TotalEnergies SE (TTE) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good afternoon, good morning, if you are connecting from the U.S. Welcome to TotalEnergies 2024 Results and 2025 Objectives Meeting. We are today in the city in London. I hope that you will appreciate that we brought the sun in London today, and you will appreciate also the view. For the people who want to follow us live, you can connect on our website, totalenergies.com. The program today, we will start with the presentation of the 2024 results with Jean-Pierre, and then we will move to the outlook presentation for 2025 with Patrick. The presentation should last 1 hour. And then we will move to the Q&A session, where you will be, of course, able to ask all the questions you want. We have, as usual, a dedicated line for the people who could not attend, and we will bring from time to time questions online. We should be finished around 4:15, 4:30. But before to start our journey today, I invite Stephane Michel, our President, Gas and Power, to come on stage to launch the meeting with a sequence on safety. Stephane?

Thank you, [ Renaud. ] Good afternoon, everyone. As you are aware, TotalEnergies is building an integrated power pillar. And like any other industrial activities, this new development is coming with new HSE risk. One of them is the risk of fire and explosion while operating our battery energy storage system or BES. In the industry, around 15 incidents happen every year. And the most serious one was in March last year in Japan, where several firefighters were injured by an explosion. Within TotalEnergies, our last incident occurred in 2023, hopefully without injuries. But since then, we have worked on the design specification of batteries, and we have done so with our battery affiliate, Saft, which happened to be of the top 5 best supplier in the world. Thanks to their know-how, we've been able to include new innovative safety barrier that you can see on the slide by adding early detection of thermal runaway to prevent the fire to spread over, by adding as well water fire suppression system in addition to the passive one and by adding extra ventilation to avoid the risk of explosion. In addition, we are implementing now systematically a dedicated training for firefighters on how to fight a battery fire because it's quite specific. Thanks to all that, we are confident that we can develop our multi-gigawatt pipe of batteries while protecting our people, of course, and by limiting as well the risk on our assets. Thank you.

Jean-Pierre Sbraire will be on stage -- you have the first 1...

Okay.

On safety, sorry. That was for the battery, and that's a good transition for our result in 2024. The first one is on the result on the [ 3, ] as you can see on the left side of the chart, the fact that we are continuing progressing and we are actually in the lower, if not the best of our peers in terms of comparison. That's one on the left part of our activity. And then you have the right part of our activity where we have introduced the comparison as well on integrated power [ peer, ] comparing our results to the one of the peers in that industry, where you can see that we have been able to progress from above 1.5 in terms of trade in 2020 to 0.78. And that's today something which is very at the leading edge of what is done in that industry of integrated power that has been realized by working on the technological risk, as I've just mentioned in the previous slide and as well working on behavioral safety with 2 things. One, the way we operate our facility; and second, the way we build because we have a huge exposure to construction maneuver. That was for safety. Thank you, Jean-Pierre.

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

Thank you very much. It's a real pleasure to be here with you tonight today to present the '24 results and the main achievements of the year. So as you know, our strategy, balanced and consistent strategy is anchored on 2 pillars. So oil and gas, mainly LNG on one side and integrated power on the other side. We have made great progress in '24, executing this strategy and anchoring free cash flow growth on both pillars, oil and gas and integrated power. So let's start with the main highlights of the year 2024. On the first pillar, oil and gas, we started production at 5 major projects, so Mero 2 and Mero 3 in Brazil, Deep Offshore Brazil, Akpo West in Nigeria, Anchor in the Gulf of Mexico in the U.S. and Phoenix in Argentina. We launched 4 major oil projects, GranMorgu in Suriname, Atapu 2 and Sepia 2, another 2 offshore projects in Brazil and Camino in Angola. We progress in Namibia, where we are working towards sanctioning a first oil development that Patrick will come -- will give you more details later on. In LNG business, we further derisked our exposure to spot gas prices in accordance with the strategy we presented to you during the CMD in New York in October. That means that we continue to successfully market our LNG volumes by signing several new contracts middle term with Asian buyers, representing in 2024, more than 6 million tons a year, mostly with an oil indexation. And secondly, we increased upstream gas integration in the U.S. by acquiring interest in dry gas assets in the Eagle Ford play in Texas. We launched also the Marsa LNG project in Oman, and we became a significant gas operator in Malaysia through the acquisition of 100% of SapuraOMV, which provide us LNG pricing exposure and a platform for future low-cost, low-carbon growth in terms of production. So in summary, on this first pillar, Oil and Gas, we anchored our upstream production growth forecast of 3% per year through 2030 in a cash accretive way. And we record a proved reserve replacement ratio above 150%, one of our records in TotalEnergies history. Moving now to the second pillar, Integrated Power. We were very active in 2024 in that business as well. You see on the slide some of the achievement of the year, the main highlights of the year. I will come back on that later. But very important, we reached our cash flow target to have a cash flow from operation above $2.5 billion. We are at $2.6 billion in 2024. And I think, obviously, it's a very good achievement. Let's move to the figure. We believe that the company delivered once again solid results in 2024. In a softer environment -- price environment compared to the previous year 2023, the company generated almost $30 billion, $29.9 billion of CFFO from -- coming from all the different businesses. And you see here the repetition of this cash flow generation segment by segment. First, E&P contributed very strongly to this performance with the cash flow generated in 2024 at $17 billion, benefiting from the oil project start-up I already mentioned in my introduction. Integrated LNG business performed with a cash flow at $4.9 billion. It was negatively impacted by lower average LNG prices compared to the year before, low market volatility during the first 3 quarters of the year that impacted gas trading results. But on the positive side, you will see that the Q4 results shown LNG trading performance back to the level of the first quarter 2023. I will make a zoom on that later. Integrated Power continued its track record of strong performance through the year with high cash flow year-over-year, $2.6 billion 2024. Downstream cash flow reflects, in fact, the global weak margin environment, especially in Europe, with refining margins down by almost 45% year-over-year after the 2 exceptional years we had -- we benefited from in 2022 and 2023 in relation with the Russian crisis. And we suffered as well from operating -- operational issues on some of our refineries, especially in France and in the U.S.; however, you can see that the downstream cash flow remained above $6 billion at $6.1 billion, demonstrating the resilience of the company integrated downstream model. Let's move to the results themselves. So you see that we posted a net income -- adjusted net income at $18.3 billion and an IFRS result at $15.8 billion, taking into account mostly the impairments we recorded in the course of the year on SunPower and the exit on some African -- some exploration leases in South Africa in relation with our exit from these rocks, fair value adjustments and inventory valuation effects. In terms of profitability, we had a return on equity at 15.8% and ROCE, return on capital employed, at 14.8% in 2024, which makes TotalEnergies once again the #1 in terms of ROCE among our peers. In terms of investment, you see the figure. So we invested $15.8 billion, so in the range we gave to you between $17 billion and $18 billion. On the shareholder return side, we continue to increase the dividends with a distribution of $7.4 billion in 2024, and we executed the $2 billion buyback program per quarter, so leading to $8 billion buyback if you consider all the quarters 2024. Globally, that means that the payout for 2024 reached 50%. Very important to notice that this attractive shareholder distribution was achieved while keeping a very strong balance sheet. You see here the gearing we have end of the year at 8.3% or around 9.5% when normalized, why? Because this figure of 3.8% benefited indeed from positive impact in the working cap for $1.5 billion. So in summary, we maintain fortress balance sheet while increasing the shareholder return in 2024. On the investment side, we remain disciplined in 2024 as evidenced by this figure, net investments being within the guidance of $17 billion to $18.8 billion for 2024. So we continue to be highly selective in the projects we sanction or we invest in selecting low-cost, high-return, low-emission projects and projects resilient through cycles. Patrick will come back on that later for 2025. As you can see with the pie, TotalEnergies has a balanced growth strategy with 1/3 of the 2024 CapEx allocated to new oil and gas projects and $4.8 billion to low-carbon energy, mainly renewables, integrated power projects for $4 billion. We continue to be active with portfolio management using selective M&A to enhance -- to high grade, in fact, our portfolio. 2024 net CapEx consisted of $16.4 billion of organic CapEx, but also $4.6 billion in acquisition and $3.2 billion in divestments. So once again, that means that we continue to be very active on that side, M&A side. Previously, I described our focus acquisition on the upstream side, sorry. And on Integrated Power, our acquisitions are focused on key deregulated markets such as the U.S., the U.K. or Germany. I will come back later on that as well. 2024 divestments included in the Upstream, our exit from Brunei, so the sale of our E&P subsidiaries in Brunei. In Downstream, the closing of the second part of the deal with Couche-Tard with the sale of retail station in Belgium, in the Netherlands and in Luxembourg. And within Integrated Power, several divestments in line with our strategy to farm down our projects at [ Sude ] when the production is ready to start. Just to give you 2 examples, so solar and battery project in the U.S. that we closed in last December and 50% of our interest in Seagreen projects offshore wind in the U.K. Let's discuss now of each of the business segment in more details. 2024, I think, showcase the depth of our portfolio, upstream portfolio, full of attractive growth opportunities that are translating into project sanction, delivering high return and robust reserve replacement. You have here the list of the main projects sanctioned in 2024, 4 main projects on the outside and 2 projects on the gas and LNG sites. This project anchor 3% per year accretive production growth through 2030. And very important to notice that we have already derisked project costs by signing largely lump sum EPC contracts on that project. The chart on the right-hand side of the slide highlights TotalEnergies compelling investment case. We already have the resources to grow underlying production and cash with ultimately support -- that will ultimately support dividend growth and attractive shareholder returns. Saying that differently, no need for us to make large acquisitions, large M&A to fill any potential gap. Given our consistent strategy, we continue to explore and develop the upstream business. We have maintained a strong and consistent proved reserve life index of around 12 years since 2018. You see here the index for 2024, 12.4 years. It was 11.7 the year before in 2023. I think it's clearly in contrast with some of our peers that posted a decline. That means that Exxon and TotalEnergies are leading the peer group by a wide margin in terms of portfolio longevity with a key advantage in the depletion business and support cash flow into the next decade. Also, you have the figure for proved and probable reserves, which are now at 8.5 years. Saying that differently, we are not a shrinking company. We have been replacing reserves at much fast -- we are replacing reserves at much faster rate than we are depleting them and at a faster pace compared to some of our peers. In 2024, our reserve replacement was a robust 157% of production, up from an already strong figure it was 141% in 2023. Vast majority was done through organic growth, which translates into a strong organic reserve replacement ratio of 150%. These reserve replacement figures demonstrate clearly the depth once again of our portfolio and that we are successful to replenish it year after year. Let's move to Integrated LNG business. As shown in the chart on the lower left, the results end of the year, so for the fourth quarter were at the highest of the year and benefited from improved market conditions, so meaning more volatility, higher price. Adjusted net operating income increased 35% sequentially and the results were back to the first quarter '23 level at over $1.4 billion, the 2 blue bars you see on the chart on the lower left. This performance was driven by 6% higher hydrocarbon production for LNG, an average LNG price above $10 per MMBtu and ultimately, LNG trading results that were able to capture higher market volatility. Although this rebound during the fourth quarter, overall, full year 2024 results were negatively impacted by low gas price volatility due to the mild '23-'24 winter, high stock level, particularly when at the start of the year, low demand and limited trading opportunities due to globally a balanced global LNG markets. So what are our expectation or anticipation for 2025? As you can see in the top left chart, a colder '24, '25 winter and low end of season storage is expected. The end as well of the Russian-Ukraine transit agreement to use the pipeline to import Russian gas is also a factor that will contribute to tighten the market. Tightness in Europe should lead to more competition between Europe and Asia to attract or to capture additional LNG vessels, and it will result in increased arbitrage opportunities for flexible cargoes between the U.S. and Europe and Asia. This should benefit to TotalEnergies given our dominant regas position in U.S. and our large position as an LNG exporter in the U.S. We are #1, as you know, in that matter. Moving now to Integrated Power business. 2024 was a continuation of our multiyear track record of performance in that business. It's definitely a growing business. You see here the progress that we made between '21 and '24. We have grown Integrated Power into a business that is yielding strong results. We are able to increase by nearly 4x the cash flow over the period '21 and '24, reaching once again, our objective to have cash flow in 2024 above $2.5 billion and ROCE increased from 7% to 10%. That was the target we set for the year. In 2024, the company further enhanced integration in the regulated markets, flexible asset acquisitions. So we acquired CCGT in the U.S. and in the U.K. throughout the year for 3 gigawatts. And in addition, we increased storage capacity through the acquisition of a major player in German vessel market called Kyon, the middle of the year. We also have been active in consolidating our renewable portfolio as part of our farm down strategy in Integrated Power I mentioned in my introduction. We successfully farm down the equivalent of 1.2 gigawatts of renewable and battery projects resulting in $1 billion of CapEx being recycled with more than 10% return. On top of that, the company acquired VSB, it's a German-based renewable project developer with a sizable 18 gigawatt pipeline, mainly in Germany, France, Poland with the closing expected this year. In addition, in 2024, the company strengthens its differentiated market offering of clean firm power. For example, you have the 2 example. We capture a premium pricing for 3 terawatts of clean firm power to large industrial and big tech companies and through the acquisition of Kyon. You see the table. So operated Scope 1 and 2 emissions are down 36% compared to 2015. And an absolute level, you see the figure. Scope 1 and 2 on our operation, our operated facility in 2024 were at 34 million tons compared to our target of being less or having less than 38.8 million tons of CO2, in fact, reflecting year-on-year 2 opposite movement, 2 opposite trends. So on one side, a further decline in our operating oil and gas facilities, reflecting emission reduction initiative undertaken over the last couple of years. And in the other hand, the impact of the interrogation of the new CCGT I mentioned to you, the acquisition we made in 2024, particularly in the U.S. and in the U.K. On the methane side, the 15% reduction target we have to reduce the methane on our operation by 50% between -- versus the level we have in 2020. This reduction target was achieved a year early with 2024 operating methane emission now minus 55% compared to 2020 levels. We achieved this, thanks to continuous decrease in flaring and fugitive emission in particular, in E&P. And you have here the example of Gabon with the elimination of routine flaring 2 years early than anticipated. And we will continue to reduce operating methane emissions, and we set a new objective for 2025 with a target of minus 60% compared to reference 2020. To achieve that, you have different action that will be taken. First, the decision we made last year to deploy continuous detection system across all the operated assets in the company. That means that in 2025, you see the figure, more than 13,000 equipment for continuous methane tracking will be developed and deployed and additional technologies improvements will be implemented to further reduce methane emission. You have here some example to switch gas instrumentation to air or to replace flat tips. And last but not least, we reduced our life cycle carbon intensity by 17% compared to 2015, which is better than our initial target of 14%. I think this indicator reflects, as you know, the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of energy sold and which is, in fact, which matter in our industry. This indicator translates perfectly the evolution of our energy mix and the implementation of our strategy, more energy with less emission. And the final slide for this section is the benchmark. So the positioning, relative performance of TotalEnergies compared with our peers on 4 important metrics, so the proved reserve life index, the upstream production cost, the ROCE return on capital employed and the dividend per share growth. As already mentioned, our strategy has remained consistent, and it allow us to deliver strong results and to remain in the competition very well positioned. Starting with the upstream, our reserve life index increased, I mentioned to you already from 11.7 years in '23 to a very robust 20.4 years in 2024. We're on par with ExxonMobil and ahead of the remaining peers, reflecting once again the depth of our portfolio. We have the resources in hand to continue to grow production and to grow the cash flow, the underlying cash flow for years to come. And once again, we do not require big M&A to do that. Moving to the cost to upstream production costs. TotalEnergies has consistently reported the lowest upstream production, OpEx per barrel with 2024 figure below $5 per barrel equivalent of oil equivalents. This is, of course, a competitive advantage that we want to keep, allowing the company to be resilient even in a low price environment. In terms of profitability, we are pleased to report that in 2024, again, TotalEnergies ranked #1 in ROCE among our peers. It's the third consecutive year that we achieved this performance, demonstrating once again that it's possible to be the most profitable major and to be a leader in the energy transition. On the dividend side, so it's the last graph, the dividend growth -- dividend per share growth, we are positioned #2 at 25% growth over the last 5 years, which reflects our strong commitment vis-a-vis our shareholders. TotalEnergies maintained, as you know, the dividends between the COVID crisis. It was not the case of all our peers. Some of our peers decided to cut the dividend at that time. And our dividend growth is underpinned by the company deep upstream portfolio, strong free cash flow outlook and balance sheet with gearing once again at 8.3% end of '24 or 9.5% after normalization. And with that benchmark, I leave the floor to Patrick for '25 outlook.

Thank you, Jean-Pierre, for this '24, which people say it's less than before, but the 2 years before were exceptional. It's for us, the first largest results in the history of the company. So it's still a good year. And in fact, again, I said that in '23 and '22 after the exceptional year, we were entering into a new era because the balance sheet was completely deleveraged. And the succession, in fact, of the last 3 years, it's easier for us to implement the strategy we have decided because we went in a world where we have more, I would say, capacity to deploy it. And that's what we've done in '24. Jean-Pierre said several times, we have a deep portfolio of plenty of good opportunities. What I will show you is that in '25, what we want to do is not only to grow but also to have -- to deliver additional free cash flows, which are the most important. That's why we have this -- we selected this title, delivering an accretive growth and resilient shareholder returns. That's the program for '25. A few words about the markets. So in fact, the old markets, people to me is volatile. I think when you look at the figure, it's a little stable. In fact, this line is quite flat, in fact, okay? It was flat in a higher way last year than this year. But in fact, we can say that with 2 different, in fact, environment in '23, still a very high increase of the demand because the end of the COVID recovery in China. In '24, the full year, markets were more bullish about the demand. At the end, it's only 0.8 million barrel of oil per day, but all the expectations on the supply side did not materialize, in fact, as it was anticipated. And finally, at the end, the OPEC+ has done a good job to maintain this price, I would say, above $70, $75 per barrel. And I think for -- when we look to '25, I expect IEA, not us, we have no experts say plus 1.1 million barrel of oil per day oil demand, which will be higher than '24. By the way, it's more or less the average of a little less than 1% that we observed on 20 years. Good news from '24, by the way, is that the increase of oil demand in India was as big as the one in China. So it's -- we have a new engine of oil demand growth in the world. India is moving to more infrastructure, more manufacturing business model than the one we had in mind. On the supply side, of course, '25, strong supply from non-OPEC and the U.S. policy, U.S. administration is willing to push its production up. So the U.S. -- the U.S., by the way, liquid production in '24 increased by 0.7 million barrels of oil per day. And when we spike by the way, about liquids, it's, in fact, more NGLs than oil because, in fact, most of the liquids production in the U.S. is coming from the increase of the gas and all the associated NGLs. The oil is increased by 0.3. We plan to less 0.2, 0.3 for 2025. So that's to have that in mind. Of course, Brazil and will come back, we will benefit from the growth in Brazil, ourselves. Guyana as well. We are not there. We do not intend to be. We are next to Suriname. We'll see the market, of course, will be a debate, I think, in '25 between the U.S. administration and OPEC+. So it will be an interesting debate to observe. We have been a little cautious in the way we approach the year. We put all the results, I will show you all the forecast based on $70. We are more $80. But if I can do it at $70, I could do it even easier at $80. So you will have some sensitivity in the presentation. On the gas, it's quite different. I think last year, the year '24, and we had a very good, I would say, weather during last winter or mild weather. And in fact, we ended -- we exited the winter 2024 with high inventories. And in fact, the full first half of the year suffered, I would say, some quite low volatile -- low volatility in the gas markets, around $8, $9 per million Btu for TTF during 6 months because there was no really need to replenish full storages. The storage were high. And that, of course, did not help, by the way, the capacity, not only the price, absolute price was lower, but also a lower volatility, which did not help our gas trading to perform. For '25, in fact, as you can see, weather in Europe, at least is much colder, and you have another element of -- which is not only weather, but you have also the fact that now the transit for Ukraine from Russian gas has been stopped. So it creates another tension in terms of supplying gas to Europe. And what we observed is that today, we are already at this stage, 2 months only -- still 2 months before the end of the winter at a low -- begin to have depleted quite well the storage. And it's reflected in the forward curve, second quarter '25, the forward gas is at $16 per million BTU. So it's above $15 per million BTU. So we anticipate clearly, I would say, more volatility in '25, higher prices. People could say there will be additional LNG capacity. It's quite limited. In fact, when we make the math for '25, we evaluate that around 20 million tons of new capacity coming on stream, which means 5%. So it does not change the fundamental trend. And you will see probably, again, more competition between European buyers, which need to replenish their inventories and Asian buyers. So of course, for us, there are 2 spreads which are fundamental, TTF minus Henry Hub. And then you have the TKM minus TTF because it's the arbitration. And with the volumes we have in the U.S., our regas capacity in Europe, of course, we can benefit from more arbitration when these spreads are going higher. That's what we expect, we anticipate, again, we'll see for '25. So 2 different environment clearly for gas, LNG and oil. Our KPIs for '25, our objectives I speak about growth, but then, of course, growth is not enough. It's -- we need to deliver more free cash flow, and it's more volume, more energy, less emissions and growing free cash. So globally, our energy production, when I compare the oil and gas and the electrons, we grow by 5%. So we'll contribute to, I would say, a global supply all the people of this planet, 5%, more than 3% growth on the oil and gas and more than 20% growth on the electricity side, and we will reach more than 50 terawatt hour. 50 terawatt hour is halfway of the objective by 2030. And in fact, the electricity production from TotalEnergies will represent 10% of our oil and gas production in 2025. So it's -- for the ones who want to see of the transition -- is it March? It is. It is. It's reality. It's re becoming for me, a sizable business. And I would say the achievements in the last 5 years has been quite -- we are on the road map, and I would say, quite a success. So that's the key. Refining, Vincent will do its most with his teams to have a better utilization rate. I will come back. LNG sales above 40 million tons. We don't have new, I would say, LNG plants coming on stream. So we should be in the range of what we achieved, 40, 45. And renewable gross installed capacity, we set this target of 35 gigawatts by end of '25 in 2020. I will come back on it. We will be there at 35. We have 26 by end of '24, and we have exactly 9 gigawatts, which are being built today, 8.9, so maybe 0.1 will miss, but -- which are being built. So it's reality. It's not just an objective. It's a matter to deliver, of course, this capacity. But again, more and more, myself and the Board, we attach more and more importance to the production of electricity because at the end of the results more linked to the production, but the growth capacity of renewables. Less emissions, yes, we continue to make -- it's part of the, I would say, our global agenda. We need to produce more hydrocarbons, but with less emissions. So on Scope 1 and 2, we set an objective less than 37 million tons. Of course, we can say it's not ambitious enough, but we have one difficulty we face is that we have more gas-fired power plant in our portfolio that we acquired in 2024 in the U.K., in the U.S. where we run. And if it's colder in France, we'll have a higher utilization rate, so more CO2. What is important for us is also to see the decrease on the oil and gas operations. It was 35 million tons in '23, 34 million tons in '24 and should be to 33 million tons in '25. The methane, we are clearly a leader on that part. I think it's a very -- it's an easy way for me for the oil and gas industry to have a real contribution to diminishing this greenhouse gas. It is in our hands, it's stop flaring, it's stop venting, things which are not high tech, I would say, closed flare. So we have really embarked the whole company, and Nicolas is really very strong about it. It's a master of closed flare all over our installations, setting all these continuous equipment for detection of methane like for oil. And I think it's really -- we want to be visitors and the teams are motivated. And last but not least, because it's the marker of our strategy -- strategy of transition, which is the carbon intensity of the sales of energy, the word sales is missing there. We have reduced it by 17%. We want to continue to -- we are, in fact, quicker than on our road map because we deliver the -- of course, the electrons, which are, I would say, a decarbonizing part of our sales. But last but not least, all that because we want to grow the free cash flow. So we selected 3 indicators. I will give you some others in the presentation. Production costs less than $5, could be $5, but not -- so we don't need to have a big, I would say, cost saving plan, but we are permanently maintaining. And honestly, the fact that we have been able for the last 3 years, despite the inflation that we face to maintain this less than $5 is maybe not spectacular, but it is indeed. So other companies, of my peers have engaged in large cost saving plans. I think we've done it between 2015, 2020, we have the benefit. And today, we are strong with the team, are very efficient to manage this $5 per barrel. The CapEx, I will come back on it. I'm sure you will have questions, $17 billion, $17.5 billion as a range. And cash flow from operations more than $29 at $70. We've done $29.80. So it's quite an improvement. There is some free cash -- some additional cash flow. And the objective of my presentation will tell you where it will come from, in fact, so that you can certify that all the balance of all the business model and the strong returns we intend to deliver to shareholders are in safe hands, which is true. So by the way, the CapEx first. So we're true that we gave you a guidance of $18 billion, I think, in New York on organic CapEx. Today, we came with organic CapEx of $17 billion, so reduction and a global CapEx, including M&A of 17, 17.5 billion. Why? In fact, it's because we've done some few -- we worked, in fact. We have -- to be clear, all the growth accretive projects will be developed as planned. There is no reduction on any of the nice opportunities we have in our portfolio. So I'm completely on the line of Darren Woods from that perspective, no change. But at the same time, we have many projects. And so with Nicolas and we reviewed all of that with the teams, not to overstretch the team by continuing to invest in small projects, but focusing the whole company to deliver these large accretive projects. That's the program. So it led us, I would say, in the upstream to find $500 million of small projects, which at the end, it's 50 plus 50 plus 50, but it's a sort of dispersion. So refocusing because we know also that we have a workforce and we cannot have to do everything at the same time. So it does not impair the global production profile that we have to deliver to you. But it's a question of streamlining, focusing the teams being efficient in the way we spend our cash. The other decision we took to be -- it's more in the low carbon molecules, it's a little slighter. It was $800 million or $900 million in the report of -- $900 million in the report of 2024. It's only $500 million, the budget. We drew some lessons, and we consider today that it's better in some businesses like EV charging or biogas to have a leverage through equity. We don't see enough returns in all that, to be honest, in terms of allocation of equity of the company is full equity is not our priority, and we drew some lessons. It doesn't mean that we don't continue to do it, but we move to some business models with less capital intensity. It's not major. On the SAF molecules, we continue. In fact, the budget, we have this big project in Grand Prix with the Vincent team, which will end before year-end. So it's the end of the project. So we have done the top. So that's why also. But $500 million so low carbon molecules is reduced because we drew some lessons. It doesn't mean that we will not continue the SAF strategy. It means that we are allocating our capital and our equity in the best way. So that's the reason why we came down to $17 billion, $17.5 billion. We still have, in case of challenging market conditions, we have identified another $1 billion, which we could decide to arbitrate during the year. At this stage, it's not necessary. Power is at $80, $75, $80. So it's not a situation. So that's why I would like -- it's also true that compared to September, we continue to execute the lump sum -- the EPC contracts and a lot of them are largely lump sum. So we have a security, I would say, we have a good vision for 2025 of what we will spend. If there were overrun, it's not in '25, it's more in 2028. So I hope that we know. So that's also why we can -- we are confident. And of course, it's a good work. It's an effort, but continuing to streamline even more when you have a large portfolio of opportunities, I think it's a good discipline. So I announced to you a growth of more than 3% for the upstream growth, oil and gas. In fact, you have here the list of the new projects, the new productions, which represent 150,000 barrels per day. What is remarkable on this chart is that 6 of the 8 projects are already started. So it's mainly a matter of ramp-ups. We have 2 projects which have to come on stream, Ballymore in the Gulf of Mexico and Mero 4 four in Brazil, where, by the way, the operator is a little more optimistic than ourselves. So it's good. By the way, there are other characteristics on this slide. You have 3 gas projects, Fenix, Tyra and Jerun in Malaysia. You have 5 oil projects. It's important for the next slide. And by the way, [ Ototal ] is operating 4, Petrobras 3 and Chevron 2. So we rely on 2 other big operators, but nice operators. So I'm not -- I'm quite comfortable with this figure of 3% because it's mainly ramp-ups, and we are on the way to deliver it. Of course, it's more important. It's not only growing production, it's additional cash flow. And that's the good news and important news when we look to this file is that the growth of 3% of our upstream production, more than 3 will be translated in terms of cash flow from operations by an increase of more than 8%. In fact, this portfolio of projects, of course, the portfolio in Brazil, in the Gulf of Mexico are accretive compared to -- and that means that for the same amount of CapEx, in fact, more or less the same between the 2 years, organic CapEx, you will have an increase of $1.3 billion of free cash, 8% is $1.5 sorry, $1.5 billion of free cash, which will come from this growth. And I think that's a good news, of course, for -- that's why we have the Board, we are confident in the return to shareholders, and we have decided again to increase the dividend by another 7.7% and the final dividend by 7.6% -- so that's, I think, important, in TotalEnergies, its value over volume. It's not just growing, it's also delivering more free cash flows. One of the country in which is successful from this perspective, which will contribute to this additional free cash is Brazil. Brazil, in fact, is becoming in 2025, the #1 country in our portfolio in terms of cash flow from operations. It's new. You maybe did not notice. But in fact, since 2015, we have built a portfolio. Today, we have -- we will have 8 fields producing 180,000 barrels per day. So it's a successful story. It's quite interesting, by the way, to build such a position. The average margin at $70 per barrel is about $35 per barrel. And so in Brazil, we'll continue to invest because we have 2 other projects that we sanctioned in '24, Sepia 2 and Atapu 2, which will contribute to additional free cash in 2030. But the free cash from -- in '25 at $70 per barrel will be $1.4 billion and $10 per barrel would add another $400 million. So it's a strong position that we have built since 2015. Again, we operate [ La Porte. ] Petrobras is our operator on most of that. And we had access to -- when you look to the history of the cost of access to all these resource, it was, in fact, quite a good -- quite a low countercyclical cost of access. We did not discover them, but between the deals we've done with Petrobras since 2015, '16, then the TOR around where we participated with low competition, we managed to be -- it's a good demonstration on how to build a strong position and in a new country. We have also some exploration potential. We continue to look to that. The other country in which I want to touch a point because I'm sure we'll have plenty of questions is Namibia. So I prefer to preempt the questions. Our friends have made some decisions. And in fact, we know, to be clear, we share the same partner, and we have the data. We have some data sharing agreements between our friends and ourselves. So we can compare. It's true that we were probably, I would say, more lucky or slower or better, but they selected a block where clearly, the Venus discovery has better characteristics, petrophysical characteristics. The oil-in-place density, 10 million to 20 million per barrel of oil compared to the adjacent discovery, which was less than 5 million. It's a thick reservoir of 80, 120 meters. The permeability is not very high. I will come back on it, but it's 2 to 4 [indiscernible] compared to, I would say, less than 1. So all that makes, in fact, the commerciality of this discovery is achievable. It's in our hands. We are working on it. We have -- that's why we don't make any write-off because on the contrary, we want to transform this discovery into production. So probably we have there at the heart of the system on the eastern -- on this western part of Namibia Orange Basin. So there are some challenges. It doesn't mean it's not changing. Yes, the permability is not high. There is high [indiscernible] in our license is lower than the neighboring one, 500 against 700, so still again. That means that the challenge is, in fact, that you have -- as we don't flare, I remind you, we don't flare, no flaring policy. We have to reinject the gas in the low permeability metric. So that means that we have -- we cannot -- the plateau on which that we reach will be lower considering, but it will be a very longer plateau and a slow decline along the years. So we are designing today a project of 150,000 barrels of oil per day production. It's a very light oil 450 API, which is good for its value with a long shallow decline after the plateau. The other challenge is 3,000 meter water depth and 300 kilometers from the coast, but that's -- I would say that's not -- I mentioned them because -- but it's not really impacting. So our objective, and we are -- to be able -- I will not tell you less than $20 per barrel, but today, we are confident we can reach $20 per barrel of development costs. And also, of course, to continue to minimize our greenhouse gas emissions. We target 15 kilogram of CO2 per barrel on this development. So on this one, the plan is to move forward. We apply the same ideas than on Suriname, taking FPSO with contracting contractor standards, which have been quite efficient in terms of managing the cost. There are some ideas to optimize, by the way, even the design of the FPSO, the contractors. I don't promise you we will sanction it before year-end. I know it's an internal objective. I'm more about beginning first half of '26, but it's an important -- it's a good project and on which we are working. So it's good news for Namibia. And of course, for TotalEnergies. Our neighbors in the North, we are not surprised by the results because the last well we drilled Tamboti was not good. So we are not surprised by the neighbor in the north didn't make any discovery. It's quite consistent. We are in the center of this ecosystem. I would like to add that we have, in fact, some potential continue to explore. And so it's not in the end. Venus is a focus of, I would say, the engineering and project teams. But we have to -- we will drill I think, during the second quarter. The rig is under its way Marula, which is a big prospect, you can see south of Venus. We have another one on these blocks in Namibia, which is called Olympe on the block next block. It's a different thematic, but it might be -- it's an interesting exploration to drill. We plan to do it either end of '25, beginning in '26 because we would like to have a full campaign between Olympe and then continuing in South Africa. We took some positions on the Orange Basin on the South Africa side, where we have 2 prospects to be drilled. One is called Volstruis, and the other one, Nayla. So the permitting process in South Africa is a little longer than in some other countries. The idea is that in '25, '26 to have a rig coming and drilling these 3 exploration wells. So an important year for Namibia for progressing on the project. On integrated LNG, I will not come back on all the comments of Jean-Pierre will explain to you, and I mentioned it about the environment for gas price. Yes, we think we have -- we might have a better environment, not only in absolute terms, but also in terms of volatility if we maintain the performance of the fourth quarter. But again, we should -- and we -- the target is to come back to -- after a year where we are, I think, at $4.8 billion of cash flow to come back to target $6 billion, not more, but let's target $6 billion. And Stephane and his teams are taking actions. '25 is also a year for us where we have to progress a number of projects, LNG projects, because which will come on stream in '26. It is a case of Energia Costa Azul in Mexico and North Field East in Qatar mainly. Nigeria LNG '27 will be end of '26, so little impact on the '26 performance, but more for '27. So that's also -- as you can see, we have 6 LNG projects, which today are being on the way to -- are being built. And so this is, of course, another part of the execution efforts of all the teams of TotalEnergies. Last but not least, but I would say a lot has been done in 2024 by with, I would say, this strategy of securing some rent-related contracts with Asian buyers successfully. It has been done 6 million tons, a very good achievement. We will continue to work on it because if we have opportunities as we think that the market might be, I would say, softened by the end of the decade, it's a good way to take benefit of it if we have some good contracts, which are all related. So that's for this one. A word about integrated power. On this slide, there are only some few figures. I would say, again, this year, '25, we will reach -- the electrons production will represent 10% of the oil and gas production. So it's -- I think it's a good block on our road map, our 30 objectives. In terms of cash flow from operations, we say $2.5 billion to $ 3 billion, we made $ 2.6 billion. We have benefited in the last -- in '24 and '23, by the way, of some hedges, which we have done because of the high electricity price of '22. We don't have them in '25. But we have additional productions. We have new gas-fired power plant. So we are confident we could meet again these objectives in terms of cash generation. It's not written, but maintaining the 10% return on capital employed even increasing it is, of course, on the road map of Stephane and his teams. We are working, but I will answer your question. On the downstream, so it's clear that the landscape has changed. You have on the left, the refining margin, the European refining margins, which for us is quite an important, I would say, KPI. The environment has changed in the middle of the year. You can see you have in gray, the mean and the max 2018, 2021 before the, I would say, the war. You have where we were in the last -- you can see where we were in '22, '23, largely above, but it was, I would say, historic markets. We benefited from it. in '24, we are back to a sort of normalization, a little low because $25 per ton is breakeven. So I prefer $35 per ton. As we are optimistic, we have met the budget at $35 per ton. But maybe if there are tariff on Canadian crude oil we could reach it. Yesterday, it was at $40, so it's not impossible. Sometimes you have some events in this planet, which can help you. You don't control everything. But what we should do, that's why we have a target of $7 billion downstream compared to the $6.1 billion this year because there was also some miss to be clear, on the operational side, which we estimate a little less than $1 billion, I would say. But we hope and Vincent his teams are really motivated to eliminate this miss, a very poor performance on [Donges, ] which was not, in fact, running well. We are hoping that it will run again from March. We had some issues on the cracker normally because -- not because of the cracker, but because there was a storage, there was an accident, technological accident independent on our well, but which affected us. This is solved. So we are back to normality. Port Arthur as well is quite a challenge for years. We have changed the management. We hope we will deliver better returns. So it's a matter of coming back, I would say, on fundamentals, of course, discipline on cost, but also delivering the energy efficiency program should deliver $100 million and of course, plant availability. So that's the refining. This downstream segment is helped, I can tell you by performance of the marketing and the trading. Marketing is quite remarkable because we sold quite a large portion of our German, Dutch, Belgium networks. In fact, the cash flow from the marketing in '24 is at $2.3 billion. It was exactly the same at $2.3 billion with these networks. So we gained -- we sold them for $3.2 billion. And in the meantime, I have seen no impact on the cash flow generated by the division. So it's quite remarkable, and I can congratulate the teams of Bernard. So at the end, you could tell me we would not have done $100 million more, but I like the idea that we cash in these networks in an environment where we are not strategic assets. And at the end, we continue the performance. Trading is doing well as well. And that's why we target $7 billion, an improvement, but we have some good reasons. It's not just a margin assumption, it's fundamentally solving the operational issues we had and continuing to deliver on marketing and trading as per -- which are resilient. So all that gave us, and I will give you the math, but before so the Board of Directors look at it, we have a growth in front of us of growth of free cash flow. And I mentioned $1.5 billion additional free cash coming at $70 from the upstream growth in '25. We plan $10 billion. So it's a step between '24 and 2030. So it's a good step. So this, we are confident. We have a strong balance sheet. So the Board of Directors for the third year in a row decided to increase the dividend by 7%. Here, it's not -- it's not for the full exercise. It's paid dividend per year. So that's why you see 7.2. What is paid in a year, it's a combination of 2 exercises and some interim dividends. So in fact, since for the last 3 years, we have increased the dividend by more than 20%. So it's quite is quite a good, I think, good returns to our shareholders. We have translated the euro per share because our dividend is denominated in euro in dollar per share on this chart because we have some dollar investors. That's true that they benefit from higher growth, by the way, at 1.1 in the last 2 years, 1.04, 1.05 is a little lower. But the average for U.S. investors on 2022, '25 compared to 7.1% for European investor would be between 6.5 and 7.8. So I would say it's not -- we are -- it depends on the exchange rate, but it's a strong also nice upgrade. On the buyback, it's a strange chart. So I don't know if it's a Mondrian chart, but you know we have bars of $ 2 billion, $2 billion, $2 billion. I told you in New York that we want to maintain the $2 billion, assuming reasonable market conditions. The market conditions are very reasonable. So we maintain the $2 billion. I know there were some questions marks among you after the third quarter results that I leave. But generally, when we announce something, we are consistent. We know what we do. And of course, it has been reinforced by the 2 -- the strong or the low gearing at the end of the year, by the end of the year. We knew that there will be a way to return this draw on the working capital. It came -- it's not -- we will try to find a way to normalize it around the quarter. That's what have some fiscal effects. 8.3% of gearing is low, but I remind you, we're at 7% in end of '22 at 5% end of '23, 8.5% end of '24. So the track record under 10 is quite well established in this company. So we have some room, let's be clear, and that's why I can confirm that the intent is to maintain this $2 billion of buyback per quarter. We make some math. You have them on this chart on the left. At $70, we would generate, we told you more than $29 billion. So we have, yes, a deficit and CapEx, of course, lower CapEx is helping the, I would say, the balance. You have something like, I would say, $33 billion. So you have a gap of $4 billion. It represents 2% to 3% of gearing increase, less than 2.5% of gearing increase at $70. At $80, it's almost nothing. So in fact, considering the sensitivity, we have $1 billion. So it's an equation which I think is fully -- is quite completely affordable with a strong balance sheet. And that's why we -- I confirm to you our intent to maintain this $2 billion per quarter. As I told you in New York, you have the sensitivity, which did not change fundamentally on this chart. So to finalize to end my presentation, this is a chart we show you in New York, I think more energy, less emission, growing free cash. We just introduced the year 2025 to remind you the framework in which we are to grow the energy production by 4% per year over the 6 years through 2030. We'll do it 5% in '25. Electricity represent 20% will be at 10% halfway in '25, less emissions and growing cash flow, which I think is very important. What is remarkable is that as you can see at $70, $12 per million Btu TTF and $35 per ton, which is more or less $10 per barrel only different from '24, we could deliver a free cash, which is the same at $70, but at $80. And so at $80, an additional $3 billion compare. And again, it's coming, and that's a strong message I want you to keep in mind that we grow, but we grow for value and we grow through accretive growth and additional free cash flows to feed the returns to our shareholders. And the last slide did not change. It's very consistent in TotalEnergies. We -- I strongly believe in energy world, but consistency the sense in terms of strategy. So to be resilient is important. We have and it's a result of hard for our team, a very deep upstream portfolio. And you've seen it through this 157 renewal reserve after 141 last year, which will grow again, which will anchor the growth of our production for 2030. On LNG, we have a good position, very well positioned with the U.S., European acquisition to benefit from arbitrage, and this is what the teams of Stephane are doing. Integrated power is underway on the road map that we set. And I gave you all the elements of the financial framework to support this strategy. Thank you for your attention, and I will be happy to answer with Jean-Pierre and with all the executive committee members in the room to your questions.

Okay. Let's move on to the Q&A. So maybe Henry, yes.

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

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

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

No, there is no commercial to be clear. So it's not -- we cannot thing to connect Tamboti to Venus. It's -- game is over on Tamboti. And in fact, it was a risk we knew because when we drilled one of the Venus well appraisal, we saw in the north some degradation. So I mean -- so -- but we wanted to drill it because it was a sizable prospect. And in case, it could have been an additional, but the petrophysics ARPU, I would say, are more in the same type of range, but what has been written off by some of our colleagues. So we know the limit in the north. We know the limit on the North and West. So we continue to look to the rest of the block. The one of Stephane, do you want to answer to be the flexibility you have in your portfolio. Stephane is there. You will have a microphone there.

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

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

Michele?

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

On the second one, I think it's clear that for me, we have -- that's why my message, I think with the situation of European storage, if we are too aggressive to replenish our storage and we don't give them a little more time. And the situation is not exactly the same for Germany because we have more regas terminal today. In '22, we are all afraid not to have -- we are trying to put maximum storage because we had a lack of infrastructure. In the meantime, we have built some -- we have bought some floating units -- in Germany, you have 5 million tons of capacity, but also in France, we have. So we have more infrastructure. So I think the situation should be a little more. But if we go to rush, the only way to rush is to take the LNG from Asia and to pay more. And again, it could be inflationary. So I'm not -- so I think today, yes, we have a risk of that. I'm not sure it's not good for European customers or European LNG player like TotalEnergies is not necessarily bad. But up to us to also -- for me, the situation is not again because we have built some infrastructure. So Europeans should take that into consideration. And not just because in '22, we were super afraid. We had a lack of regas capacities on the continent. Today, we had some of them, not everything, but we have more. And so it's still there. So that's the point. But yes, I think that's my message. I think there will be some -- we could have higher price -- gas prices and tensions. And again, the spread between -- that's why the arbitrage from the U.S., which even because of the Panamax channel is even more. I mean that could be another element of the puzzle. On the tariff, we are entering a new world. I said that to the Board yesterday. None of us have never worked in a world of tariff or tariff wars. It was the old world. We have been -- we have built a global world with almost no tariff. So we thought everything was easy to move. I mean I think we have pragmatic guys, by the way, they are able to take decision and to change their mind, which is good leadership when you are able to see that you could have some points. We could have some difficulties. It's true that you have some spares some value chains, but it's true for not only for refining or downstream, it's true for car manufacturing. A lot of spare parts are moving across the border between Mexico and the U.S. So you could have this type, which is a trend, which is not a good news. You could have also some good effects for European refiners, if you have a tariff on heavy crude oil in Canada, you will benefit of it. So yes, you might have your effect. At the end of the day, I think my view is that the U.S. administration will be pragmatic in the interest of the business people. It's fundamentally, it's a country where business is first more than in Europe. In Europe, we can't shout. We don't listen too much to us. unless we take strong decision. In the U.S., we are more open to that, including the President. So I say, let's say, today, you have a sort of -- I think '25 will be a little shaky. So let's be ready. But maybe it's the best for us is to not to take too quick decision in the wrong way, to observe what will remain really policies in place. It's the same, by the way, for the fiscal policy in the U.S. for renewable, but let's see what will happen in the Congress. Again, I was looking -- I ask this morning to Stephane give me the map of the federal lands, which are forbidden for onshore wind. Texas, there is no federal land at all, just to be clear. It's the Rockies. It's the part of the Federal lands and when we cross in the history of the U.S., they went beyond the Rockies. So I mean, let's observe what will happen. I think the best -- my view is that we need to observe, not to overreact and to let this coming 6 months will give us more answers to many questions to the enthusiasm at the beginning of the administration. But it's true that we might have to adapt and we are not all what we have designed in the supply chain have been designed not only in our industry, but in all industries as a world with no tariff or very limited one. So suddenly, if you disrupt it, you might have bad effects, but also maybe some good effects on the other side. So I'm -- let's observe and not -- but I take your point. And yesterday, I said to the Board, we have -- there, we have to be able to be very adaptable and to react to look at it.

Okay. Okay, Martijn?

It's Martijn Rats from Morgan Stanley. I have 2 questions, if I may. I wanted to ask you about Suriname. So starts early in Suriname and a recent bond offering suggested a level of CapEx for the project that was perhaps a little slightly higher than what we sort of generally understood. And I was wondering if you had a comment on that, whether you're comfortable with the CapEx in Suriname. And the other thing I wanted to ask you is about trading. It's a bit of an open-ended question. But of course, trading was very, very profitable generally in the industry, '22, 2023, came down a lot in 2024. But it's hard to know exactly how much. Can you perhaps say a bit about how the earnings evolution of trading has been and more broadly, what your ambitions are in that business going forward, how you see that business changing?

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

Biraj?

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

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

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

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

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

Chris?

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

Okay. We don't need M&A. We have an organic growth. So today, again, it's not the right time. I think we can sell. We have a divestment program. At $70, $80 per barrel is not the right time to buy. I mean we'll look again, as you know, if we have continued to have opportunities in the -- for TotalEnergies in the U.S. shale gas to continue to replenish. We have done 2 deals, but we need to have more. So that remain clearly for me, a priority. So if there are good opportunities, and I have teams today, we are looking around and trying to be imaginative and creative. You have some shale oil producer. We have a lot of associated gas with the most negative value. So they might have a way to make a deal, and we are working with some of them. So we'll see this remain. And today is quite low. So it's quite accessible, I would say, these type of things. Otherwise, honestly, I don't -- I'm not I'm not -- we don't have a big need. We are working on other ideas.

On the integrated power, yes, we continue -- we will continue to acquire, but it's more recycling capital because this year, we -- Jean-Pierre, I said it's a good achievement. We sold 1.2 gigawatts farming down, so recycling $1 billion. The target was more around $2 billion than $1.2 billion, to be honest. So we are still -- so I'm just -- I remember the internal marked targets, okay? Jean-Pierre is nice, but it's fine with all his colleagues. But in fact, we are more targeting 2. We know what we missed. It was 2 countries on which we are almost closed. And finally, we had an issue with the buyer, so we decided not to close it. But -- so it's 2 gigawatts per year, it's recycling $2 billion. And this $2 billion should rise. That's why we are already at the plateau in terms of CapEx in integrated power, even if we want to continue to grow. So this one for me, it's a matter now. The model must continue to recycle this capital to be able to grow the assets. That's fundamental. And on this one, I would say it's quite obvious, what do we target? We need -- in Germany, we have -- we need to target some 1 or 2 gas-fired power plants to maintain and then we'll have the full value chain. So that's clear. The U.S., PGM, things like that. But again, today in the U.S., the gas-fired power plants because of these hyperscalers, they are so expensive. We are lucky to go beyond. So let's wait. Let's wait and see. Today, it's very [indiscernible]. It could come back. And -- so that's, I would say, this type of examples, but it's not big, big deals, which -- and by the way, Stephane has already consumed quite a lot of his M&A acquisition budget with the ESB deal. So -- but it's a business where we can tell you, we have a lot of ideas. We have a lot of ideas. But it's good for me because we can be selective and fundamentally on this M&A integrate more and more together. We know exactly what we want to achieve. And so we have -- the teams are very enthusiastic, but solar in Ireland, I'm not sure it was the most best idea of the teams. So sorry for the Irish in the room. Nothing against the Irish, but some French ideas sometimes. That's point. The question 2 at Mozambique. Yes, Mozambique is more important. On Mozambique, again, I met President of Mozambique. It was not in the press last -- beginning of last -- this week, last Monday. I've been there to discuss about what is his views. The good news, in fact, there is a huge continuity in terms of the security setup. He kept the Energy Minister is coming -- was already there before. He was not minister, but it was the Head of the agency, Defense Minister, all that are the same people. So I would say continuity regarding the Mozambique LNG projects and the surrounding, there is a wheel of continuity. That's important. In terms of security, the agreements they have with other countries will remain in place, and they are dedicated, I would say, to bring the best they can to the project. We have, as you know, it's public. We had a debate with some credit export agencies. I think the one which will be solved quickly is the one on the other side of the Atlantic. I think I would be surprised that President Trump administration will be against an LNG project. They have approved, by the way, 4 years ago. So I think it's a question of weeks. So this is important because it was a big part of the credit export that for Anadarko, we set all that, but it was almost $5 billion. So once we have this piece, this financing is done, I would say. I would remind to some of the other credit export. In fact, all of them, but 2 have approved the other one that they have signed a contract and that we gave them a lot of money. So I'm ready to exercise all my contractual rights, not me, Mozambique LNG shareholders because we are only 26% of it. Okay. And then on the project side, the question is to be able not only to appraise the security [indiscernible], which is fine. On the Peninsula, we're going to build, we have no doubt, be clear. It's even better than it was before because everything has been reinforced. So I have no problem. It's more the security of the regions, again, which is more for me a question. So I would like -- we are looking to the reality and to see some improvements on this part. On the contractor side, they are ready to start up again. The project is -- we told you around $20 billion. It's around $20 billion. So there is no change. So yes, it's true that each month, which is going through -- and we were not anticipated to be honest, in summer last year, these difficulties with the credit export agency in particular there because there are no signal, then it enters into politics, the politics mixed. So we were victims. But it's back on track from my point of view, and it's a matter of weeks. So that's where we are. Today, I think we told you 2029. If we lose 6 months, 2029, 2030, but the idea is to be able to do the project, to launch the project. And that's point.

Lydia?

In 2030, to answer precisely to your question, in our road map, it's 3 million tonnes of LNG. So precisely. So it's not, it's important. But we have other options to activate in our portfolio. So I'm -- we don't have in our plans the '24 of Rio Grande in or '25. So there might have -- I mean, we have enough -- the depth of the portfolio, the optionalities we have on the LNG side, okay, it's maybe Mozambique in the base case, but not Mozambique might be something else. So from this perspective, I think we have some different cards to play to meet the -- and again, it's more the value that I want to have and not just the volume. And I will not -- we will not sanction. We are working hard on Papua. I'm sure I will have a question of Papua, and we are in very good, I mean, I would say, strongly unify our forces with ExxonMobil together to find new ideas to relaunch the tender. And again, we are not desperate to make the project, but we are working hard to make it back on track, acceptable CapEx to deliver some value. We'll see by -- I think we'll have all the offers will come by September 2025. So we should be able to take decisions. But the good news -- but again, there on this one, the forces of the 2 companies are aligned and working together, which is good for us.

It's Lydia from Barclays. Two questions, if I could. The first one, just on CapEx because if I think about the change from September, the CapEx side was probably the big change. So just going back to that, at what point do you go actually we need to take it down from 18% to that 17%, 17.5%. And just that point on the contractors and it being lump sum, are the contracts are still happy to do that going forward and you're working with them differently, I think. And then the second one was just coming back to the downstream side and the operational issues that we've seen there. That obviously is unexpected these things happen. But is there anything you're looking at that may be more systemic that you need to go back and look at some of the processes that you have in place?

I will let Vincent explaining what he wants to put in place about the availability of the plant. It's also to be clear that we have old refineries, I will tell you. And I'm not a big fan to invest in plenty of big new refineries, in particular in Europe. So we have also a question of level. It doesn't mean that we don't have a systematic plan, but Vincent will share with you his action plan that he is putting in place with his colleagues and his teams. On the first one, okay, it's not a big change. 0.75 out of 17. I know it's a big change. Yes, it maybe you were surprised because you were all thinking that we'll go above. So you don't believe us. You should believe us. I've been CEO in front of you for 10 years. I don't think I didn't miss a lot of things on this perspective. So you should believe us first, I'm not planning that we'll go beyond. No, we are -- in fact, we've done our job. And again, I told you the truth is that there was something which was voluntary on these -- some low molecules where we begin to have our EV charging. We want to have to be more frugal in the way we allocate capital, I would say. Not the program could be developed the matter is the way we finance all that. The other part is, again, to be pragmatic. We have a number of people. We cannot overstretch them because then it's a question of safety. It's a question of execution. And we had some subsidiaries where clearly, like Angola, they have a lot of things to be done. And so we look at the plate and we said there are maybe a little too much. So let's arbitrate. Let's focus on delivering Caminu and the key matters and not because the guys are people, you have a bottom-up approach and then you try to be reasonable. So it came to that conclusion, but I don't see that as -- I think it's a good discipline. By the way, it's proof that -- but again, we -- all the opportunities bringing additional cash have been preserved. So it's more looking when you spend $18 billion to find $500 million, it's not a huge management of exercise. It's a question to maintain the idea, and it's important because we have 3 years in a row at $80, increasing some CapEx, you begin to discipline might be somewhere more difficult to obtain. The fact that we are having this debate important. It's also true to be clear that the commitment to what we told to you in September to the buyback is taken into account by everybody. And that's part also of the margins we want to have. So you have an impact on us when you make some comments. We listen to our shareholders and to our investors, which is good.

So we have a clear plan on availability. Just to make it short. First, we have very good refineries as well. And we have realized that sharing of experience is not fully implemented. To take a very concrete example, the refinery in the U.S. Port Arthur is alone in the U.S. and we want to take the best of the best players in Europe and, for instance, and to be sure that it's implemented in Port Arthur. So we have changed the management. We have people coming from Europe, and we see already the plan delivering the first results. Second axis in terms of organization in what I would call the bad players. We see that very often in the maintenance, for instance, the people working on the more long-term improvements. They are cannibalized by the short term when you have issues. So we need to ensure that these 2 teams, they are clearly separated and that these particular plants like, for instance, in [indiscernible], they are not always fixing issues rather than working on the long term. We have also realized in some plants that people could focus on these particular equipments of the refineries, which are bringing the best margin instead of looking at everything to focus on the high-value margin units. And then last but not least, and it's very concrete and pragmatic, I think that digital today is ready to bring value. We have solutions, and we can improve valorization, for instance, for the products in the refineries, thanks to these tools. It's to make it short, but we have plenty of.

I think, Lydia, I look to the chart that I put it again. When you have 2 years of easy profits, I would say, which came from the sky. Our refiners, when I was running this business, I would have never thought I would have $100 a ton of margins. I think it has also an impact somewhere. But it's why, in fact, at the end, it's back to fundamentals, back to the things which we are claiming. So it's no critics. It's just a matter of -- again, it was very strong, a very high result. You lose part or the plans and you have a succession of events. But again, it's not a matter to sleep, how to react and that's the business. So it's not systemic. For me, it's a question of, again, putting back things in normal, and I hope we'll get the results reasonably optimistic on this one.

Lucas here, please?

It's Lucas Herrmann at BNP Exane. Two, if I might, Patrick. Liquidity, U.S. share, how have things moved? Where have you got to in terms of the intent to improve it? And second, I guess, is just a reminder, I had this horrible feeling wake up one day. We probably will know about it beforehand that Russia-Ukraine has been resolved. So it's just a reminder of what's the position in terms of legacy dividends, legacy flows that you could potentially recoup over and above, obviously, regaining control is the wrong word, but regaining access to the cash flows from existing assets.

Okay. First one, first is just -- I will note I had introduced the debate. It's not a question of double listing. I remind you what we want to do is to have one class of shares only one, which would be introductory market is Paris. And these shares might be traded on both markets from 9:30 a.m. to 6 p.m., I think, in Paris and from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. in New York. So it's a continuous listing of the same class of shares. That's why -- and at the beginning, it's transforming the ADRs into shares. So I don't want to -- people are using double listing. It's not a double listing. It's not 2 class of shares. And in fact, fundamentally, the stock value and when the 2 markets are open at the same time, it's just linked by the exchange rate, in fact. That's the way it works. So it's not a tool double listing. It's one listing. It's a more continuous listing, opening, yes, access on the U.S. side to shares and not to ADRs, which are cost, et cetera. Where are we? We have working hard. A lot of technicalities with Euroclear and DTCC, which are the 2, I would say, transfer agents in the system. We have also some banks working with us. So the technical solutions have been found for all the issues. So we know if we could vote, we know if we could perceive taxation. So all that is done. Now we need to go to the legal part. So we have entered into a new phase to translate that into legal documents. So that means that we are working on it. We'll see there is a -- I don't anticipate a blocking point, but all that has to be done. So the good news is we know how to make this continuous trading on both markets, interacting, but we have to translate that into contracts. Of course, our counterparts do not have only our topics to solve. So there is a lot of things. But our view is that our objective, is to do it in '25, maybe end of '25. But if we don't do it in '25, we'll be worried, but we cannot do that. But so it's clear. So let's see, you will have some more visibility in the next 6 months. But it's -- technically, we know and we have find all the solutions to the technical questions we had, including the one, which is, for example, in France, when you buy and you sell a share, you have to pay 0.3% tax. That should be applied to the purchase and sales on the U.S. market. It's a small detail. It's not a small detail. So how do we implement that? That has required some, I would say, some development, some with different intermediaries, et cetera, but we have the solution. So we know how to secure that. So that's the type of things where we are. It's not big deals, but it's a sum of technical. So we progress. And again, the Board supports unanimously all this move. But it's -- again, it's a continuous listing of the shares, which are primarily introduced in Paris between the 2 markets. And then that's the point. Russia, I don't remind the figure anymore. I know we have around $1 billion somewhere, somewhere in the system. To be honest, in my head, they have disappeared somewhere. I don't count -- I mean, I don't know why, but I see your question, you are optimistic that but we don't have any dividend from Novatek for almost a year. They are somewhere there. And you have a funny law in Russia, which is floating that if you don't take your dividend after 3 years, you could lose them. So there are funny things. So they could make 1 year. So it's not very friendly for foreign investors. But honestly, today -- the point is that today, we -- as you know, the situation, everything is frozen from our point of view, Yamal continue to work, and we continue to exercise the contract of Yamal works. For the rest, we'll see. The assets, we have the shares. The shares are somewhere, but I'm not -- for 2025, we did not integrate anything in our even more on the point, but my question to me is when in Europe, when at which point there will be enough LNG capacity in the U.S. '27, where Europeans might decide that we get grid of the LNG in Russia. That's more the question. Again, in the meantime, the 100 days of President Trump would be, if I easy manage, I will applaud, which solve not only TotalEnergies, but for everybody, I would say, more important than for us. So that's where we are. So again, nothing is in our -- all the figures you've seen is there is no Russia story, except the Yamal flows, -- but Yamal, as you know, as we don't hedge too much. We don't hedge Yamal. We have an issue when prices are going -- when we are very low in '24. So performance of Yamal, which was not hedged, was not as good as it was the year before. It's part also of what has impacting the -- I'm not claiming that, but that's the reality, what has been the performance of the contract '24 were not as good as '23 just because we are more in the spot. If the price is going back, it could be -- that's what -- that's the point.

Irene?

Irene Himona at Bernstein. My first question on biofuels, if I may. An industry that had its economics deteriorate substantially last year. A lot of your peers are canceling, withdrawing, impairing. There is some valid concern that we won't have the SAF capacity needed by airlines in 2030. So I wanted to ask because you've obviously converted a number of your units. What do you think needs to happen for that business to economically scale itself up over the next 3 or 4 years? My second question, specific to the quarter, working capital. We've seen a systematic release of material amounts of cash in Q3 '23, in Q4 '24. So can we anticipate that happening in future? What is driving it? What is happening there?

Okay. Jean-Pierre is the expert of working capital, try to help him. First, I think on the SAF, let's come back to there are different ways to produce SAF. There is the easy way or easy way, the cheapest way, which is to go from lipids, I would say, cool animal fats, different waste palm oil or things like that. These ones are profitable, and we need to continue to invest because we have this mandate. So we could have a short. Then you have other projects, which are honestly for me more critical where we didn't invest today, which are methanol to jet or going to SAF, green hydrogen, all that are complex, they are expensive. And in fact, they are not meeting the demand from customers because the airlines are complaining, but they want the cheapest one. And my view is that we can meet the mandates by 2030, 2035 just by remaining on the cheapest technology. So just -- so I understand why some people are canceling some projects, which seems to be on the high side of the capital intensity. And what I understand. On the other side, I think the difficulty is that it's coming -- it's a regulated market. So sometimes you have high, sometimes you have down. In Q4, the HVO were quite low priced, suddenly you see a depression because of mean because of the Scandinavian countries, which have changed their rule of games. This year in '24, Germany is helping everybody because they have decided that all the inventories, which we had in our bio quotas have disappeared. So suddenly, you have a lag and so the price is going up. So that's the difficulty of this market. And you have to navigate it. You have a nice way to make SAF, and that's the reason why you have some cancellation with co-processing because the airline industries have discovered -- have allowed us, in fact, because it was, in fact, just a normative debate. Can we make some co-processing when you inject used cook oil in a refinery, you produce kerosene. Can you make a mass balance in order to consider that what you have produced is a SAF. So it's not a real SAF, but it's a SAF by aggregation. And they have this during -- in July, last summer, but it's acceptable. Why? Because first, it's much cheaper. But by doing that, of course, they have pushed back the other big projects which are really delivering SAF, the old SAF, I would say, SAF like the ones we will produce are more expensive. So that's just because they were somewhere afraid that they could not have enough SAF and they are cheaper. So I think the co-processing has taken quite a good space in the market. And so that's also why I think some of my colleagues have said, why should I continue to invest in greenfield projects if I can produce these products,just by combining in my own refinery. That's part -- so the game has changed. And that's the difficulty with these molecules, which are honestly very regulated. They change the way you accept the things and so you have this market. So that's why investing in CapEx, you need to be clear push. I mean you can do it, but in -- on the most efficient projects. And so I continue to be convinced that for us, it's not greenfield for sure. It's just transforming all the refineries, which become old and even not profitable in a declining European markets into biofuel. So for me, that's a good thing to do. And again, the condition to do that, and that's one difficulty is to find a way to integrate the upstream because then there, that there is a value in all these used cook oil and animal fat. So how do you manage? We built a partnership with [indiscernible], this German company. On Grandprix We are exploring with them could enlarge this partnership to more projects because the integration is a way to secure the value chain, not just to be the transformer of feedstock, which could go high. And by the way, an outlet, which could go down. It could be completely squeezed. That's the economic difficulty. So -- but again, I'm not so afraid, in fact, I think you have a game there. The airline companies, they are shouting they have a lack of SAF because they want the price to go down to produce -- to provoke the overcapacity. It's a commodity business. So in fact, in our math, when you make the market, I'm more afraid to have another capacity than an undercapacity by 2030. I mean -- and for them, the game is to say, "Oh, look, we have a lack and then -- but the conclusion is that in Europe, we have faced another difficulty be clear in Europe, I explained -- I discussed it with commissioner in Brussels is that today, we are accepting SAF importing SAF from China because the airline companies are feeling they are lack. But when you import from China, on which be sure, but they have all the -- I mean they are meeting all the criteria that we do in Europe investing in Europe in the new units when you have the SAF coming from China and so somewhere it makes a little sense. So that's all this -- it's a big difficulty for me on these molecules. It's plenty of regulated elements, which makes a decision of investment not easy. But at the same time, let's move. So it's clear. It's a complex market, but it is a market and which I think we have some good cards to play in this one. If we put together the integration, low CapEx and being sales, it will not be for us a major -- it will be a source of revenue. I don't expect that to billions of free cash to be clear. But if you can help me to transform some losses into like we have done in La Med, we went from minus EUR 100 per year to plus 30. It's fine. At the end, it's worth to make the investment just to -- and because we have jobs, et cetera, et cetera. So that's fine. That's the objective. Working capital. So how do you avoid to make it? It's good to make it by the end of the year, but I know that we have some systematic issue about fiscal. For example, in Norway, we pay in March, so we have a big draw, a big chunk of taxes have to be paid end of first quarter, for the rest.

There is no cash belonging to the company outside the company and particularly for your hands. But I mentioned to you during my speech that we benefited end of this year of exceptional elements, mainly tax elements. I would just give you one example, we are supposed to receive the bill from the German authorities in relation with capital gain tax. We generated when we closed the deal in Germany end of '23. We're supposed to receive the bill during the course of the fourth quarter. We haven't received the bill. There is no permanent recall. So we received the bill that we will pay in the first quarter of 2025.

Having said that, it's clear that the objective is to try to normalize the flows to be clear. I'm on your page because I would prefer to see that as a normalization. But I think there were some lessons that we have been drawn by the different -- my colleagues in order to normalize it. Okay? That's part.

Doug on that side?

But you can consider that you can trust by the end of each year, that you will have more or less a stable situation in your models, in your math, consider that we are able to do it. We've done it several 3 years in a row. So we know how to do the recipe and we can repeat it, okay?

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

Good question. second one, both questions are good. No, we have -- we continue to divest some assets. To be clear, we are in '25, we have planned to sell Nigerian assets onshore. So it's on this way to be closed, so it will be done. It represent $800 million and $900 million of cash in. So it's a big bill. U.K., we have worked on it in different ways. We try to find a way to combine fiscal losses with our tax bill. We were not successful. We had some few issues with some partners. I will not -- but we are continuing to work on this one. And I'm very open to be clear. It's not a question of barrels. If there are opportunities to save $1 billion of taxation, we'll do it. Value is more important. Libya, no, Libya I disagree. Libya, it depends on the Libya more -- I think it's a long-term position. And there is a lot of oil to be developed, not with the presenters, but they have negotiations today. So we are working on it. And I think we can improve the taxation rate in Libya heavily because we are -- it's a country where it's very easy to develop. Cost per barrel is nothing. It's onshore, huge amount of oil. So will not forgive this position because the contract today are high tax, but they can be -- they will have to be improved if Libya wants one day to develop its reserves. That's a debate we have with them today with the authorities. So it's a matter of continuing. So I'm -- U.K., I see a little future, to be honest. And by the way, it's a country where -- sorry, I'm in London, but we will not explore in U.K. because what happens to our friends, where they have explored made discoveries and today, they have a debate to have the right to develop. It's just for me, it's not possible to put some exploration money in a country, I'm not sure to get the development license. Or I have to go to courts, just observing it. It's -- For me, I prefer to explore in countries where I'm convinced that will get the development if I'm making a discovery, which is normal rule of the game. Suriname, no, we have some exploration, but we are completely focused. By the way, I think we plan to drill one well in the Block 64, which is another block. We have 2 things. In the way we may discussed with the authorities, what we call the development area of [indiscernible]. In fact, the development area is covering all our discoveries, all the trends. And it's within PAC. And so if we want to explore, to appraise, we'll offset the cost on the production. So this part -- So we have secured and we have some -- because I'm sure we'll have to come back on some of the discoveries we've done to better appraise to reconnect, et cetera. So there is some potential. And then we have another block where we are interested to explore, we'll drill this year. So we didn't mention that. But we have taken also, by the way, it's not public, but 2 blocks and 2 licenses in Nigeria, the Niger Delta recently in around. It's a very Niger delta. In Nigeria, there was no exploration during 10 years. We managed to reopen the blocks, and it's one of the most prolific delta in the world. So there are still things to be explored. So Suriname it's more -- the Block 64 is not the same trend. So it's, I would say, more frontier exploration. But then we have to come back on what we have already discovered and appraised.

Matt Lofting.

Matt Lofting at JP. Just 2 quick ones. First, Patrick, I wanted to follow up on the comments you made earlier on trading and just ask specifically on integrated LNG or gas trading, if you can share a sense of the contribution that you've embedded into 2025 cash flow and financial targets, given the comments you made earlier on the gas market, perhaps, for example, relative to '24? And then second, 35 gigawatts of renewable capacity in Integrated Power for this year strikes me that that's incredibly impressive delivery on a target that was set 5 years ago given the global backdrop over the course of the last 5 years. When you think forward, though, for the second half of the decade, has the company's view on the pace and best sources of growth changed at all given the inflation and supply chain challenges that the industry continues to see in some segments at least of renewable generation?

Okay. In fact, the improvement you have going from $4.9 billion to a target of $6 billion in Integrated LNG cash flow. I would say part of it will come from absolutes prices, which are higher, but I would say consider that there is an improvement on the trading gas of $500 million. Coming back to levels which were more in line. So that's the -- and again, I say that under the eyes of Stephane, who is approving. So it's fine. It has to deliver. But it's fine. That's the idea. Again, so that's an improvement that we expect. So part will come from, I would say, the volumes, which are being developed. We have a little more volume, but also part of the trading back to more volatility. And again, what we observed on the market beginning of '25 is giving us stress that this should be achievable by our teams. Maybe we'll do more. We will encourage them. On the 30 gigawatt, okay? We have a large pipeline of 70 gigawatts. It's the U.S., Brazil, India, Europe, I would say, the key markets where we think we can deploy. My question for me is what are more important is, again, a sizable business going to this 50 terawatt -- 100 terawatt hour by 2050, more than 100. I think it's very important, that we have a sizable business, and we are track because, and we are investing EUR 4 billion per year to develop it. But again, it's not -- renewable is a big part of it. We have this magic figure of 100 gigawatts. We have the pipeline. Do we want to develop all that? It will depend, of course, on the value of all what is coming. There are permanently opportunities. And in fact, we have -- we can't find a partner. By the way, honestly, the growth capacity for me, if I'm investing capacity in Ireland, I will have a big number, but not a lot of results, I can tell you, because it's running only 10%, 11% of the time. So solar in Ireland make volumes. It's not very expensive, but the results is not there. So be careful about the volume ID, in particular, in the different markets. Where, I think we have -- I'm convinced there will be a continued growth will be the U.S., for sure. And some big countries in Europe like Germany and others will be -- are clear where we have a good chance to continue to grow. So I'm optimistic that we'll have a segment which will produce more than 100 terawatt hour by 2030. Renewable capacity, the growth one. Let's see how it is going, knowing that we are -- we have also some partners. We are growing it. India will represent, I think, 15 gigawatts, 15 to 20 gigawatts, but all of them are not equal, I would say. And that's type of things. So between -- again, we will continue to invest in integrated power. We have this $4 billion per year as a metric, which we will maintain. The way we split it between -- I think the batteries, for example, will be more important in our mix that we were when we said, we need more batteries. It's quite clear to us. But battery is also a way to make to enhance the profitability and the returns on renewables and gas plants. So that mix is moving, and we are adapting ourselves to these conditions.

Kim?

Firstly, I wanted to ask a quick follow-up on Yamal. In the past couple of months, the U.S. and the EU have sanctioned a carrier shipping LNG from Yamal. Is this affecting your ability to offtake cargoes from Yamal at all? Secondly, on U.S. offshore wind, I think you said back in November that you're pausing your U.S. offshore project called Attentive Energy. You said that's a 4-year pause. So I'm just curious whether that's reflected in your low carbon CapEx figure. And the just curious to hear your thoughts on your involvement in projects that are exposed to the mercy of political wins that can shift every 4 years?

Okay. That's life. The concession is for 50 years. To be clear, that means that, yes, we don't spend. By the way, the teams we had 50 -- development team of 50 or 60 people in New York. We will be down to 5. So it's very active. And -- but I'm not so -- I think it might -- it will come one day. It's a matter of let's be patient again on this one. So there is, again, a year of development in offshore wind around $30 million per year. So if it does not fundamentally change. In the meantime, we have taken more license in Germany, where I don't expect this type of change of policy to be, I think we'll go through even if there is a change of -- there will be a change of Chancellor, but a change of say, government majority, I don't see a change on this strategy of this policy. Yamal, I'm not sure. I don't remember there was -- is the expert or Nicolas, there was -- for me, there is -- I didn't see any impact on Yamal on any sanction. I've seen some impact on Arctic 2 for sure. But by the way, Arctic 2, we don't invest and we are not there. On Yamal, I don't see Stephane. No, I don't know which cargo you are thinking to, but we have no impact on Yamal from our side. We didn't see. But [indiscernible] do you want to take -- maybe you can answer, but I don't have that in mind. I can tell you, we monitor the Russian sanction every 2 weeks. So we have a permanent [indiscernible].

I was going to say for the last 3 years we've been monitoring.

Every 2 weeks, we spend 30 minutes on this topic.

So there's no sanctions. There are sanctions affecting Arctic LNG2 and the value chain of Arctic LNG2, the supply chain of Arctic LNG2. So that is correct. And actually, we declared force majeure and taken the consequence of that, but not on Yamal, not at all actually. And the ships are not on the sanctions for Yamal.

Do you have another question maybe?

So maybe we can take a question online.

One person, and we will go on the phone.

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

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

No, there is no increase in our planning for '25 on the cost of debt. And I don't see an increase of the debt. And again, except what we said about the potential impact of the EUR 3 billion that we mentioned. Okay. We have to go to maybe the phone chain.

Paul, go ahead, please.

Can you hear me? Patrick, I think you haven't talked about on the AI adoption. Do you believe that AI adoption will be an important factor for you in terms of driving down the cost and improving efficiency over the next, say, 2 or 3 years? And where you see is the biggest opportunity if that is the case? And how much of your investment going to be? The second question is -- sorry, just 1 second. The second question is that is the U.S. administration, I know you're saying that we should watch and see. But clearly that they become less friendly to some of the renewable, I think ideologically that they are less friendly to the renewable energy and that they want to promote more drilling in the onshore and also offshore Gulf of Mexico, supposingly that will make more leases available. Does it change in the way that how you may want to allocate your capital especially on the Gulf of Mexico and also that for the U.S. renewable power business?

Okay. On AI, Vincent gave some hints. I don't know if Namita is there. She wants to have some complement on it. What I can tell you is that we are -- it's important. We will establish in the organization of Namita, which is called OneTech. We will have a specialized line reporting to her about all these digital and AI, I would say, tool. We strongly believe it's a way to not [indiscernible] to be more efficient. Does it deliver in the next 2, 3 years? I'm not fully sure. It's programs. We will develop what we call a digital plant program in order to digitally look more systematically. We are thinking to make some strong investments with some -- we are discussing today with some companies in order to be able to connect all the real-time data which are in our different plants, either all the refineries or the FPSOs in order to connect them and to develop some reverse modeling for advanced processing control. We believe -- I strongly believe that there is a lot of things to win in this advanced process control, the APC. In our industry, we try to mimic the physical equation, which is difficult and it's difficult to adapt. There is obviously a very strong improvement, potential with AI, if you can make based on data, reverse modeling, very accelerated and changing conditions. It's an obvious way. So these ones, we have decided at the end of the year at the Executive Committee level to invest in this segment, to make these connections across the company and to invest, including in terms of developing these, I would say, entire AI models. So that's clear. Does it deliver quickly? I hope so. But we will -- it's clearly on the top of the agenda. And the OneTech organization will be directly reporting to Namita as an individual, I would say, line. And not today, it was in different segments, different divisions, we want to regroup and to have a clear leader and to drive this move to AI and digital. On the U.S., Gulf of Mexico has always been part of our agenda. You mentioned this year, I mentioned that there is 2 projects, Ballymore and Anchor, which -- where we have contributed. That's true that we decided to give up 5 years ago on one of the project because we didn't see the way to develop it in a profitable way. And we are not operator, we became non-operator. But we can be -- I'm completely on the way to -- I think that there is still some good exploration potential in the U.S., and we have some discussions with some potential partners to invest in Gulf of Mexico exploration. It's something on which we are ready, but more as a non-operator, than operator because spending a lot of money to establish position, it's not really the best way to optimize our cost. On the renewable, I'm -- okay, I know and I listen like you to the images or to the slogans. Having said that, just to remind you that during the first presidency of President Trump, the solar, for example, was still supported in terms of his core support, not at 30% or 40%, but 20%, 24%, which honestly, for me, is an acceptable level. So I mean it's -- and I will be, I think, the debate at the Congress and the Senate between these congressmen and the administration will be interested because, again, in many of these states, which are also Republican states, they see some interest to develop these renewables. I remind you that the grid infrastructure in the U.S. is not so strong. So they need to -- it's a way also to complement it. So I mean, I'm optimistic about the fact that it should not impair dramatically the way we envisage the future in the U.S., not only renewables, but gas-fired power plants, which, of course, are [indiscernible] batteries. I remind you that we made the investment in Clearway before the IRA, then the IRA came. So it was a sort of additional profit to our investments. And the investment we've done in Clearway is in line with our expectations. So we are fine. It was even better, big thanks to the IRA. If we are back to previous terms, it does not fundamentally change the way we see the development of this power. But again, the world is not only renewables or integrated power. And the last investment we've done in these gas plants are really quite profitable. So there are ways to -- electricity demand fundamentally will grow. So the question is, do you meet this electricity demand in the future years? And all these data centers, hyperscalers, they want that to have tomorrow. It will take a little more time, but we -- so it's a good business when you have a strong demand, it's worth to continue to find ways to invest in it, that's fundamentally.

We have Henri there.

Henri Patricot, UBS. Just one question coming back to the organic CapEx guidance and the move from [ 18, 17 ]? Because if we go back to the October presentation, you're also expecting $18 billion next year in 2026. So I was just wondering to what extent the changes that you've put through for this year are kind of structural and can see, again, similar organic CapEx in '26? Or whether the lower spending on some of the small projects that you talked about sort of an impact maybe on some of the...

You have to wait for September. Year-by-year. It's a good question. Again, you can take [ 17, 18 ], if you want, for '26, instead of [indiscernible] changed fundamentally the attractiveness of the share of TotalEnergies, but [indiscernible].

Okay. So we can take the Bertrand question online.

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

No. But again, we have a view on this market by '27, 2030. The reality of this LNG market is that there will be some increase of capacity of 100 million tonnes, so 30%, it's a reality and maybe it could drive the Henry Hub high, but it will drive the LNG price low. So the best protection is to move to Brent because, again, on the oil, I would be surprised to see oil establishing at $50, $60 for long by the end of this decade. At $50 per barrel, you don't have a lot of shale oil producer investing. They are already disciplined at $70, so at $80, so -- and the decline is 20% per year. So I think the fundamental of all these oil markets is stronger than what could happen on the LNG one. EV Henry Hub is much higher. What we answer that we need to bring on TotalEnergies side is to produce more in the U.S., to have more U.S. gas production. That's the best protection for me. That's why we have made 2 deals and we continue and answer to our friends that it's part of for me fundamental. We need to fill this gap in our portfolio to have more exposure to domestic -- to shale gas or to gas, because to face a situation where you have exactly what described, higher and real price and lower LNG, that's clear. So this one, I agree, and we intend by continuing to do what we've done in '25, continuing to stack some different opportunities in order to reach more or less [indiscernible]. Demand destruction at higher prices in China and India. I would say I would be -- the country surprised me in 2024 is India. In fact, India has increased its demand. I saw the figure this morning, 28 million tonnes in 2023, where price which was not so low. In fact, they are buying -- 5 years ago, I think same answer would have said, $5, $6. Today, they bought a $10 more or less during the year, and an increase of demand. So India is investing in some gas infrastructure. What will be the reaction at $15, $16, but again, $15, $16 maybe for a year. But demand disruption, no; cautiousness, yes. And probably it will be a good incentive for these buyers to go again to Brent, which I think is, they are more confident and less volatile, in fact, from gas. Do you want to add something, Stephane, on this one?

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

They will be reactive if the price remain high in '25. Is this structural? My answer is no.

Any last question?

You raised your hand. You had a question. I stopped you because Bertrand was coming. So Lucas, if you want to. If you want to ask your last question, will be the last trial.

I've got to stand up. It was just a follow-up question. It was simply, why do you factor out of interest? Why do you use factoring as a process? What's the logic in terms of debt factoring? It was going back to Anish's question earlier. Was there a particular logic there?

It's not a decision made by the holding level, corporate level. Business by business, we are a centralized organization, operational. We just control if this remain cheap. If it's not cheap, we don't say -- we say no. We control the cost.

Any last word, maybe Patrick?

No. Thank you. I think thank you for all your attendance, first. I know, Renaud loves to go higher and higher in London. I don't know if there is a message for the stock price, maybe yes, it should go higher and higher. So I don't know if there is another one to visit next year. Personally, one of last year for me was a little better because I had the view. This year, I had a view on [indiscernible] but maybe there's a third one. So again, thank you for having attended. I think, honestly, our case is quite simple. We have -- and the year '24, this last quarter, I've reinforced all the fundamentals. And I don't think you would have a lot of surprise or negative ones in '25 from our company. Thank you. Presentation by Aurelien on March 27, it will be a one-man show by Aurelien and a Q&A. So, for the ones who want to attend on the sustainability and climate report, Aurelien will be in London on 27th afternoon, I think. Thank you.