanctions to know if we can have access or not. So I will be prudent. Today, I will tell you that the 1.5 -- the $1 billion and $1.5 billion I mentioned last year maybe will not be in our cash flow for '22. If I'm prudent, does not change a lot because our cash flows when we will announce our quarterly results with the increase of the oil price and the gas price, I think it's quite little compared to, I would say, the revenues and the cash flows we generate today. So I'm prudent. I tell you maybe nothing, and then we will report to you. But again, my instruction by the way, to my teams is no way not to abate. So it's our lawyers have an instruction to be super prudent and not to get anything which could be then an issue. But I think, by the way, I'm not alone. All my colleagues which continue, in fact, to manage contracts with Russia are probably the same issue. On the second one, I mean, honestly, and you will see in our report, I invite all of you to read a paper, which has been written by Helle and approved by myself. So we are co-responsible. But what we -- have we evaluate this high-end net 0 scenario because, yes, it's becoming a reference, it seems for many people. And again, I was clear. Yes, we agree with the landing point. But frankly, the trajectory which says that the demand, the supply and the demand for oil because it's -- I would say it's a normative scenario, which is starting from the end and trying to design the beginning. But this scenario says that the demand for oil will decrease by 30%, 30%, 30 million-barrel of oil per day between 2020 and 2030. Frankly, it is not at all what is happening on the planet. Before the Russia war, people were thinking we'll reach 100, maybe with 99 this year. But frankly, we are not there because -- so that's the problem of this scenario, it's a landing point, but not the trajectory. This is why into our assumptions with Jean-Pierre, we have taken to evaluate the impairments of the assets we didn't follow that because this scenario told us that we should be at $40. Are we at $40 today? No, because the demand is strong, the investments were not enough. So I mean, that's for me as a limit of this scenario, and I would encourage frankly, banks and investors to have their own view. By the way, I was yesterday at the IEA Ministerial meeting today, I was listening to the speeches and the IEA themselves when they -- it's about short-term targets of oil and demand, you can read that quarter after quarter. They don't speak about a decrease of, I would say, 3% next year, but an increase. So I think that's the difficulty. Honestly, it's not an easy -- it's not a criticism. It's a very difficult task to translate I would say the landing point in 2050 in a trajectory because, by the way, when you read the IPCC report, there is not 1 trajectory. You have 70 different trajectories. So all that needs, and I think it's there that we need to share with you all the information, the assumption we take and to convince that yes, we are on the way. And I think from this perspective, my best answer to investors is, look, our objective for 2030 are very compatible with the society. And I think Helle demonstrated you, I hope you are convinced as a minus 40% is aligned with what the net 0 countries want to do, but we are in line with that. So minus 40% on Scope 1 and 2 in the next decade, we are on the right path. And that's for me, like for methane, minus 80%. This is what the EU wants to do, and I think we are there. So if we deliver this next 10 years from an emissions point of view, I consider, we consider that we are on the right pathway. Now, on the last point, let's be clear. There is no, and I don't want you to misunderstood the presentation of Namita. I'm not astonished by your question. I was a little worried. Namita told you, we go through a very professional process to identify all the salient issues. It's very fundamental, not to either to be blind. We need to look. We know that in the countries where we were, we could have some risks, there are reports. So -- but obviously, this is very strong. And I can tell you that shy labor or forced labor was one of -- when I became CEO, one of my main motto in the company, there is no way for me to accept it. Of course, it requires a huge effort to ensure it because we are a large company. We have, I think, 150,000 suppliers and value -- and supply chains, which are at different levels. But I don't have any case which has been, I would say, and it will come to my office and to -- for sure, we have no case which of these type of issues that I can mention to you.

Next question comes from the line of Biraj Borkhataria from RBC.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes, we can hear you now.

Okay. Sorry about that. I've got 2 hypothetical questions on your strategy and your emissions profile. The first one is you've put out these various targets that give you the framework on carbon intensity and absolute emissions reductions. I'm just wondering, if you were to do a transformational acquisition, let's say, in the upstream or in LNG, would you look to rebase your targets to reflect the change in portfolio? Or should we assume the targets stay the same and you'll operate within that sort of framework -- the current framework over time? And then the second question is on Slide 27, really interesting analysis and the benchmark even on there. But I guess the question I have is, society is not mobilizing at the pace that you are mobilizing. Particularly if you look from your reference point in 2015, your emissions are down 15% to 20% to 2021, and just like global emissions are up over that period. And the question is, what happens if we get to 2025 and your emissions are down a further 20%, CO2 emissions are up 5% or 10% globally? Your plans are in line with society. How should we think about whether your plans change or not if you're sort of accelerating much faster than wider society?

Okay. Thank you for both questions. And the second one, no offense, I mean, clearly, the target is clear. We wanted to -- it's not -- don't take it in the reverse way. We wanted to because we have this question about are your objectives aligned with the Paris Agreement? It's difficult to know because Paris Agreement does not translate in any one trajectory. So we wanted to test and we asked, I think, 2 independent third-party Columbia University Energy Center and Carbone 4 in order to assess to tell us, okay. Take the countries which are net zero, which claim they are net zero, what is a trajectory for 2030? They told us they gave between minus 29%, minus 39%. It depends exactly which country [indiscernible] forget. So we think the 40% is the right target, and for me, this target will remain. So minus 40% will remain. Maybe, again, it's not a question of base, it's a question to be able to, and we have time to act. So it's not a question to change the target. So minus 40% will remain. If we make a major acquisition, maybe at the end of the day, the Scope 1 and 2 absolute emission will be higher. Obviously, we have more assets, it will be higher. But the minus 40% for me are the right base, and that will maintain the minus 40%. Whatever the people who would acquire the company would be -- who would acquire would have done before. Because I'm convinced that the recipes we apply today in E&P, in Refining & Chemicals to lower the emissions, we can apply to any assets. So I'm also convinced, by the way that most of our industry today is embarking into this type of program, so it's not moving. It's not -- we will not change this strategy because of society, we just tested. So minus 40% for me is a valid target. It's demonstrated now, we'll keep it. And we'll see if over -- if it's moving but in a positive way, not in a negative way. Yes, we should. It's true that we said we are more ambitious in same time. But I think an oil and gas company, when mobilized, a lot of engineers, a lot of capacity. We have mobilized all our teams around lowering our emissions. It's becoming as important as profits in the company because for me, it's the right to operate for the company and so we are delivering on that. So again, my answer to you is no further objective or prescription of Scope 1 and 2. On Scope 3 is the same because I'm not -- I'm sure we'll not make a major acquisition in the downstream after what I just explained to you. But then a comment on the lifecycle carbon intensity targets. The more I'm looking to it, the more I think it's a strange target because, in fact, if I want to below of it I have to introduce more and more and more electrons in the targets, which may be not -- is not the best business. So for me, absolute emissions, Scope 1 and 2 or Scope 3 oil emissions are fundamentally and the reduction of absolute emissions are fundamentally more important. By the way, this is what the climate receive. It received the emissions, not the intensity. So the carbon intensity is more reflecting the evolution of the portfolio and the strategy, in fact, you can evaluate it like that.

Next question comes from the line of Chris Kuplent from Bank of America.

Thank you, everyone, for the work that's gone into this presentation. I was going to ask 2 questions, but could I just, first of all, ask for a clarification, Patrick, on your answer regarding those hypothetical transactions, disposals or acquisitions. Of course, whatever you acquire, you're trying to reduce emissions on as well. Are you saying you're not going to move? Just to clarify, you're not going to move your absolute targets, whatever you do in terms of M&A? So that's just a quick question for clarification. My other question was going to be on your CapEx program. Of course, these numbers are not new, but can I take it that all your 2030 targets that you have highlighted here again, some of them updated, you think are broadly achievable within the same capital framework, assuming all the things we know about regarding inflation, et cetera? So I don't want to make you -- don't want you to give us a CapEx budget for the rest of the decade. But is my assumption correct that these numbers are in this presentation? Because you think roughly with this kind of outlay, your 2030 targets are achievable. And the last question, please, if I may, on the oil indexation of your LNG sales. You mentioned that's about 80%. How confident are you that the oil indexation itself, considering that for the first time in many years, hub prices are significantly above Brent index prices? How confident are you that this oil indexation can actually gradually shift its slope to Brent higher and ultimately give you a higher CFFO sensitivity to oil medium-term?

I'm not sure to have understood the last question. I understood the beginning but not the end of your question, in fact, but I will try to answer. There's the first one, no, no. Let me clear what I just say. Your question was about major M&A. A major M&A, I said we will maintain the minus 40%. This was my answer. I didn't tell you, but the absolute value at the end will be the same if it's major. What I can tell you, if it's a small M&A, we will be absorbed. By the way, you have clarified this year. We have acquired between 2015, where we had no CCGT because of the new strategy we have acquired, I would say, some CCGT for around 5 million tonnes. We have included them in the same target, so we didn't tell you we have -- so it's absorbed. So I consider that the absolute value will remain the same for, I would say, minor moves including a new strategy like this one. If it's a major one, the absolute part could grow. But of course, we will have to -- but the minus 40% will remain the same. Yes, the CapEx, again, my answer is, of course, the highest inflation today, we observe it. But what is sure is that we will not enter into the same cycle that we had in 2008 or '10 or '11 when, because inflation, when we accept the inflation, we spend more and we explore the CapEx, and then we have breakeven going back to I don't know where. I will not do that. I will not create a new crisis. So consider that, by the way, we -- you have probably noticed that the [ 1315 ] become [ 1316 ], so that's the right guidance for the next 5 years, and I think it's fine for the next 10 years. But again, my commitment is until '25, but it's not something major because we must resist to launch projects if they are costly because they are profitable to [indiscernible]. So we continue and we will continue to approve projects based on $50 per barrel and $100 per tonne of CO2. The only assumption which might change, which will change, we are very transparent with you, is the gas price in Europe. I think what is happening is fundamentally changing our assumption for the gas price in Europe. Before, we are seeing Europe as a huge, I would say, low-cost Russian gas and so a cap being given by the U.S. LNG, $6, $7. And then suddenly, you forget all that because the gas in Europe will be LNG. So we are probably more -- and this is a difficult year today, above $10, but at $5, I would say, just to give you a range. So that might change, and we are revisiting positively some few projects that we could have in the North Sea, by the way, and I see that some European states are asking us to see if we could produce more domestically. We are revisiting if we have what I call short-cycle projects, which could be profitable at $10 per million BTU and not at $5. And the teams of Nicolas are working hard. This is a contribution as well, I think, to energy security supply in Europe. So this is the point. The last one, I mean, what I think is that I think the buyers will be keen to continue to give contracts linked to Brent because we see a lot of volatility on these GKM or things like that. So [indiscernible] is more stable, Brent is probably more stable today than I would say the GKM index. And my view is that -- I mean, I'm not sure to have understood the full question. But I think that for me, it's -- the behavior of the market should not change. And what we can hope, of course, when we'll market, for example, Papua LNG is that we'll have more than the 10% or 11% Brent. We are raising the bar. And I think the customers are probably more open to that. So the question will be not to go again to 15% or 16% because this is not sustainable. It's 10%, 11% we are low, 15%, 16% to high, where is the right level? This is the debate we have today with customers. I hope...

That's exactly where my question was heading.

Next question comes from the line of Alastair Syme from Citi.

Patrick, in the slide, you had sort of justifying the capital into power generation. You have the comment there that you expect a positive outlook on power prices, given market complexity and -- are you prepared to disclose what power price assumptions you're using when you look at these projects? I'm sure it depends by country, but any sense of magnitude of high prices that you're expecting or embedding? Just the one question.

So I will not answer because it's an element of competition. And you know today, when we bid on some tenders, there is one element which could make a difference, which is what is your assumption in your -- in your electricity price, so I will not disclose that. It's -- I think it's part of the volatility of the issue. We are not to be -- to assure you, we are not super optimistic neither. We are quite reasonable because it's a market we enter, but -- so we are very reasonable on the assumption we use. But what we were trying to explain is that we have a view, a positive view. We are bullish on the fact that this price will go higher in the future. And so investing today, if we are reasonable like with my $50 per barrel on the Brent, which is a reasonable assumptions, if I'm reasonable with EUR 50 per megawatt hour, it's not the assumption, just to give you an example. I think there is some upside to be done. So it's the same approach, I would say. And again, I really think that this -- what we have developed as a way to be profitable oil and gas would give us better returns on electricity. But -- and by the way, it's more complex because these are local markets. So it's not one assumption that we need to take. You have a European market, you have a U.S. market which are the main ones, which are, I would say, deregulated, where the assumption is [indiscernible]. But the U.K. is not the same, but Continental Europe, so we have different views, and Australian market. And then you have, of course -- and all what I told you about keeping, by the way, 70%, 30% -- 70% PPA, 30% market is valid for the unregulated market. When we develop a project, I would say, in South Africa or in Angola, obviously, this will be linked to a PPA because there, there is no capacity to take much upside, but the PPA are generally higher than in the unregulated markets. Helle wants to add something. So...

I just wanted to emphasize what Patrick said, which is I don't -- really don't think that we are, I would say, betting on sky high prices when we look at our power projects, so don't get the comment wrong, really. We've discussed in the past that we are rather a cautious company when it comes to making assumptions about future prices, so I think the $50 Brent reference is a good one. Patrick, think of us using the same cautiousness of discipline as we look at the projects in power. But on the other hand, we are very much, I think, improving our ability to assess the upside that we can get from power projects, again, country by country, by taking a little more wholesale market exposure instead of fixing everything through PPAs or having floors and caps on those PPAs. That's really the message, Alastair.

Next question comes from the line of Lucas Herrmann from Exane.

Thanks for what's been a very clear presentation. Two questions, if I might. The first one in regards to the reduction in carbon emissions of 30%, essentially from the Downstream business. Can you break that down in any greater detail? I guess I'm asking how much of it is going to come from you ceding share or ceding position organically, for want of a better phrase? And how much potentially comes from actually divesting positions in the Downstream business? And secondly, Patrick, just coming back to the CapEx number of EUR 13 million to EUR 16 million now. Do you want to provide any color as to why you've decided to add EUR 1 billion to your CapEx budget? I mean, it's pretty understandable given the environment and perhaps given everything you just said on short-cycle projects. But just some greater color if possible.

Yes. Okay. On the first one, you know already we have the minus 14%, it's pure organic. There is almost no divestment in it. Which doesn't mean -- again, it's a question of -- for me, it's arbitrage within the low-margin sales. We have -- when we embarked into this transformation, we dig into, by the way, what is our Scope 3. And we made, I would say, an evaluation with the marketing and services team, so that's -- but I would say, to segment the sales between different markets. And of course, and we discovered there are good sales, I would say. And there are a bunch of them in particular, I would say, in the form of B2B of what we sell the -- massive. The bulk sales, which we are, in fact, manipulating a lot of volumes with not much, you know, and so it depends where it happens. When we have some niche markets, could be profitable, but not everywhere. So we have decided, okay, we need to arbitrage on it and we continue, and so that's part of it. Having said that, this strategy could lead as well, I will be honest. So that there are many countries where we consider that it's not fundamental. It's always an arbitration. And we have also the EU against rest of the world. Helle wants to add something.

Yes. So this was for Scope 3. My comment, Lucas, were just on 1 and 2. If you look at the table on how we did in '21 versus 2020, that is a combination of. We don't break it all out. But a combination of organic in-house, carbon footprint reduction projects in line with the chart we presented. Of course, the fact that we did divest a refinery in the U.K. and also the fact that we decided to transform our Grandpuits Refinery in France into a zero oil platform, and so all that participated to the Scope 1 and 2 reduction in 2021.

But to be clear, it's not against the downstream, it's just that we want to anticipate the fact that in particular, in Europe, there will be declining market. The strategy of the car manufacturers are quite clear. They all announced more and more electrical cars in Europe by 2030, 2035. So it's our duty independently of Scope 3, I would say, our strategy to adapt the downstream footprint of the company and not to be with stranded assets. So we prefer to anticipate, that's part. The EUR 1 billion short cycle CapEx which was introduced, it's not new. We have some wells which have been launched in Angola, as I said, or in -- with which we're stuck. I would say we have a portfolio of short-cycle wealth, and we just recently approved to connect some additional phase on CLOV or projects like these ones. But again, I was telling you that we might have new projects coming in North Sea, so adapting to that. So I think it's -- for me, that's the best way. It's not to increase suddenly the base of organic CapEx, but to better to try to -- and what we call short cycle is a payback of less than 2 years. So I think it makes a lot of sense with these high prices to allocate some additional CapEx. Jean-Pierre wants to add something.

By the way, it was a CapEx that we have cut in 2020 to face the COVID crisis, so it makes sense to mobilize these assets when the prices are favorable.

Okay. But the message is in essence that this is allocation towards short cycle opportunities that look more attractive in the market that we're in today and more likely market long term, given everything that's been happening in the world of gas.

No. At this stage, no, again, it's more short cycle. But again, as I said before, when we spoke about LNG, obviously, there is a new European LNG market. So the view we'll have on the U.S. projects might be different. And that's why I maintain all our targets on the LNG growth because it's not Russia we'll get out of the portfolio for the future, but a lot of opportunity will arise. So it's a question of reallocation of CapEx. When we said to you no more capital allocated to Russia, this capital will go somewhere.

Next question comes from the line of Henri Patricot from UBS.

Yes. I wanted to follow up on the question on CapEx given the greater focus on energy security. You've talked about gas and LNG markets in Europe. I mean, are there other areas where you could see an acceleration, a more favorable environment? We could perhaps raise some of the targets in terms of capacity that around the new molecules or on the renewables side.

No. You have probably noticed in the presentation, but we have identified the new molecules. We try to be -- before, they were a little hidden between the liquids and the gas. We say, no, it's a new molecule because this is part of the ambition by net zero, by the way. It's an improvement when we analyze the net zero and, okay, also because for me, one of the news of 2021 was the fact that we've seen some customers in some shipping business. So even the change of position in Germany, but maybe not EV by 2030, but later, so the e-fuels or e-gas is becoming something new. So I think this is maybe -- if I have some -- if this may be an area, it's an area where we could allocate more capital. By the way, the 5% we mentioned in '22, we are not at 5%. But biogas, for example, we make a small entry in biogas. And where we see the demand for biogas today, and we have the conviction that it's not -- that supply will be short of the demand, if it continue like that. So let's invest. So the problem with these type of projects is that one project is not a big amount of CapEx, so we can make a lot. So this is probably the new molecules, an area where you could see some acceleration in terms of allocation. But one point on this one, we need to have the demand in front of it. We'll not invest early. But we are -- it's a topic on which we will probably take initiatives in future months, and we'll come back to you and you will see -- hear about us. Yes. Helle?

Yes. I just wanted to add, of course, Henri, I don't know if that was also a part of your question that this new plan that Europe has just come out with because of the war in Ukraine about repowering Europe, and as part of trying to get rid of Russian pipe gas, there will be a huge opportunity for LNG. But Europe is also saying, of course, more renewables as quickly as we can and more of these new molecules. So I think our outlook on where we want to grow for the next 10 years is only reaffirmed and validated by what's going on right now, unfortunately, you may say.

Yes. Even if I think the new molecules, it's probably better to produce them where electricity is low when in a continent where electricity is high. So I share the objective. I'm not sure to share the location of the objective. So because we have to think to the long-term profitability, just profitable of these assets. So...

I know. So it's always a trilemma between security, affordability and of course, being graded, and we are in the middle of that.

Yes, exactly.

Creating new dependencies if you import or have higher prices.

Yes. Excellent. One element that I forgot to mention which, maybe, it wasn't underestimated, is the CCS investments CapEx. We just showed you in the presentation that when we made all -- to be net zero by 2050, we must have -- we must, I mean, compensate somewhere 100 billion tonnes of CO2. So we have the issue which might consume, or e-gas might consume part of it. In particular, if they go to chemicals and all value chain, but we have also the CCS. So one work we are doing is just we put more than 100. It's clearly more than 100 that we need to invest in the year. So probably we'll raise the bar. We will be -- we will come to you in September with a better evaluation of what we need to invest in order to scope with that objective is. But again, we speak about maybe going from $100 million to $300 million. It's not -- it does not change the global framework allocation framework -- allocation framework we deliver to you.

Next question comes from the line of Irene Himona from Societe Generale.

And thank you for what looks like a very rich sustainability progress report. You announced this very interesting new target for a 30% reduction in Scope 3. I think it's the first time we have seen such a specific Scope 3 target by a major energy company, and I had 2 related questions. Firstly, Scope 3 does not really depend so much on you, more on regulators and policymakers effectively mandating that the users must decarbonize. So my question is, isn't the risk a bit too high that demand simply lags behind supply and decarbonization due to weak policymaking, and then the risk is you missed that target? And then secondly, the related question, this is clearly an increasingly litigious society. Shell was told to do things on their global emissions by the Dutch regional court. It used to be a U.S. phenomenon. It's now spreading over here. How do you assess the future risk of litigation against TotalEnergies surrounding, in particular, the delivery or not of this new Scope 3 target? In other words, is that a risk for you, Patrick?

I think the second question, there is a risk for everybody, I would say. For us, for all the oil and gas companies. Honestly, I understand why Shell make an appeal. I think it was announced yesterday because I don't know if the Dutch has decided that it is so precise, is able to say if that's the target. And frankly, I can understand that we are liable on all our Scope 1 and 2 emissions. Scope 3, as you said, it's together with society. So customers, by the way, again, if I was reading yesterday's SEC regulation, there is an interesting statement in what they proposed is that they consider, they ask companies to disclose the Scope 3, but companies will not be taken liable for the Scope 3. So I think it's an interesting statement by the regulator. The U.S. regulator make it clear, and I think it's just fundamental to me. And so honestly, I consider that the part of what the that charge has been too far is Scope 3. I mean, Scope 3, I mean, again, otherwise, we stop [ to Scope 3 ]. But in our case, coming back to your question, I think I want to repeat what is the strategy. It's fundamental. TotalEnergies, we are a company where we see integration. But in fact, we are -- we have a downstream. We sell. We refine more than what we produce in terms of oil and condensates. That's a fact. So we are not so really integrated with respect to integration and or analysis. And in particular, these businesses where we are, I would say, when we analyze our footprint, it's in Europe. So you know refining in Europe, I had a chance to manage that and [ Bernard ] is managing that. It's a tough business. And even this year when you have high gas prices, even if the spread seems to be good on one side, the results is not so high. So I mean, that's a tough business, and we have decided to engage. We were prior to be #2 in refining in Europe. But unfortunately, the volume does not make the results. So for me, this is a strategy which is deliberate to lower our footprint. I think some of our peers have done the same and we'll continue to lead. And the idea is to reline the refining footprint or the production to be really integrated. The marketing is the same story. Of course, the marketing, for me, is much larger. It's also heavily in Europe, I think we have more or less, if I remember, it was 60% of this company was in Europe with the marketing. I know adding 60% of our volumes in Europe in a continent where you have a clear indication by the policymakers, by green deal 2030, 2035, they want to diminish the consumption of oil products. It will make little sense to continue to develop or even to maintain, so we have to prepare. And I want to anticipate. So for me, the Scope reduction, maybe I'm in a different position than my peers. But you know, by the way, the reduction we announced is on oil, Scope 3 oil. And because everybody is asking us Scope 3. And so Scope 3 oil, yes, we can announce and I'm confirming, but we have minus 30% reduction. If we are ahead of the group of the peers, that's not bad for us. Having said that, we're also very transparently explain, and this is why Scope 3 is complex because it's customer story. But you know that globally, if you take oil and gas as we have a deliberate strategy to increase our gas sales because of LNG globally, we don't -- our target is to be under 400 million tonnes by 2030. So -- but as we know that we cannot deliver on the role. We set to ourselves a constraint, but the constraint is, for me, the results of a deliberate strategy to realign upstream, refining and marketing, and in particular, to accelerate in Europe. Because in Europe, the policy makers have delivered a clear strategy, and we need to take that into account. Otherwise, we don't do our job properly.

Next question comes from the line of Martijn Rats from Morgan Stanley.

I had 2 somewhat related sort of questions. I wanted to pick you up on some of the comments that you just referred to earlier when it comes to the European natural gas market. I think it's very clear that there is a growing ambition to be in Europe of Russian natural gas. But I was wondering from the position where you're sitting and your knowledge of the market and the industry, what your observations would be about that plan in terms of the obstacles that there are? How long this would take the investments that need to be made? The conditions that need to be put in place for this to happen? The role that Total could play in this? Could you say a few words about how such a large sort of target could be realized? And then in addition to natural gas in Europe, I also wanted to ask you. It's sort of a related question about the middle distillate market. It strikes me that the middle distillate inventories are pretty much very low in inventory and inventories are pretty much falling very, very fast, almost everywhere, including in Europe. And the idea that we -- well, it sounds dramatic to say we could run out of diesel looks a little perhaps over the top, but it's not far off. And I was wondering from your perspective, what the impediments are, well, to let your European refining system simply run harder, produce more diesel? Is that a matter of crude availability, natural gas prices and the availability of hydrogen in the system? How do you see the sharp shortage of middle distillate, particularly in Europe, playing out?

The second question, by the way, the refining system in Europe is not really delivering a lot of middle distillate. It's an old system. We spend a lot of money to improve this production as economic results are not very good. So I hope that the tools we have developed in some refineries will benefit from this tight market. But I think for me, the point is that at the end of the day -- and this is, I think, the difficulty. It's not my job. It's the European leaders will have to decide. But sanctions on liquids have a little effect except increasing prices. But because in the end, it's liquid. So liquid can move around. So if there is less -- if you don't take Russian middle similar distillate, we will take from another part of the world. I mentioned Saudi Arabia for us, but it will move. And then probably, Russia will sell their middle distillates to other countries, emerging countries, which face high prices and which will have a discount. So I'm not sure it's very efficient. But again -- so I'm not so afraid. I think that at the end of the day, these type of policies are pushing, I would say, the diesel price up. It's not bad for refineries. So should we change our strategy on refining in Europe because of that element? I say no. I mean, because fundamentally, again, there is another perspective, which is the decarbonization, the green deal and all that. And what I heard from the European leaders is they want to accelerate, not to decelerate because they consider that all these renewable electricity is a way to be -- to increase the security of supply. So on that part no. On the first one, we are already have strong position. And we -- I remember we bought all these regas capacities from Engie. It was considered it was a negative value, which was a liabilities. Today, Stephane and his teams are quite happy. They are full. Should we increase? And I had the discussion, by the way, with a high political person in the continent. But why don't we have -- he asked me, why don't we have all these regas terminals today? I told him it's normal. Why do you want private investors to invest in regas terminals when you explain weeks after weeks, month after month, but you don't want natural gas? I mean, that's the point. This regas terminal in Germany, I think I've heard about it for 15 years since, I mean, this -- the company taking longer than that, but LNG. Nobody has taken the risk because you had a debate, you have a political policymakers, saying gas is not good. So certainly, we wake up. So what we told them we are able to bring back some floating storage units that I'm ready to bring back. We have 2 in our fleet. If European -- but we need some help because if you have a procedure of 3 years or 2 years to connect, they will say, maybe it's better to -- I exaggerate, but it seems that it's for semis 15 months, which is too long. So we can do that. We are ready to contribute, of course. We have gas to bring. We have LNG to bring. And to be clear, to Europe, as of today, we are dedicating because the market is high. So it's naturally that the LNG is coming to Europe. So we can do -- if we have more capacities, we'll fill the capacities. I think as Stephane's teams have looked to all possible capacities in Europe. Most of it is full. Then should we invest in onshore regas terminals? It depends, and it's back to something else, which is missing in Europe, which is long-term contract. And we need to open a new debate, I think, with the policymakers. I think a continent which is in deficit, with a lack of storage, with a lack of regas terminal and with no long-term contract, we will face a crisis regularly. So I think if it's linked to long-term terminal, why not? We are looking to build a regas terminal in Vietnam. If we have, beyond the terminals, some long-term contracts, we could apply the same policy to Europe. I think -- but of course, now it's a matter of urgent decisions. I think the best for Germany is probably to engage the government themselves, public funds in order to get this regas terminals as quick as possible. And to take -- to enact the right regulation so that the procedures are short term, I think. It will take probably 2 to 3 years to build them. But again, yes, European, as I said before, it's LNG. I'm convinced that this will be a good market for LNG. We have a strong position in the U.S. We remind you that we were, last year, the largest exporter for U.S. LNG. It was going last year to Asia, I know it's going to Europe. It's a question of arbitrage between the markets.

Next question comes from the line of Jason Gabelman from Cowen.

One, just a clarification on the Russian exposure that you talked about at the top of the call. The Arctic 2 LNG project, I understand you're not putting more money into that project. But does the project itself, at the project level, have enough access to financing to be completed absent any additional contribution from Total? And then the 2 questions I had. First, on the inflation that we're seeing, particularly on renewable power inputs. Are you able to pass that through in terms of the PPAs you're agreeing to moving forward? Or do you expect to see potentially, as a result of the inflation, some degradation on future earnings power of that project -- of those projects? And the other question was just on the marketing business, and appreciate the insight into reducing oil emissions via rationalizing some of the marketing footprint. What do you expect that to do to marketing earnings over the next 5 to 10 years? I think you previously discussed about 100 million years of -- or sorry, $100 million per year of earnings growth. Is that something you could still achieve? And if so, how do you achieve that in light of shrinking the footprint?

On the last question, the marketing is a good business. They managed to deliver this additional $100 million. I think the question from us, it's linked for me to the capacity to grow quicker, the non-fuel sales. In fact, it's back to -- I know it's a number of cup of coffee that we need to sell, but it's -- this is a business on which we can probably improve. We have a target to improve by 1% per year. I think the non-fuel sales, that's a source of -- because the margins are better than on fuel, by the way. So if we -- it's a question that we have strategically. What is the best way for us in order to improve these non-fuel sales? And this is some which -- it's a topic on which some marketing under supervisory provision of Thierry Pflimlin is working hard, and so we -- that's the point. So I confirm the target. On the cost inflation, PPAs when you negotiate, you negotiate with a certain cost, you try to -- you hedge your module. So of course, it's dangerous for me. The question is that, I think, probably the early movers on the corporate side is to sign some fixed-price PPAs will be a little more complex. There are some lessons learned, but by the way, we recommend to at least be a little more careful. It's better to go like the LNG. The parallel is good to have a sort of slow to absorb part of inflation or part, by the way, of the upside part of electricity. So of course, there is competition, but I think this was a -- it's a new mature market. Probably some great companies, we have large comparisons. We are very lucky to sign quicker, some lessons learned. So my view is that -- because there is one advantage when you made a solar plant, it takes 2 years, maximum 1 year, 2 years, so it's a short-term project. So you can deliver, you can easily buy. One thing we are doing at a corporate level for TotalEnergies on which we work between the renewable team, the procurement and the OneTech organization is obviously to anticipate on the -- on purchasing some modules. Yesterday, we approved on the U.S. project to anticipate a large inventory of sales and modules in order to be, I would say, to protect from the inflation. So I think it's a strategy that a company like TotalEnergies can deploy in order to manage this cost inflation. Having said that, another remark, I think there is a lesson there. We must also develop alternative sources of modules [ outside of ] China. There is -- it's not possible. And I think we are working, by the way, I can share that with you in India with Adani to see if we could develop, I should say, another source of supply for solar, maybe wind in India together in order to have alternative because it's competition, which is the answer to cost inflation. Otherwise, we'll be stuck if we depend only on one country. Then on the first one -- Arctic 2, yes, is important. So to be clear, Arctic 2, what is the status, so we will be transparent. The GBS 1, which is the first -- we have what we call the Gravity-Based Structure. We have 3 trains, each -- on each train. So first, GBS, which is built in [indiscernible] is, in fact, completed at 98%. This one. So then it has to be towed to the river, but I would say 90%. There might be some tricky points where -- I know that I can tell you that all the equipment providers are checking today, and it's difficult task because sanctions are moving as well to understand what could be delivered. Nobody wants to -- everybody wants to take risk. Part of that is provided from China, but part of the equipments are coming from other parts of the world, including Western countries. So this 2% might be -- so this is a point on which -- so I would say this one, I would say, has a high chance to be completed. Then we are the #2, which is today at 40%, so it's more work to be done. The Chinese part is moving forward when you have all the rest of the equipment. And the third GBS did not begin because you have only, in more months, you have only 2 quantity -- the 2 dry docks. So it should begin after the first one left. So this is the status of the project. In terms of financing, we put $2.5 billion of capital, in fact, and we have a financing was put in place where, in fact, most of the financing should come now from China, but there is also some Japanese tranche, the Italian tranche, I think will not come. So it's possible that the project will call for capital, but we will answer no. Then you have in the shareholders' agreement, some procedures. I mean some, I would say, pure system, and so this is a matter of discussion. It will be a matter of discussion between TotalEnergies and the other participants, and so I cannot answer you, too. This is why we have decided because there are uncertainties and pooled reserves means 90% of chance. I have 90% of chance to do GBS 1. Do we have 90% of chance to do GBS 3? I would -- I'm prudent. I want the accounts of the company to be on the prudent side from this perspective, so I -- we discussed and with the Board, we decided not to book this. It does not mean that the project is stopped, but that's a bit -- by the way, which we impair the project because it's a -- project can move on. Then I think you will have -- we have clarity, months, weeks after weeks about what can be done, really, and what is the position we should adapt. For TotalEnergies, are very clear. We will not put a new -- a single dollar from TotalEnergies SE in Paris in any new projects in Russia.

Last question comes from the line of Bertrand Hodee from Kepler Cheuvreux.

Yes. Thanks for the presentation and a very rich road map and detailed road map. I think it will take me a while to digest all those new data. Two quick question, a follow-up on Russia. You have a 5 million tonne LNG offtake for -- from Yamal and one from Novatek portfolio. So I understand that if there are sanction against Novatek or Russian LNG, you will be able to call for fourth merger and stop offloading those volumes. But I was wondering whether you have already presold or hedged some of those LNG volumes going forward? And that could generate potentially a negative impact? So happy if you can share some color on that. And the second related question on Russia, and I fully understand your principles of conduct for Russia. But have you considered stepping down from Novatek's Board? I understand there were -- there was a Board recently. Can you share some of the discussion inside the Board if you can? And lastly, so nothing to do with Russia. Can you disclose the CapEx that will be dedicated out to 2030? I don't know if you have a precise number, but a kind of a range that you will be dedicated to your Scope 1 reduction in both upstream and downstream?

The last question, I will -- if somebody has the answer, I don't have it. But honestly, it's not hundreds of millions of the last Scope 1 and 2. I mean, it is more -- I mean, I prefer not to answer to you, we'll come back. It's linked to, by the way, at a certain point, which CCS do we need to have, which is more expensive to capture part of it. So I've seen in front of me, Nicola and Bernard, so you can work hard during the next 6 months to answer to Bertrand. Maybe not for 2030, but '27 because we work on a 5-year business plan. So -- and we can take it next September. No. But as you said, you have many data, you want all this more, but first digest all the data, and you will know better of TotalEnergies. So the second question. Again, Novatek is not a sanctioned entity. I want to be clear, Novatek is not a sanctioned entity. Gennady Timchenko, one of the shareholder is a sanctioned EU person and U.S. person. He left the Board. First, it is clear that the Board members of Total might be one day becoming, I would say, silent or sleeping people. Sleeping people. That's possible. It is clear as well, but they don't -- with the last board, they are not participating at all to any decision linked to any revenues going to shareholders, for example, dividend, so we abstained for that. Your question is a good one. We'll see. And for me, it's linked to the potential evolution of the sanctions. And so again, it's -- Novatek is a different entity than Rosneft or Gazprom. So it's not a state-owned company. It's not the Russian state. It's a privately owned company which has been built by one man, Leonid Mikhelson, starting from nothing. It didn't take any state assets. It's not this type of company. So I want to tell you that -- and we continue, of course, to be in contact with Leonid Mikhelson. He is doing an excellent job, so these guys are not responsible for what has been decided by the leadership of Russia. But having said that, the Board and myself, our duty is to protect TotalEnergies, and so we'll -- again, we'll tell you what we will do. But again, it's not a sanctioned entity and it's not a Russian state company which, of course, for me, make difference, some difference compared to over situation from our peers. Then -- and by the way, I'm not myself because I never -- by the way, my own policy, which is to be never a Board member from any of the companies in which we have participation just to protect TotalEnergies. For me, there is no way for the Chairman and CEO of TotalEnergies to be a Board member for any of the companies in which I participate, just to protect as well TotalEnergies. On the 5 million tonnes, yes, of course, you know our policy. Our policy is that we hedge 1 year in advance, so the volumes are hedged. That's true. That's clear. And so that might have an impact, it would be a financial impact if we have to stop that. The hedge will have to be, I would say, deliver. It represents in Europe around $2 billion, but again, month after month is diminished. By the way today, the only way I remind you, this long-term contract, the only way for us to exit the contract is a force majeure linked to sanction. Otherwise, we have to perform the contract. And by the way, for me, it's not only a question of money. It's a question of principle. And in any country of the world, we are -- we expect the rule of law. There is a rule of law. So we can maybe -- leader of Russia, it does not respect the -- It does not respect the rule of law for sure, but it should not impact all the behaviors of all the economic players in the world. So let's respect each other. It's a fundamental value of the company. And it's a question of credibility for us on other markets because we have customers in many countries. We are not only democracy in this planet. So we have to -- also to behave, I would say, with some values, and honoring contracts is a fundamental value of this company. And I think it's a -- the core of a global corporation. So having said that, we will assume the consequences. This is why we stated clearly, any sanction we will apply whatever the consequences are, and all that is manageable at the level of corporate. By the way, the hedge and the margin calls are already somewhere in the working capital out of the treasury of Jean-Pierre. So maybe we'll not see the margin calls coming back, but it was in the working capital of the 31st of December. So in terms of treasury, it's no more in our hands. But let's see, and again, it's -- we spend a lot of time, but it does not depend on us, and we will obey to the policymakers whatever the decisions are. It's clear as well that Stephane and his teams do not have the right at all to hedge anything on the Russian volumes for '23, just to clarify. So it's limited to '22 hedging, if there is an issue.

Thank you for the transparent center.

I'm very transparent because the only way I think for everybody in this crisis is to be transparent. This is a value. And I think rather than letting you trying to guess what is the impact on TotalEnergies. Again, my message to you, the main impact for TotalEnergies is that we stop having any future LNG growth in Russia. But again, we have a large portfolio, and we will redeploy our capital on other opportunities, looking for more. And I think this is the advantage of a global cooperation with a large balance sheet and a large footprint like TotalEnergies. We can face the crisis in the same way by the way, that we faced the COVID crisis 2 years ago, where we maintain like -- compared to other players, we maintain the dividend through the crisis. And I think you can observe that maybe we maintain our stance on Russia not being taking, I would say, quick decisions, emotional decisions before we think that we need also to be responsible of all the assets we have in our hands for everybody, our shareholders, our customers, our employees. And it's not by being too emotional, but we'll solve the issue. I think this is the last question from Bertrand. So you will have time to digest, no. And thank you, I think, for your attendance to all of you. Again, I really hope that the COVID did not come back, and that end of September, we will meet all together in New York. In the meantime, I'm sure I will have the opportunity with Helle and Jean-Pierre, who will embark into a series of road shows in the coming weeks to meet you and to not only to answer too many questions about our strategy, sustainability climate, but also about Russia. And I think, as I said in my speech, it's very important for us that all shareholders will give us some feedback because it's part of -- the Board is also asking me, which is what we should -- they are -- they own the company, somewhere -- so we need to understand what we do is in line with the expectations. The message we receive until now is that they consider that we have the asset keeper. It's a whole. And then, of course, to protect the company is the upper part. Thank you. Thank you for your attention, and see you soon to all of you.