TotalEnergies SE ($TTE)

Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to our Sustainability and Climate Progress Report Presentation 2026. This is the fifth year that we are organizing this event. We are live from our Paris headquarters, and you can follow us from our website, totalenergies.com. We hope that you got time to download our report. The program today will be first a presentation by Ren Amel, our President, Strategy and Sustainability, followed by 2 Zoom presentations, one on methane with Guillaume Chalmain, who is our Customer Line Director at OneTech and one on our decarbonization solutions to our clients by Mark Van Sadoun, who is our B2B Director. The presentation should be 1 hour and 15 minutes. And then we'll move to a Q&A where you will be able to ask, of course, all the questions that you have, and we'll take some questions online as well. You know at TotalEnergies, we have routines. In the morning, we have -- when we are starting a meeting, we have safety moments. In the afternoon, we have sustainability moments. So that can be small initiative, but they need to be very concrete, impactful and to talk about operations. The example I want to show you today is coming from our Suriname affiliate. It's about electrification, which is a mean to reduce our emissions on our operations. You know that we are starting the development of our Grand Morgu project, which is an oil project offshore Suriname, 220,000 barrels a day. So the first oil is planned in 2028, and the carbon intensity of that project is less than 16 kilograms of CO2 per barrel. To achieve that objective, there are some initiatives that are taken by the affiliate. And one is electrify the vessels. As you know, there is a lot of logistics, the development phase, a lot of logistics, a lot of vessels are coming into Suriname to offload the equipment. And one initiative is to use electrified vessels and to ask our contractors to install, as you can see on the slide, some charging points. It's like EV. And when the vessel is at Kay, there is this option to plug rather than burning fuel on board to plug to electricity so that we can save 6 cubic meters of gas oil per week which in terms of CO2 savings is 65 tons of CO2 equivalent per month, which is already something before the start-up of the meeting. On that note, I give the floor to Arena.

Thank you. Hello, everyone. Thank you for being here with us today. I have the pleasure of presenting for the third time as far as I'm concerned. And I'm very happy to share the progress we've made in our sustainability and climate road map and then with my colleagues, who will present to you these 2 zooms on methane and what we do with our clients in our B2B division. So first, we wanted to look with you at what happened on the energy market because this is framing basically our ambition and our strategy because we evolve in that wider energy market and want to take stock of what's happened in the last 10 years and 20 years, 25 years, if you go back. And here, you have a glimpse of what's been achieved and what's going in the right direction because what we see here actually is that a transition has started. And the main figure to look at that is if you look at the total primary energy demand, it has been growing steadily between 2000 and 2015, it was 2.1% growth per annum. It was 1.6 between 2015 and today with some COVID effects, actually more than that, let's say, in a normalized environment. And at the same time, you've had more energy to the world, which brings energy, especially in emerging economies, which brings energy namely to the 4.6 billion people who do not have enough energy today to have a decent human development index performance. What we see here is that even though that is growing in a very steady way, however, CO2 emissions are still growing. That's not good news in absolute terms for the climate, but the pace of growth has very much declined. And you can see that the pace of growth in emissions, the CO2 emissions here has been more than halved between the 2 periods. It means that a transition has started. This is really what we see in these figures. This is also reflected in the fact that GDP growth is basically the same, around 3%, 3.6%, 2.9% the end of COVID in the second period per annum. And other good news, there is a big growth in electrification. Electricity demand is growing. Renewable energy supply is growing very much. That's the fastest-growing energy, as you can see here. But then coal is growing still today. The pace of growth of coal has declined, but it is still growing. Gas is growing steadily, 2.3%. And then finally, oil demand is growing at the same pace as population, which is a very steady historical trend. So the transition has started, but it's not yet where it is supposed to be in terms of pace to reach the Paris agreements, as we all know. And we're just taking here 2 quotes from experts and scientists just to underline that. And basically, what we know, what we hear today from these experts and scientists is that scenarios that have 1.5 degrees heating are out of which. This is what the IEA saving its latest World Energy Outlook report last November. You have that on the left-hand side. And we're quoting here James Hansen. The reason is James Hanson is very authorative figure in the climate world. He's the one who in 1998 went to the U.S. Senate and made climate change really a political reality. It was a scientific reality before 1998, obviously. But then things started to kick in motion, the 1992 convention in Rio, the IPC seeding setup. This was kind of a defining moment. And he says what you see here that it is out of which basically to reach these Paris goals, and he says that in respect of actually 2 degrees heating. And the main reason for that is the inertia of the energy systems, and I'll come back to that. But I would say equally important too is that what we know is that something has been very high on the energy agenda, energy and climate agenda in the last 10 years, certainly, it is sustainability. And that's what you see here on the triangle of the energy trilemma. Sustainability has been at the top, maybe on its own actually for some time of the agenda. And it is still very much on the agenda. It certainly is very much on our agenda still today. And it means that we need to bring energy that is more and more sustainable, emitting less and less, and that contributes to human development. But then what's happened in the last 10 years and especially in the last 5 years is that you have had a resurgence of what has always been in the energy trilemma. That is to say reliability. We need to have reliable energy. Current news are still a testimony to that. That is still an issue, making sure that we have access to energy. That's true for oil and gas. That's also true for electricity. And the blackout that happened in Spain in April 2025 is another example of the fact that it is very important to have reliable oil and gas, to have reliable electricity as well. And this has come at the forefront of the agenda, again, because of crisis. And then I think what's key, and I'll come back to that in the course of the presentation, is affordability. We cannot collectively achieve the transition if the transition is not made affordable. That's a very, very strong, powerful, simple truth. And again, I'll come back to that because we have a role to play in this respect. Now what needs to happen? What do we collectively need to do to, let's say, accelerate the pace? You have here what we list as the main enablers for success and technical innovation is key. Let me give 2 examples. One is EV penetration is lagging in a way, EV vehicles because there is anxiety around namely the range of vehicles, the ability to charge in pretty fast time. This is evolving rapidly. So there have been technological breakthroughs recently in this respect. It needs to happen for every form of energy and every kind of use. It needs to be affordable, as I was saying. And as we'll see in some more details, if low-carbon technologies on the demand side of things, especially how can we use low carbon electricity in an affordable way. If it is not achieved collectively by the -- by states, by companies, by clients to adopt that, we won't get there basically. And then it needs to be supported by public policies. We need to have stable policies in place and they need to target what makes a difference. And it goes back to something that we advocate for a lot, which is the CO2 merit curve of things. Not every ton of CO2 is equal. There are some tons of CO2 that are cheapest to remove or to abate than others. And certainly, public policies support in the form of subsidies, it should aim for these tons of CO2 that are the cheapest to abate because this is how you achieve affordability in the transition. Carbon pricing is one of those mechanisms actually, and I'll come back to that. And this is what allows for customers' adoption. And what you see here on the right-hand side of the slide is what a world in which things will accelerate would look like. And here we use where things stand today in terms of electrification of end use, the construction of the grid and where it should be going basically to make that happen. So against that backdrop, where do we stand today? We are in a world where, as I was saying, the transition has started. That's very good news, but not at the pace required to meet the Paris Agreement goal. There is a scientific consensus, which is very much public in the public domain being shared that 1.5 degrees is out of reach. Now against that backdrop, what it also means is that because we are a European company, it's something we explained actually in our SMC report this year, we cannot adopt a net zero transition plan according to the European regulations because such a plan in the European regulations has to be aligned with 1.5 degrees. And scientists say 1.5 degrees is out of reach. So what do we do against that, let's say, wider backdrop against which we operate? We do the same. we maintain the course of our strategy and our ambition. And this is what you see here on the right-hand side. We maintain our ambition to achieve carbon neutrality together with society within the framework of the Paris Agreement objectives. When we say together with society, it means that this is the collective effort I was referring to. We are playing a part in that. States are playing a part in that. Consumers, other corporates are playing a part in that. And this is why also we show these enablers of success and we show these dependencies because we need to make the energy system evolve overall, and we are one of the players in the energy system. And then we reassert our ambition, our aim to be carbon neutral in our operations by 2050. That's Scope 1 and 2. We reassess our objective to have a reduction -- a net reduction of our CO2 emissions in our operations, Scope 1 and 2 by 40% by 2030 compared to 2015. The same is very much true for methane. [ Guillaume Charman ] will give you a lot of details around that later on. We have the objective to reduce our methane operated emissions by 80% in 2030 compared to 2020. And you'll see we're very much on track to get there. And then -- and that's key for the transition of the energy systems, where we have a role to play, we are going to continue to put on the market for our clients, and this is why what Mark Benson will present to you, we're going to continue to put on the market an energy mix that has a lower carbon content over time. And this is what is going to drive the reduction of our carbon intensity index. So we are staying that course. What does it mean in terms of figures? Here, you see where we come from and you have the, let's say, historical performance of our CO2, Scope 1 and 2 reduction of our methane reduction and of the life cycle carbon intensity. And you see here that last year, in 2025, we reduced our operated methane emissions by 65% compared to 2020. Actually, we had started reducing the emissions, the methane emissions before 2020. We reduced the Scope 1 and 2 emissions to 33.1 million tonnes. That's compared to 46 million tonnes in 2015, while actually at the same time, we grew our production, and we created a whole new business segment, integrated power with actually some gas-fired power plants. And what we show here is that the performance in our, let's say, historical oil and gas sector is a reduction that's already very significant of 38% Scope 1 and 2 emissions over that time period 2015 to 2025. And at the same time, we have lowered the carbon intensity of the energy products we sell to our customers. And you can see that it's been reduced by 18% more than that, close to 19% in 2025. And we are going to continue. You can see the objectives for 2026 and the medium-term objectives for 2030. They are unchanged compared to what you've seen in the last year, a couple of years and more than that. Now how do we get there? It's frankly -- and as Ron explained during the sustainability moment, it's a lot of concrete down to the ground, down to the operations initiatives. And you'll see some of those later on around methane. And here, you see the levers on which we can pull to get to our 2030 targets. This is what you see here. As I was saying, there is actually an increase in a way in the bottom line, the baseline of the emissions because of the additional gas-fired power plants we've embarked into our operations. That's new. That's been new in the last 5, 6 years. Then there's the management we have around our oil and gas portfolio, and you can see that's driving a reduction that's actually comparable to the increase of the CCGTs. And this is because we have this low cost and especially here, low emissions approach to our oil and gas projects. I'll give details to you afterwards. And then it's a bit of everything, energy efficiency, electrification, greening H2 man reduction, obviously. And starting in 2030, not before, as we've always said, we'll start using natural-based solutions credits so that we can also drive the reduction and reach our targets, but that will not start before 2030. And until then, it's all work on the ground -- with all of that, we have reduced last year the intensity of CO2 per barrel of oil equivalent we produce to below 16 kilograms, meaning when we produce 1 barrel of oil or gas equivalent, there is a release in the atmosphere of less than 16 kilograms CO2 per barrel produced. That's roughly half the industry average. We keep reducing that over time. And now that's the new threshold on which we base our investment decisions and new projects must be below that threshold. And that's a very, very virtuous threshold. Now let's look at an example on what we do around energy efficiency. [Presentation]

So these are great examples of what we do and what everybody, as I was saying, as its collective efforts will be doing. Now let's look in more detail at our transition strategy, which is encapsulated in 4 very simple words: more energy, less emissions, and this is what is driving our action when we implement our strategy. You know the strategy is based on 2 pillars: developing oil and gas, keeping producing and developing new oil and gas projects and building this integrated power segment so that we can produce and put on the market electricity. What's important here is that there is growing demand, as I was saying, in oil and gas. There is also the natural decline rate of fields that the whole industry has to fight against just to maintain production levels flat. So we are investing in oil and gas, but we are prioritizing those projects that have low cost and low emissions because we believe these are the projects that will be resilient in any kind of scenario. The key here is that we can adapt our strategy to evolving scenarios to evolving futures because we don't really know what the future holds. We know it will be different from today, and we need to be able to adjust our strategy in this respect. And this is exactly the way in which we prioritize our oil and gas investments. As far as gas is concerned and especially LNG, the key short- and medium-term priority is to abate methane emissions. As you know, this is a key priority for us. And finally, when it comes to electricity, we need to achieve scale and size so that we make a difference so that we can provide reliable electricity to customers. When you bring scale, you can deliver affordable energy and electricity to customers and it allows that to be profitable, obviously, for our shareholders. So this is exactly the way in which we are implementing our strategy. What does it mean in terms of energy? On the left-hand side here, you can see the energy production that the split we had in 2015, you see that there was no electricity back then. It was only oil and gas, actually more oil than gas. And you can see the evolution of that, let's say, energy production mix. You can see that last year, which is something where gas played more of a relative role to oil and especially there was electricity. The production of power last year amounted to, as you can see, the 8% of our oil and gas production. There is also other low carbon molecules we produce like sustainable aviation fuel. And what do we aim for? We aim for a growth in our energy production. That's overall 4% per year by 2030. This is more than 3% per year for oil and gas, predominantly LNG. And this is a very significant 20% growth CAGR for our power production, as you can see here. The idea is that in 2030, we are aiming for a production of electricity that's going to be 20% of the overall energy we produce. So this is what we are very patiently, very consistently building and delivering. And in terms of energy sales, you can see the evolution is the same. It is, in a way, just exacerbated. And you can see here that there is the same evolution in terms of gas playing a significant part in our sales mix between oil and gas and electricity playing more and more of a very significant part. All of that is driving the carbon intensity of the products we sell to our customers down, as you can see on the right-hand side. again, we achieved 18.6% reduction in this carbon intensity of the energy mix we put in the market last year, and we are going for minus 25% in 2030. And this is key because the carbon intensity is really the reflection of the fact that we enable our customers who consume energy to reduce their own Scope 1 and 2 emissions because at the end of the day, what we want to achieve is that we, as an energy producer, like you saw in the movie just now, we reduce our Scope 1 and 2 emissions. What we want to achieve is that our clients can reduce their Scope 1 and 2 emissions. And this is what this I see, this carbon intensity index is really measuring. We are tailoring the investments so that they can precisely meet those targets. And you can see here -- so the investment allocation this year in 2026, and you can see what we aim to do by 2030. There is investment in oil and gas for growth, new projects and maintenance investments, as I was saying, we are investing in existing projects and in new projects actually so that we can fight this natural decline of fields. The natural decline rate of fields, the IEA published a report last September is on average for the global industry around 7% to 8%. This is something we have to fight just to maintain production flat. So this is what we're doing exactly when we invest, and we invest in new projects to sustain the growth that I was mentioning, which is more than 3% per year, a lot of LNG. It's not new. We've done that consistently. And actually, we have more than 12 years proved reserves life index, which puts us in the best league in the industry in this respect. Now we invest in low carbon energies, and we've done something very significant recently. We announced a deal late last year with EPH that has a fleet of CCGTs, of gas-fired power plants in Europe. We're going to be acquiring 50% of that fleet. That's a lot in Italy, the U.K., Ireland, the Netherlands namely. And what we're doing here, it's a share deal. So it's going to be a capital increase to do that deal, which should close around the summertime. And what we're doing here is that we are really front-loading, accelerating the plan. We had a plan to grow in renewables still here, and I'll show that afterwards. We had a plan to grow in flexible generation assets, CCGTs, gas-fired power plants. And in Europe, actually, with that deal, we have front-loaded a significant share of that plan so that we can accelerate our power production. And the investment effort is going to be around EUR 4 billion per year, including EUR 1 billion per year in this ETH share deal that we have, if you look at that, let's say, over the next 5 years, if you look at that over the next 5 years. We are going for a low CapEx approach to other low-carbon activities, and I'll show details of that afterwards, so I'll come back to that. The reason is we are adapting our investment space to market penetration on the client side of things. And again, I'll show you some examples of that. And one very good way to look at our effort that's consistent over time is the EU taxonomy. 30% of our investment in a proportional view are eligible to the EU taxonomy. So this is what we achieved year after year to grow that low carbon business, that integrated car business that we've been building. I was saying that what we aim to have is a resilient portfolio when it comes to producing oil and gas. And here, you have in a snapshot, that's a fairly busy slide. But here you have in a snapshot what it means in concrete terms to have a resilient portfolio of oil and gas. So it means first is that we need to have a good control of our cost and make sure that the breakeven in our oil and gas portfolio is as low as possible. And you can see over the last almost 10 years now, the breakeven has been very, very consistently low around the $25 per barrel threshold so that we can generate profits in a lot of prices environment, even in low prices environments. The reason we've gotten there is that we have applied and we keep applying very strict investment criteria. Our investments in oil and gas need to be profitable in a $50 per barrel environment. So they need to generate returns in those environments. And they need to have a CapEx plus OpEx per barrel technical cost, CapEx plus OpEx that's less than $20 or less than $30 breakeven. So these are investment criteria we have been following in the last few years. They're not new. We are still following these criteria, and they achieve exactly what you see. At the same time, our barrels of oil and gas that we produce today that we produce in the future, they need to be resilient in any kind of a transition scenario. Depending on where things will be going, if things might accelerate in terms of penetration of low carbon technologies, the barrels of oil and gas that will be relevant to produce in the future will be those that have the lowest cost of production. I've mentioned that, and those that need the less CO2 in the production cycle. And this is exactly what you see here. I mentioned that earlier. We have criteria in our investment decisions. We take into account the $100 per tonne carbon pricing, assuming that if it were to apply, we need to make sure that we make a profit in our investment. And as I was saying, we have lowered the intensity of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere when you produce a barrel of oil or gas to less than 16 kilograms. So this is taking the intensity of our portfolio down. And what you see on the bottom left side here of the slide is very interesting is we've looked at what are the existing production and projects up to 2040. And you can see where our portfolio sits in that portfolio of production, global production. we have some of the most resilient in terms of emissions, barrels of oil and gas to produce. And you can see here that they are relevant these barrels in many scenarios, including Parisalign scenarios like the APS24 that was published by the International Energy Agency. What it means too is that in terms of cash flow per barrel, we are increasing consistently the cash flow from operations we deliver per barrel. You see that on the right-hand side. And you can see that the new projects that are being put into production, they bring additional cash flow compared to the average that we have. Again, this is because you see the results of the investment criteria that we've been applying. So there is production growth and there is accretive cash growth because the cash growth is even more important than the sheer production growth in oil and gas. So this is what we're achieving by applying this criteria in a very constant way. And this is how we are building this resilient portfolio of oil and gas. Here, you have really the same thing around our LNG projects. And you can see where our projects of LNG are positioned on the merit curve and how they reach breakeven in 11% discount environment, that's Asia. And you can see that the best positioned on the merit curve. So these LNG tons that will come on the market through the projects, they are resilient, they are sustainable so that they can contribute to meeting energy demand in gas. And you can see that, again, the performance in terms of intensity on the right-hand side of our new projects is significantly better than the average of the industry, as you can see. Now let me spend some time with you on some very concrete examples of what it means in our investments, in our operations and projects to deliver energy that's affordable and therefore, that's profitable because the 2 really go together because this is what will drive customers adoption. Let's look at electricity first. What you see here on the left-hand side is the, let's say, benchmark of levelized cost of electricity production of various means of production. And you can see that without any surprise, the cheapest sources of electricity production today on an LCOE basis are solar and onshore wind. We take into account that in Europe, $100 per ton of CO2 pricing environment, which is a reasonable, I would say, assumption to make. And you can see that solar and onshore wind, they perform better on an LCOE basis than CCGT and offshore wind and then the rest goes higher. So what do we do? We invest in those means of production of electricity that are the best positioned on this merit curve because we want to make profit out of that business, and we want to deliver affordable electricity to our clients. And you can see that our portfolio is a portfolio where growth is going to come from these sources that are the best positioned on the merit curve. You can see that we are going to move from 48 terawatt hours production in 2025. So that's close to 50 terawatt hours electricity production last year to more than 100 to 120 terawatt hours production. And the technology from which is going to be derived is described here that even is fit in the car there in French, in the pie, that's onshore solar, onshore wind, a small portion of offshore wind and flexible assets, gas-fired power plants with batteries playing a part, batteries that can charge when prices are low or negative through solar, through wind and then they can discharge on the grid when prices are higher. So that's good for the reliability of electricity supply, one of the 3 tips of the energy trilemma, and that's good also for the affordability and profitability of these operations. So this is what we are building as a portfolio, and you can see the split that we're aiming for in terms of where the production of electrons is going to come from. And you can see what it means in terms of gigawatts of capacity installed, still the same as you've seen since last year, 100 gigawatts of total growth capacity that we need to have developed and installed by then, a significant chunk, the majority for renewables and then also from flexible generation. And trading is a key component in that business segment to optimize and again, to create value for our shareholders. Now here, what you see is the electricity generation that I've mentioned. If we look at the cash flow profile of that business, this year, in 2026, we aim to generate more than $3 billion in cash flow from our integrated power operations. And this means that this business segment will -- by the latest next year and might be sooner depending on when we close the deal with EPH that was mentioning, it means that at the latest next year, Integrated Power, the cash flow from operations will actually contribute to the dividend. It will generate more cash than we invest in terms of cash in that segment. So this is what is shown here, and we are aiming for this $4 billion to $5 billion cash flow from operations in 2030 in this business segment. And it's always very interesting to compare that business with our oil business. And you can see on the right-hand side, oil and gas business that in a -- if we take a $60 per barrel environment, the return on average capital employed of our oil and gas oil activities is 12%. That's normal, so to speak. Our Integrated Power segment is going to be generating, that's the aim we have 12% return on average capital employed by 2030. So the idea here is that in this business segment, we deliver the same return on average capital employed than we do in a $60 environment in oil activities. And what's very interesting too is that, obviously, and that's shown here, the Power division will not capture up cycles in the oil prices, as we know for very different reasons. We have one just today, but it's going to be very resilient and very constant -- so it is also something that's very interesting to make sure that we have this cushion of cash flow from operations that are not, let's say, exposed to volatility in some cycles like the oil price. So that dividend, as always, is scrosan and guaranteed by a variety of activities, and we derive a lot of value from that integration and power plays a part in this respect, too. Now let's look at some subsegments of our activities. And what we're showing here is really this, let's say, transition, affordability and pace of the transition journey. So what you see on the left-hand side is that in our fast and ultrafast public EV charging activities, we have 2,000 fast and ultrafast charging points now that have been deployed. You can see that the utilization rate is still fairly low. It's reached 9% in 2025. There is a slow growth, but still that's slow growth. And the reason is there is not EV adoption, namely in Europe, at the pace that was expected, required or anticipated, have it your way. And then what do we do? We adjust our investment to the pace of market demand. There is not the demand that many expected that has materialized. So we keep investing lower levels of investment. You see that here, $100 million per year instead of $200 million -- sorry, $200 million per year. We focus on what makes sense from our operations standpoint, fast and ultrafast charging in our retail stations, highways and urban areas. And we've gone for a low equity approach to what we call B2G. B2G is the public street charging concessions like in Paris and other capitals in Europe and elsewhere in the world. In France, we've done a joint venture. We announced that last year with [ Bitire,'saép ] to develop that activity with them. So there's less capital we put in. There's more leverage we can have. And we've done the same in the Netherlands and Belgium with TKO recently. So this is an approach where we're still going for that business, but with partners with more leverage so that we follow the pace of public demand, and we put our capital where it makes sense to put our capital in. And then what needs to happen for that to accelerate? Back to the -- okay, what are the enablers concretely for EV penetration? Prices need to go down. And certainly, there needs to be a significant push for small segment cars because they can be made affordable. We noticed the case in China already Chinese electric cars are more competitive than Chinese ICE cars on the Chinese domestic market. Europe can get there. Other countries can too. So we need to -- we collectively, the car industry, the states and governments that devise the policies they need to support adoption of small easy cars that need to be made affordable, affordable sorry. there needs to be support for the used car market. The reason is this is where people actually buy their car. In France, for instance, 70% of cars are bought on the secondhand car market, not on the new car market. So these are the enablers. Technology needs to be adaptable. The reason is, as I was saying earlier, there have been very significant developments in technology charging in ranges that by batteries can achieve and how fast you can charge batteries, mainly from some Chinese innovation. We need to make sure that our infrastructure of EV charging will be able to adapt to evolving technologies at a pretty rapid pace actually. And then you need to take the power to these distribution points, these EV charging points. So networks, grids need to be upgraded. So these are very concrete enablers where policy support, subsidies, money can be put behind. subsidies were taken out by the French and German governments for EV cars for a year in 2024, 2025, reinstated last year, and we saw immediate results in the uptake of EV cars on the market. It had been plateauing really for 3 years. Actually, there was a decline in 2024, and there was a slight uptick in that figure of EV penetration late last year and earlier this year. Let's look now at aviation mobility. We know that there is an excess cost or an additional cost to produce low carbon molecules for the aviation industry. And you can see here the comparison. We take as a benchmark, the cost of jet fuel before March, so let's say, in February. And then we look at the merit curve of different technologies. SAF from coprocessing is the next cheapest source of production compared to jet fuel. SAF from brownfield, meaning conventional refineries is the next one and so on and so forth. And you can see that the most expensive is ESAF, meaning synthetic SAF to produce, which is made from the combination of H2 and CO2. And this one is extremely expensive, 10x more expensive than traditional oil jet fuel. So what do we do in this context? We, as always, invest for what's the cheapest to produce, therefore, what's the most affordable and the most profitable. And you can see that in our European refineries, we have invested in co-processing capacity because they're the next cheapest ones compared to jet fuel. We've done that in Normandy. We've done that in NeunA. There's no CapEx required because you directly inject into the oil fuel refining or jet fuel refining process, you directly inject biodiesel, HDO or biofeedstock, lipids directly in there. So it goes into the process and then you have a blended fuel at the end of the process that meets the namely EU mandates requirements or even more than that today to grow in the market. And then we've also invested in pure SAF midSA 100% SAF capacity. Lam Med is already producing 15,000 tonnes per year in the south of France. And Grand Prix, that's not too far from Paris. -- will start production by the end of this year, and it will reach a full capacity of 230,000 tonnes per year. By doing that, we are investing in means of production that are competitive when we go and face customers, airlines that have to buy these aviation fuels. And we need to secure feedstock because feedstock is key in producing sustainable aviation fuel. So we've done partnerships mainly with Sara, Quatras to make sure we have access to the animal fat, used cooking oil that we need to produce these fats. And now what's required? What's required is something that's working in a way in the EU is mandates. Mandates in the EU, there is in a material way, the only place where you have mandates for demand to materialize in the world, that's in the. You have very small mandates in other places like Singapore or the U.K., but that's way smaller in terms of quantities. But then we listen to our customers and what they say is that it's going to be very steep because today mandates are 2% SAF in jet fuel, basically, that's the blend you need to have today on the market. It's going to be 6% in 2030 when you look at the European regulations with a mandate of around 1% of ESA in 2030. And you can see that ESA is the most expensive one. So maybe it doesn't quite make sense to have that yet. And then the steps are going to be very steep. It's going to be 20% in 2035, 34% in 2040 and then going to 70% of blend that you need to have in 2050. That's what you have in the regulations today. Airlines are saying we can't have that, not in the current technology and price environment. So what we are saying is that, and this is something that airlines are advocating, there should be more technological neutrality in mandates. So that you put in the blend what's the cheapest to produce and therefore, airlines in Europe can stay competitive. And you need to make sure that there is maybe more, let's say, progressivity in the way in which the requirements are going to be progressing. And certainly, what's very important is the more we can have a global mandate one way or another, the more there's going to be demand certainty and the more it's easier actually for suppliers like us to make our investment decisions, for instance, in Europe. So these are the enablers. And again, they are very concrete examples of what can be delivered by governments, by customers, by corporates together so that we can accelerate that pace of transition. Same is true for the hydrogen. Hydrogen was seen as maybe some kind of a phenomenal universal energy vector maybe some 5 years ago in the discussions. We all know that things have changed in the way in which H2 is being looked at, but still it has not disappeared. And there's a typical here, what I like to call the chicken and egg issue on green hydrogen. Green hydrogen is very expensive. You can see it here on the left-hand side. And the question is, who's going to come first? Because supply needs to be that clients are comfortable they can make investments and suppliers of hydrogen need to be comfortable that there will be demand. That's the chicken and egg issue. What we've done is that because we are an energy producer on the one hand, you know that, but we consume a lot of hydrogen in our refineries. Two, we've gone from an approach where we are aiming to procure, produce in joint ventures, low-carbon hydrogen, namely especially green hydrogen that we can use in our refineries in Europe starting in 2030. It will abate CO2 emissions. So that's good for climate, and we'll be able to deliver energy products to our customers. And then what we need to do collectively again is to make sure that we find a way to compensate the excess price because otherwise, that's not affordable, that's not competitive, it's not going to work. And how can we do that? Well, when you look at that in Europe, if you compare the gray part of the gray hydrogen based on natural gas price, if you add up the ETS, so the CO2 pricing cost of producing gray hydrogen, you can see that you really don't get to parity with the price of blue or green hydrogen. Then you need to have what we call RED II RFNBO eligibility to a significant extent so that basically using green low carbon hydrogen in our refineries will generate these renewable fuels of nonbiological origin credits under the EU regulations, and that's for member states to implement. And then you can basically -- sorry, match the price in a way of the excess cost, excess price that you have. So we need that to happen. It happened in some countries, the eligibility for certificates. It needs to be improved in some countries like Belgium and the Netherlands. And we need to have visibility beyond 2030 because we don't make investment decisions in a 5-year time horizon. It's more 15, 20 more years that we look at when we make investment decisions. We need to have more visibility. And then market size needs to grow because the more you grow the market size, the more you have scale and the more you can basically bring down the -- when you look at CCS, again, it's the same story. On the left-hand side, you can see that carbon capture and storage is expensive. And you can see that the all-in cost of capture, transportation and storage of CO2 leaves a significant cost gap to the ETS price that in Europe, producers have to pay. So basically, what we've done is we've invested in some capacity, Northern Light in Norway, where we have a co-partner is now injecting storing CO2. We need to make sure that clients are here. And for that to happen, there needs to be faster permitting in the EU for clients to do the capture side, for developers like us to do the storage side of things and transportation in between. We need to have a lot of visibility and regulation and especially, again, still the same story. There needs to be a way to make for this pricing difference that's in excess of the ETS price that if you store CO2, you don't pay the ETS because you can store the CO2, but then still leaves an extra price on it. And there needs to be mechanisms in place. One of them, it's been put in place in some places. It's CCFDs, carbon contracts for different their policy tools that exist that can be used again to make sure that there is enough incentives for larger emitters of CO2, the cement factories, for instance, to make these investments to make them, again, affordable, therefore, competitive and make sure that in Europe, for instance, the example we're giving, competitivity is maintained for the European industry. So all of that is putting us in a place where we are creating value year after year for our stakeholders, for our shareholders. And you can see here where this value goes, taxes, namely in a lot of non-OECD countries, emerging economies, which is very important. to our employees, obviously, to our shareholders and to investments. And it's something that we present every year. We have employees who feel safe working in the company. That's very important. Renault was saying we have safety teams in the morning. They trust the way in which the senior management team, the company is evolving, is implementing its strategy. There is a lot of confidence. Therefore, we can embark our 100,000 employees in this journey because if they are not on board, if we, as colleagues are not on board, we can't achieve that, and they're proud to work for San Energies, which is very important to us. And this is reflected in the fact that they are very significant shareholders of the company. They now own close to 10% of the value capital of SosanEnergies. It's growing. Last year, they invested EUR 0.5 billion in the capital increase for employees in our company. So that's the best -- it goes without any speech. I could have just mentioned that, and I think it shows that they feel more than okay working for Star Energies and the trust is what it is that we're doing in terms of strategy. Now others, when they look at us, find that we perform more than well. And here, you have extra financial evaluations by third parties. I won't comment on that. And when you look into more details, you can see that we have very, very excellent ratings by EcoVadis in our affiliates, in our operations, that's supply chain management, that's environment, that's safety, that's human rights. This is what goes into these rankings and evaluations that we have. Finally, let me conclude here before I leave the floor to my colleagues. You can see here 15 years of evolution, and there's one simple way to look at that. What needs to go up is going up. What needs to go down is going down. We are taking profits up share price at energy production up because we're bringing energy to the world. We're taking CO2 emissions, methane emissions, life cycle carbon intensity down, and we have no intention to stop. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Aurelien. Very good morning or afternoon to all of you. I'm very pleased to walk you through this presentation and to share with you some insight into what we have been doing in the company to fight against methane emission as Aurelian was explaining, also to explain you what we intend to do to take this fight a step further. You will see that there are many initiatives that we have already undertaken, which I think position us as a leader in the industry. And of course, we would like to maintain this position of leadership. But first of all, why does methane emission matter? Methane is a well-known greenhouse gas like CO2, but its global warming potential is much greater than CO2. If you consider a period of 100 years, it's 30x more impactful than CO2. If you consider 20 years, it even jumps to 80x more. Why is that? Because methane, unlike CO2 is unstable in the atmosphere, and it has an average lifetime, which is around 12 years only. We estimate that methane has been responsible for globally 1/3 of the global warming since the Industrial Revolution. And if you take the example of the year 2023, out of the 56 gigaton of CO2 equivalent that were released on that year, you have 12 gigatons that were directly linked to methane, mainly because of the activity in agriculture, in waste and of course, in energy. And out of this 12 gigaton, you had 4 gigatons specifically linked to the use of fossil fuel and 2.4, which were directly associated with the oil and gas activity. Because of the relatively short lifetime of the methane, as I explained, acting on its emission does have a short-term impact on the global warming. And we believe actually that it's probably the most efficient lever that we have to fight against this warming. And just to illustrate that, you may remember that it was back in 2021 in Glasgow at COP26, 160 countries committed to reduce their methane emission by 30% over this decade. If this commitment is met, which we hope, it will then have an impact of 0.2 degrees Celsius on the global rise of temperature by 2050. So you can see that the impact is indeed very meaningful. Probably contrarily to what they have in agriculture and West, we do have in the oil and gas industry, both the technology and the operational expertise to fight efficiently and quickly against methane emission. And what we have been doing as a company shows that very clearly, and actually, it will be the purpose of this presentation. But first of all, and very logically actually because of what I've just said, we are strongly supportive of all the international initiatives that have been taken to act against methane emission. So the first one that is mentioned here and that we co-funded is the oil and gas climate initiative that was launched in 2018. It's a CEO-led initiative that gives an objective in terms of methane intensity reduction. Likewise, we also co-founded the oil and gas methane partnership. This is a United Nations-led initiative that sets a reference framework for methane emission reporting. And by the way, we were granted by the OGMP 5 years in a row, the gold standards. We are very proud of that. And then there is a third initiative that is mentioned here that our CEO call it, which is the oil and gas decarbonization charter, which was launched in COP 28 back in 2023. It's a coalition of 56 oil and gas international or national companies. This coalition represents 40% of the global oil production. And they committed to -- we committed because we are part of that to, first of all, eliminate routine flaring and secondly, to achieve near zero methane emission and this by the end of this decade. So now moving to what we have done in the company regarding methane emissions. First of all, with the plot you have on the left, you see that we have been able, over the last decade, so from 2020 to 2010, sorry, to 2020 to cut by almost half our methane emission in the operated asset. And we did that mainly by acting on flaring. And since then, as you can see, we have kept reducing very steadily the emissions. Over the last 5 years, we were able to cut them by an additional 65%. Interestingly, in 2020, our objective was to reduce the emission with the 5 coming years by 50%. And we decided last year to raise this target to minus 60%. So as I just said, and Aurelien said it as well, we did even better than the reinforced targets. For that reason, we are very well on track to deliver the objective that we have for the end of this decade, which is to achieve 80% reduction as compared to 2020. And by the way, we said to ourselves, it was said previously as well recently, a new intermediate target, which is to reduce by 70% by the end of this year, our emissions as compared to 2020. Likewise, regarding the methane intensity, which is the ratio between the methane that we released to the atmosphere over the amount of commercial gas that is produced. Methane intensity is on a very clear downward trajectory. We started this decade with an intensity at 0.15%. And at that time, we're targeting not to exceed 0.1% in 2030. Actually, we already reached this objective back in 2024. And for instance, last year, we were as low as 0.07% -- it happens that the bulk of the emissions that we have in the company takes place in exploration and production. And for this reason, the E&P branch with One Tech support has set up an organization to tackle the emissions very systematically, source by source. And you have here the 4 main sources of emissions. First of all, what we call fugitive emissions, which is CA basically. Then you have flaring because whenever you flare gas, there is always a fraction of this gas, which is left unburned, typically around 2%. Third, you have venting whenever by design, there are release of methane to the atmosphere in some area of the processing facilities. And then you have incomplete gas combustion in gas-driven equipment could be a gas turbines or gas engine. So we did tackle very systematically these sources. But of course, when you embark in this type of journey, the very first thing you need to ensure is to have a proper mapping of your emission and to do that with the appropriate technology. So several years ago, when we decided to equip ourselves with devices capable of measuring methane, including at low concentration, including in hard-to-reach areas like fair, we saw that there were very few technology available on the market. And on top of that, not with the accuracy and not with the functionalities that we were looking for. So we decided to develop our own technology, this with the support of 2 French research institute, the CNRS and the University. And altogether, we developed a new sensor, which we call OSA, which is a gas spectrometer that is indeed capable of measuring low concentration of methane and also CO2 in the air, where there can be either handheld or embarked on drone. We did qualify this technology in 2021 using our TAI platform, which is a testing platform southwest of France nearby Post, so through a blind testing program. And more recently, the international methane emission observatory together with Stanford performed a benchmark of the various tools available on the market, again, based on blind testing. And they came to the conclusion that OSA was indeed the best-in-class technology in this category. So we have since then industrialized the manufacturing of the sensors. We have deployed [ OoseEA ] throughout our operated assets. It was a very important achievement because it was truly a step change in our understanding of the emission, and it triggered a number of actions to fight against these emissions. As we were doing that, we also started to offer the operators of our OBO assets to conduct with our support OSA surveys. And likewise, we also offered this service to several national oil company. Just to name a few, there was Sonal Angola, Petrobras, Socaazarbajon and a few others. And interestingly, we also accepted to share this technology with Veolia, so a very different business for them to map their emission in their landfill. So certainly, OSA was an important step in our journey, but it was not enough actually because with OSA, you conduct spot survey. So it's not really appropriate for any discontinuous submission. For this reason, we decided it was at the end of 2024 to go a step further by equipping all our operated assets with a permanent monitoring system that consists of various type of devices such as IoT sensors, infrared camera. It also comprises systems that allows us assessing in real time the fraction of gas that is unburned -- left unburned in flares or in gas-driven equipment. And thanks to truly a massive engagement of all the affiliates in the NP branch, we were able in just above a year to deploy that everywhere. For instance, we deployed in the order of 13,000 IoT sensors everywhere offshore, onshore. And as you can see, all this for a cost, which is, I would say, limited -- which was limited to $50 million, limited given the magnitude of the plan. So that's where we are. And as we are doing that, we also set up in the head office a methane tracking center, MTC. So in the MTC, we collect real time all the data that are acquired now on sites related to methane emission, plus also data that we received from a number of satellite data providers. And the MTC objective actually is twofold. First of all, logic is to support all our sites in their detection program and also very importantly, to try now to make the most of this massive influx of data, leveraging IA digital solutions to try and take our fight against methane even a step further. I told you earlier on that the very first source of emissions that we have to tackle are fugitive emissions. So leaks, you can see on the top right of this slide, an example of a gas leak at the level of a flange. Back in -- at the beginning of this decade, fugitive emissions accounted for close to 10% of our global methane emission in the operated perimeter. And of course, our duty is to detect immediately any fugitive emissions, which we can now do, thanks to this permanent monitoring system that I just described. But as soon as you have detected that there is something going wrong in your process, the next step is to be able to identify precisely what is the source of the leak and also to measure the rate of this leak, which we cannot do actually with the IoT sensors. And for that, we do what we call a QLR survey, which stands for quantification, leak detection and repair, which is basically an handheld infrared camera survey, which indeed allows us to say precisely what is the source of the gas leak and how much of gas is released to the atmosphere. And then, of course, the very last step, but the most important actually is to fix all that, to stop the leak, which we are doing exactly like what we are doing for oil fields. So we put here a very concrete example of various detection that we've been able to do with this large pan of tools that we have now in hand. Starting on the upper left of this slide, you have a satellite detection that was done in the Middle East, one of our assets onshore. The core pixel corresponds to the gas cloud. Actually, it originated from a cold flare after a process event. Moving down, you have example of detection that were done with OSA, either walking the sensor through the facilities or by drones through flights. Upper right, you have 2 examples of detection from a fixed camera. The one on the left is very interesting. It took place in South America onshore assets. We were actually able to detect a gas leak from a buried pipe because of pin due to corrosion. And then on the right, you have another example, which is, again, in the Middle East at the top of a storage tank with gas release. And then moving to the bottom part of this slide, right part, you have a very short detection that was done, thanks to one of these many IoT sensors that we have now deployed. This one took place in the North Sea after a maintenance operation. Needless to say that in all these cases, we act swiftly to stop that. I told you earlier on as well that a second source of emission possibly was flaring. When dealing with flaring, the first thing you need to address is routine flaring. And by the way, we are committed, as I said earlier on, to eliminate routine flaring from our operations, operated assets by the end of this decade. So here, you have the example of what happened in Nigeria. We are offshore OM100. It's an oil asset. And by design there, the associated gas used to be routinely flared in a number of satellite platforms. So we decided to collect this gas, route it to a central complex, treat it and then send it to an LNG for this gas to be liquefied. It allowed us to abate our emissions by 1,000 tons of methane per year. But probably more interestingly, it came with a net technical cost, NTC negative minus 40 tonnes per CO2 equivalent abated. Why that? It's because when you combine the revenues that is coming from this extra gas that we monetize plus the avoidance of paying penalties for flaring, you do more than offset actually the cost of rerouting the gas to the central complex. So that's what for routine flaring. Another type of flaring is safety flaring. But contrarily to routine flaring, you cannot avoid safety flaring because you always need to flare a fraction of gas to -- just to ensure a safe performance of your operations. But the least we should do, we shall do is to make sure that this gas is as little as possible. Here, you have the example of what we did in Gabon offshore in 2 very mature assets, Ang and Torpy, which were equipped as they were mature by all design flares. And so we decided to modernize these flares by installing new flare tip with a flame stabilizer, also an automatic ignition system. And this plus a few other optimization allowed us to reduce the methane emission by more than 3,000 tonnes a year. here again, by the way, with a negative and is slightly negative, but negative because of the extra gas monetization. The last example I wanted to share with you regarding flaring is what we call flare gas recovery systems, or FGRS, which may be better known as cllothlare. Here, the principle is very simple actually. Very often in the former design of facilities, all the residual low-pressure gas streams are flared. So the idea is to collect this gas to compress it and to recycle it in the processing facilities. Today, by design, any new facilities that -- any new project that we launch is equipped with a cloth flare. It's must do for our engineers. And we also embarked in a retrofit campaign in several brownfield assets. We have installed as part of this campaign, a closed flare in Tama Rosa, which is an oil onshore asset in Italy. Likewise, we did that in Egina FPSO, Deepwater Nigeria. Before concluding, 2 examples that we wanted to share with you regarding the third source of emission, which is venting when we release gas by design from our processing facilities. And here, the first example we wanted to share with you is taken from the U.S. and more specifically from our shale gas asset in Texas, Barnett asset. There, we produce gas from quite a number of wells that are spread over like 400 pads. It happens that these pads were equipped by design with what we call gas instrumentation, which is used to automatically power a number of devices on the pad. The issue with the design is that once you have used the gas, it's just released to the air. So we decided to switch all that from gas instrumentation to air instrumentation simply by installing air compressor on the different pads. As you can see, it resulted into just a massive methane emission reduction, minus 7,000 tonnes per year even more. Remember that last year, at company level, our total emission in the operated perimeter was slightly above 20,000 tonnes per year. So it was a very meaningful initiative at the company level. And this with a net technical cost that was limited to $20 per ton, thanks to the extra gas monetization. And very last example we wanted to share with you. We are back in Nigeria, but this time in onshore, OML58, we have on the asset close to 10 storage oil tanks, which were equipped by design with what we call a natural gas blanketing system. It is gas that you put inside the storage at the front of it just to avoid any oxygen ingress. The issue with that, and we realize that thanks to OA surveys that it comes with a significant release of gas to the atmosphere. So we decided to change this blanketing system for a nitrogen blanketing. And here, again, like for the Barnett, it resulted into a massive methane emission reduction, minus 5,000 tonnes a year with a technical cost that was slightly negative. So this leads me to my concluding remark, which will be very short. First of all, I hope that with all these examples, very concrete that we shared with you, you are as convinced as we are that it is indeed quite possible to act efficiently and quickly against methane emissions, providing we do that very systematically and we mobilize the appropriate technology. On top of that, very often, we see that we can even do that in an accretive manner. And as far as we are concerned, it truly reinforce our conviction that it's the whole oil and gas industry that should follow this path, and we are here to support this move. And also, we'll keep very proactively pushing the operators of all our BO assets to engage in the same journey, sharing with them our experience and knowledge. So with this remark, I will stop here and hand over to you, Marc for the last focus.

Thank you, Guillaume. Good afternoon. Before sharing some customer cases, I will share with you some achievements and also some takeaways where we are regarding the customer decarbonization. As Aurelian told you, we are well on track on our objective to reduce the carbon intensity of the product we sell with an achievement by the end of 2025 of 18.6%. But what I wanted to illustrate with you here is how we that. So the 3 main levers to achieve it is first by reducing the direct operational emission. The second one is shifting our energy mix with more gas and less oil. And the third one, which is very important, is by expanding the sale of electricity to our customer, which alone account for 70% of this objective. So this is what you will see later how we do that with our customer. Maybe a word on One B2B. Just as a reminder, One B2B was created 4 years ago in the context of the energy transition with the main mission to support our large customer in their decarbonization journey. Today, this is a team of 35 experts acting as a bridge between customer needs and capability of the company to design and develop tailored long-term low-carbon solution across all the company. We are structured around 10 key segments covering 37 industries. And today, we track and support more than 450 customers worldwide. Just a number to give you a magnitude, all those customers, they represent around 2 gigatons CO2 emission per year, which is roughly 5% of the global emission worldwide linked to energy use. Now from strategy to implementation in terms of product, one integrated low-carbon multi-energy portfolio tailored to each customer transition, ranging from renewable electricity through classic PTAs or clean farm powers to decentralized generation, batteries, mobility and low-carbon molecules. Together, this solution address our main key challenges of our customers. And Aurelian told you, first is securing reliable, affordable supply. Second is, of course, reducing emission. And the third one, which is key also, is to meet their industrial requirements. So where are we now? I will not enter in detail in all what you see here in the numbers, but the slide shows a clear progression. In 4 years, we have moved from first deals to real scale. The first comment I want to share with you is that we are delivering globally. And of course, on our key strategic geographies, Europe, the United States and of course, Brazil. And this shows that our model is working across geographies and also through different market conditions. The second comment I want to share with you is that decarbonization takes time. These results reflect months and years of work structuring solution, building trust with our customers and also turning ambition into long-term commitments. And the third one is our capability and credibility now are well established on the market. And 2025 mark a clear step change with major agreements with the data center sector, which is certainly one of the most fast-growing and demanding sector. So in short, delivery, scale, credibility. And before turning to the examples of decarbonization with customer, I would like to take a step back and to share with you a few takeaways on where our customer stand today with their decarbonization journey. The first main takeaway is that commitment remains strong towards 2030 despite a tough economic context. But visibility beyond 2030 is more limited, to be. And most efforts of our customers focus on Scope 2 because reducing Scope 1 remains today complex, capital intensive and highly dependent on technology. The second message I want to share regarding my experience with the company and our customer is that across sector, we see 2 distinct dynamics. The first one is that for most of the sectors in industry, decarbonization is not pursued at the expense of competitiveness. Customers face real constraints first, its complex industrial transformation and also the absence in the market of a green premium to justify large investments. At the same time, you have a few fast-growing sectors as data centers, aerospace, defense, but also pharmaceuticals that are moving faster, driven by growth, strategic positioning and strong sustainability commitments. And finally, when it comes to solution, low carbon electricity clearly stands as one of the main levers today to decarbonize. Hydrogen has moved down the agenda and CCS still remain critical for specific sector as a cement industry. So now let's illustrate with 4 examples. The first one is data center. I want to share with you some highlights on this sector. You know that the sector is really booming. AI is accelerating demand and data center players are really engaged in a race in a race for capacity and for market share. The horizon is quite short term before 2030, and energy is really their top priority. It's critical for them to grow. The electricity demand from data center is expected to double, exceeding 1,000 terawatt hour by 2030. And they face 3 immediate challenges to really understand what we will do. First is a fast access to land with a stable grid. reliable and 24/7 power and meeting very ambitious sustainability targets. So now let's take the example of Google to highlight what we have done with this major player. In 2025, we have signed 2.2 gigawatts PPAs with Google, 1 gigawatt in Texas with TotalEnergies assets and 1.2 gigawatts in the U.S. through our DVlearways on over 3 grids. And in Texas, it's a real breakthrough what we did with Google. We provide an integrated scalable solution and access to a land to install a data center with grid connection, renewable generation and possibility to install. And beyond the U.S., our partnership also with Google is global. Earlier in 2025, we also signed a PPA in Malaysia for 20 megawatts. And all that project, all those projects directly support the big ambition of Google to be 24/7 carbon-free. The second example I want to share with you is also another strategic sector, which is semiconductor. The semiconductor is upstream part of the data and tech industry and demand is also driven by AI and also by connected devices. Energy consumption is growing at the same pace as data center. And the production of semiconductor remain mainly in Asia, but with some selective reshoring in the U.S. and in Europe for critical technologies. This is not really a new territory for us. We were in 2023, a founding member of the Semiconductor Climate Consortium Energy collaborative launched during COP28. So now let's take the example of Skeicroelectronics, which is a leading European player supplying hyperscalers and major electronics company worldwide with an ambition for them to be 100% renewable energy by 2027. In 2025, we signed a major wind farm power contract in France, 1.5 terawatt hour over 15 years, new solar and wind assets, firm 24/7 power aligned with their continuous industrial operation, which was key for them. The third example is the aviation industry. aviation sector, it's an important emitter of CO2, around 4% of the global emission. And also, it's a booming industry. The global passenger traffic and the commercial fleet will double by mid-2040s and with around more than 40,000 new aircraft expected over the next 20 years. In terms of decarbonization, conventional propulsion should remain dominant, meaning that sustainable aviation fuel, the SAF is the main near-term lever to decarbonize Scope 3 emission. So one of our key customers, Airbus, is strongly committed to pioneering decarbonization aviation with an ambitious road map targeting 3% CO2 emission reduction in Scope 1 and 2 and also 25% use of SAF by 2030 in their operation. TotalEnergies and Airbus share a long-standing partnership of over more than 50 years. And recently, we have strengthened it around SAF innovation, including the development of blends above 50% compatible with future and current engines. And in 2025, the partnership reached a new milestone with electricity with the signature of 2 power contracts to supply the sites in Germany and in United Kingdom, representing 3.3 terawatt over the next decade. So this showcase the full extent of our multi-energy positioning with one customer. And to conclude, I want to share with you a case in the steel industry, which is certainly one of the hardest sectors to decarbonize, accounting for around 8% of the global CO2 emission. And we will focus here on the downstream of this industry with Vallourec, a global leader in premium tubular solution mainly for the energy sector. Vallourec aims to reduce its carbon intensity by 30% and green electricity is certainly the main key lever for them to achieve this target. We will go to Brazil. Brazil is a key geography for Vallourec, where they have a strong integrated industrial footprint, especially in Minas Gerais, which is North Sao Paulo. And in Brazil, you may know hydropower, which is dominant, the reliability can be a challenge during the dry season. That's why Vallourec signed with us a 10-year PPA for 235 gigawatt per year of wind power through our joint venture, [ Caaentos. ] So this power is produced thanks to a complex called Serra Tigre, which is one of the largest onshore wind sites in Brazil. So this contract will secure to Vallourec low carbon, reliable electricity and marks really a new step in our partnership with a strong supplier for us that has become now an important customer. This is all for me in terms of example. Thank you very much. And I'm sure you are in contact with customers. So if you have some customers who have strong challenges in terms of decarbonation, don't hesitate to tell who to call. Thank you.

Can start the Q&A. Sorry for the diversity on study. Questions?

I have a question that's not really related to the presentation. So I'm really sorry. It's more related to the current geopolitical context. But basically, given the exposure of the group in the Gulf and in the Middle East, I would like to know and could you please share how the company basically anticipates and manages the risks that are related to the conflict, especially with regards to the protection of workers, subcontractors, migrant workers, local communities and the protection of the environment and give us some detail on crisis management at the moment.

Crisis happened on Saturday on Tuesday morning, next Tuesday, we decided to evacuate all the families which were in the Middle East, including some nonessential workers, I would say, colleagues. And the one which would not -- would not like to stay in the region because, I would say, of some anxiety. So it represent 1,300 people, which were in the UAE, in Qatar, in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. We evacuated all of them. I think it was in 7 days -- 6, 7 days. We still have today some people on the ground, limited workforce, mainly Abu Dhabi in Qatar, people who are seconded in the operations. There are still some operations running there. We have also 15 people in Iraq. We have also -- and we don't put everybody out because we have some local staff as well, and that's part of the -- and so it's not only expatriates, which we have to take into account. We have local staff. For local staff, we have offered to some of them if they wanted to exit. Most of them, of course, live in the country. And so in fact, the offer was not really followed, but we have taken into account what we could do with them. And -- but we think it's important to keep a presence as long as we have some local staff there to keep a relationship. There are also some contractors who continue to work, in fact, on the ground. Everything is not stopped. It's not because we -- so we have stopped production or not us, by the way, we stopped our production in Iraq. In Qatar, you've seen decided quite early stage to stop. Offshore Abu Dhabi stopped. We are still running offshore -- onshore Abu Dhabi operations are still there. And [indiscernible] in Saudi Arabia is still running. So we have some operations we need to take care. And of course, keeping a presence there is important for all our stakeholders as well. And we have been, I would say -- so we have been quite reactive to take all that into account and people first. It was the first priority, to be honest, for all of us and then to continue to keep the relationship -- close relationship with stakeholders at different levels of the company. So -- and they appreciate a lot, of course, the fact that we continue to be in contact with them following the events. I would say that's what we can do. And so the setup we have put in place and was quite reactive. And Catherine, who is there, who has spent some nights to welcome people at Charles de told me that everybody was quite happy. We have a good travel agency in the company. I can tell you after the COVID, now this crisis, we are well accustomed to do it. But of course, I will tell you, including the families today, they would like to know when they can come back. So for the time being, we -- of course, we stay here and we take care of them in their country. Families are not all here. They were repatriated where in the, I would say, home country for some of them because not all of them are French, are people from all the many countries in the planet.

My name is Nina, I'm from PSA. I have one question, whether you could elaborate on the rationale behind striking the recent deal with the Trump administration gritting wind power projects in exchange for a new -- starting new oil and gas projects. And I think in particular, given that you also said the transition is happening, how is this compatible? And I mean, how is your general significant oil and gas growth and LNG growth compatible with decarbonizing and creating long-term value in a transitioning energy system?

I'll start with the second part of it and then address the first part of your question. Energy demand is growing in oil, gas, power. Power is growing the most, but still growing in oil, still growing gas and actually produce -- we look at what may happen by 2050, gas is going to grow and not decline in the foreseeable future by 2050. And one day, maybe there will be a peak in our demand, but that seems to be further away and then a slow decline and that slow decline will be slower than the decline rate of fuel. So in other words, oil and gas production today and in the future is relevant to address that LNG demand. But because we want that to be resilient, that's why we work very hard on our operated emissions on maintain emissions in oil and gas. Oil and gas is very relevant in that transition journey as well because transition is not moving overnight from one given system A to system B, it's a gradual phase-in of system B and then very gradual and slow phaseout of System A and there's no phase away, let's say, system way for the time being. So oil and gas production in this respect is very much relevant, and this is why we have the 2 pillars. This is why we work on the resilience of the portfolio. Now to your first question, I think I'll make a...

I will take the first question because I negotiated the story. Let me be clear, it's very simple. There is no way to invest in -- in fact, offshore wind is an uninvestable topic in the U.S. You cannot invest billions of dollars in a country where we have no stable policy that every 4 years, somebody will tell you it's good or it's not good. We are also there to create value for our shareholders. And we came to the -- we studied a lot. We know we were committed. We spent and in fact, the money which is given back to us is exactly dollar for dollar, what we put on the table to the treasury to get the license. There is no taxpayer payment to TotalEnergies. We gave $98 billion in '22 to acquire these 2 license. They gave back the 2 license. Why we came to the conclusion first after having studied all that, that it was quite honestly expensive energy, $150 per megawatt hour. And it's true that in the context of the U.S. where you have a huge amount of land, you can develop onshore solar, onshore wind, and we continue to develop onshore solar, onshore wind. We are definitely committed to that. And we did not renounce to none of our strategy in integrated power in the U.S. On the contrary, we are building 2 gigawatt per year, more or less, and we continue to do it. And the administration did not ask us to stop. I mentioned that in France at the press conference, but onshore wind is good for the U.S. I have no problem with that. But in this energy mix of the U.S., in the specific case, we do not need to develop this offshore wind, which is much more expensive than onshore renewables, I would say. Secondly, when you have a government which tells you that there is a national security concern, it's difficult to argue against. and you are a private company. It's not up to me to decide if there is a national security concern. So we came to the conclusion that we could have 2 ways to arbitrate for what? Because at the end of the day, I would not have decided to take FID in a country where we could have tell me 3 years after you have to stop, what unfortunately happened to some of my colleagues. We are early enough. So we decided to engage in dialogue to say, okay, look, if what you say is the case, we give you the license back and you give us our money back. That was the point. They ask us do we propose -- by the way, it was our proposal to reinvest in the country. There was -- they preferred us to invest in traditional energies. We say yes, but then it's LNG and it's gas because it contributes to security of supply for Europe. And by the way, we are investing already in LNG. So it will not be oil, it will be gas. That's a choice we've done in the dialogue with the U.S. authorities. So at the end of the day, I think we have been pragmatic. It's not renowning to offshore wind. We have projects -- same this year, we got a project in France. We have a project in the U.K. We have enlarged our portfolio in Germany. I think in Europe, it continues to make quite a lot of sense offshore wind because we don't have the same type surface of land because we have more scarcity to develop the renewables. Maybe also because as you have a scale, you can have the cost down. That is what we -- our objective. So we will not renounce offshore wind in Europe. In the specific case of the U.S., we have been pragmatic and it's better for us to get the money back. And we are investing in the U.S. in gas, yes, it's true. But LNG is contributing as well to the life cycle carbon intensity factor diminish also with gas, more gas and less oil. That's part also of our transition strategy. So that's the rationale of it. And in fact, to be honest, for our shareholders, better for us to get the money back by making a write-off, which was the alternative. And to say you, we have made a write-off EUR 1 billion. It's an accounting line, don't forget it. I'm quite happy to have been able to convince them to enter into that discussion because it was our initiative. There was none of them. We came to them to them, look, let's be pragmatic. You will see that other companies will follow us.

[indiscernible] from Bancoter. I have, I mean, following this discussion, my first question would be, could you give us some color about the geographical split of your green or, let's say, low carbon CapEx, I mean, what you just described in this presentation. And the second question is, how far would you say your objectives in terms of Scope 3 -- well, overall supply chain carbon intensity that is minus 25% by 2030 would be at risk regarding, I mean, this sort of situation where you will have to arbitrate, I mean...

On your first point, it's something that we've decided to make, I think, very simple. On the Integrated Power segment, so renewables, flexible, as I described, we have 3 main geographies in which we invest, Europe, the U.S.A. that's -- and 3 grids in the U.S.A. that's PJM in the Northeast, ERCOT, Texas and Kaiser, California and then Brazil. So these are the 3 main geographies where we concentrate, I would say, more than 70% of our efforts of development in terms of integrated power. And there are some other areas where we make more targeted investments in some renewables in some oil and gas countries, actually adjacent to our oil and gas activities in the Middle East and Africa, for instance, or Asia, for instance, in India, where we have renewable activities and development. So in terms of power, this is where, to your question, we are basically putting our investment. Then low carbon molecules, as you saw, sustainable aviation fuel, it's really driven by mandates for the time being. Mandates are in Europe. So this is why you've seen this approach where we've invested in the conversion of Grand Prix in the south of Paris, converting this traditional refinery into a biorefinery that's going to be producing sustainable aviation fuel, 100%. And then we've made adjustments so as to co-process traditional jet fuel and a blend of sustainable feedstock in our European refineries in Germany, in France, there's going to be Belgium. So that's a European story as far as SAF is concerned today because that's where there is demand to make it very simple. So -- and then EV charging is something that's also very much European as far as we are concerned because, again, it's really demand driven for the time being.

25% will be reached. A strong winner in the company where we use the word objective, generally, we deliver. So this will be delivered. And it's why? Because we are -- we stick on what we said. We want fundamentally and a clear strategy has been set. We want integrated power to represent more or less 20% of the company. And mechanically, it will represent 20% of the company and will drop this intensity carbon 25%, even maybe a little lower than that, in fact. So I'm confident this arbitration we've done in the U.S., it was 1.5 gigawatt. By the way, the way we are developing it, I think it was not there for 2030, I can't tell you. Maybe 2033 or '34, offshore wind is more for the next decade, even in Europe. The cycles, offshore wind is very different from onshore solar and wind. Onshore solar, you have a cycle of investment of 2, 3 years in many countries. Offshore is more 8 years, 10 years. It's more an oil and gas, I would say, type of CapEx cycle, in fact. So it does not impair at all the targets we've done.

Okay. Questions? Yes, we have questions.

[indiscernible] from MUFG Asset Management. So on Slide 21, it was quite interesting to see your 2030 power generation. If I understood quite well, so it was 100 to 120 terawatt per hour would be the energy electricity production target. Would it still be 70% renewable and 30% flexible assets? And the other question I had was also on EPH, if the electricity generation will mainly be peak load or baseload...

Well, so you can see on the pie the Slide 21, I think that's the one. You can see the divide between onshore solar, onshore wind, flexible. And you can see that's around 2/3 renewable, 1/3 flexible gas-fired. So this is what you have. So this is the order of magnitude we want to reach and then we're on that track. I think last year, that was a split 2/3, 1/3 in now 48 terawatts production. On the PHD, so these are European gas-fired power plants. So they're not baseload. I'm not the one expert. def in the E is the one, but they're not bad. They are no marginal demand and peak rather than baseload, obviously.

Some of them are more used than others. It's a question, of course, of merit curve in some countries. In Italy, clearly, the coal to gas-fired power plant is coming much quicker than in France, for example, because it depends really in the countries where we have invested with EPH. Some electricity system are asking -- are calling the gas-fired power plant quite quickly. Some it's more big. So it depends on the countries.

On a couple of the slides, you mentioned regulatory dependencies, policy dependencies, which we all know and understand, particularly SAF hydrogen, for example. To what extent are you able or currently already pushing policymakers directly to bring in the kind of policies that you need to see these opportunities. So taking a, I guess, a transition or a Paris positive approach rather than being just a policy taker. And how are you working with trade associations to do that as well? And an example is on the EU methane regulation. We spoke the other week early on about we were really pleased to see you come out and say, we support elements of this, and we think it's a good thing. This is how we would like to see this be implemented. We think that's a real positive. But we know many of the trade associations you're a member of are saying almost the opposite thing. So how are you able to do that on some of these other opportunities like SAF and hydrogen?

There's one thing we can do and we do is we approach policymakers, especially at the European level for SA, for instance, the example we gave or H2, happens at national level for H2 for the implementation of the RED II directives by member states. And we reach out to them, and we make those points. I mean the points you heard today, these are the points in more detail to make to them saying, we need support. We do that with the players in the industry. So it's not only just us energy producer, it's the clients really. So we work with them so that they make the same advocacy point so that we increase the chances to have these supporting policies. Now let's be humble. We do make that. Do we get the results? Not all the time, but we keep working very hard to make that happen. So yes, we do have that engagement, and we do advocate for these public policies to be put in place, and we work with namely other sectors to make that happen. That's true for aviation, that's true for EV mobility, for instance, and the same is true for hydrogen also.

On the methane, to be clear, we have an intense dialogue with the European authority, myself with Dieter Jorgensen. Even with Criss-Right in the U.S., I've been asked to go to him to explain why this regulation is maybe not as terrible but they think that it will be better to find a way to compromise with it and to be pragmatic. So not to renounce. And I think the dialogue which we create and I'm participating, others are doing, we try to make the link and to show, look, it's better for us to engage. Of course, we all know that in the U.S. on the methane, the regulation has been built on the idea you have one field, one plant. which is what happens in the Middle East, for example. In the U.S., unfortunately, you don't have one field, one plant, you have a huge amount of gas production, a network and then a plant. So obviously, we need to find a way to evaluate what is the methane content of this network. So we have -- that does not apply like that. It does not mean that we should announce, and I explained that to Chris Wright. So we try to really engage on it and not to just say everything is bad, forget. I think -- and on the SAF, for example, as well, what we said about being more gradual, trying to understand technologies. We are also -- I was in Brussels recently with some parliament members to explain, but not to say it's not good, just to find a way to -- a pragmatic way to go to progress. And in fact, that's what we need to do. Regulation will work only if it's implemented, if it's accepted by customers. And you can see on the SAF today, a big pushback from some customers, online companies -- we say it's too expensive. It depends what is too expensive. So let's progress progressively, I think we think we can do it. So we engage. Your question about trade association is a real question. each time I'm going to the U.S., we left the API. I can tell you, I'm not very popular from some people there. And they want to convince me, I told you, look, we cannot -- I cannot do -- it's because of methane that we left the API because they were on the table, there was the large corporations like my peers, we agree on methane. But then this type of trade association sometimes are more governed by the small ones. We want to do nothing. So we say we cannot just pay to a consensus to have a sort of minimum consensus because most of the trade associations are working on the basis of minimum consensus. And sometimes these types of policy are putting -- I mean, this type of governance unfortunately, does not allow us to be progressive enough. On the OCI, for example, we are only 13%. We try and that's why we want to keep -- and we had a discussion in 2 days ago about officially, it's 0.2%. Can we drive down the 0.2% on methane intensity to 0.1%. So -- and we think that if the leaders are all going to 0.1%, maybe we can engage the industry. So this is where we are, we can do something. And methane for me is a perfect example. That's why I push all the teams to be a leader on it. And no, we want to use it in this presentation, which was very well done by Guillaume, we use it all over in many places, in many countries. So that's why we can engage. Trade association, honestly, sometimes we are frustrated. And -- but the point is that do we -- and it's like you you can be shareholder of TotalEnergies and engage with us or not be a shareholder. And then you -- we continue. So it's the same -- exactly the same position for us. Do we want to have a seat around the table to say our voice and to have one person which say, look, ETS is good and don't stop saying that it's -- you will solve all the competitiveness of European industry because we give up on ETS. It's no sense. And that's some trade association basically could say that. And better to have 1 or 2 large companies say, no, it's more complex than that. I prefer to have my representative around the table by getting out. But that's really the same debate that you could have by saying not to a shareholder of TotalEnergies.

Thank you firstly for the LNG merc. Very helpful analysis to be able to see. So I appreciate you bringing that in this year. I did want to ask if you have a comment based on the current geopolitical context and reflecting on the fact that previously, you've spoken about that a future LNG price drop could stimulate demand in the key markets that you're targeting. Do you see that challenged by the current conflict? Or do you remain of that view?

That's a very good question. We said that to the U.S. authorities, including U.S. LNG producers, they promote. We told them be careful. We had a crisis in '22, another crisis in '26. This could push some customers in some emerging countries being afraid of that energy, which is going very volatile. The problem is that the alternative for them is to switch back to coal, which is that we will do. So we warn the U.S.. And honestly, we've done it because I'm convinced that the idea that some countries which are very price sensitive, we hesitate to engage in long-term contracts with an energy, which could be suddenly so volatile. So that's true that long-term contract is a way to avoid the volatility of the spot market, but there is something of affordability -- and that's a challenge. So yes, it does not help. Having said that, again, I don't know what will happen in the Middle East. So it's very difficult. I don't want to make 20 scenarios in front of you, but we've made the presentation, we go up to 650 million tonnes by 2030 of production. Market is at 400 million. So even if we limit all the Middle East is still 500 million tonnes of LNG, this will have an impact on the price. And so it will -- my view is that industries in emerging countries in Asia, for example, Southeast Asia, they have the optionality. They can continue to use fuel. They can go to coal, they can switch to gas. And they will be, I would say, versatile depending on the affordability, which will lead their choice. That's my view on them. So that's point. But it's clear that it's not very good to have for this energy to be also -- but by the way, it's not good. And as we are today speaking about sustainability, it's good for renewable fundamentally all that. I want to say my view is that for 2 reasons. It's good because it's domestic energies, domestic, so they control security of supply. So I think countries which are more and more afraid to face this question of security of supply will move quicker probably. So it will encourage to go to renewables, I'm it. Then the question for some of them, it is that it is a mix of coal and renewables or what is the space for gas? It's a question. I agree with the question. But again, let's continue to believe that it's better to continue to push, and we'll see that. But I think globally, this crisis is good for renewables.

Other questions in the room? We can take maybe questions online. So we have one question from Schroder. Pretty impressive work on methane. When do you expect to reach Level 5 GMP methane measurement in non-operated assets?

The sooner, the better.

Actually, for obvious reason, we first put our focus on the operated portfolio because we have a direct control. It does not mean that we did nothing in the meantime to push the operator of the OBO assets to move forward. I explained that we already shared the ODI technology with some of them. But now we have reached a point where we think we need to change gear for the OBO asset, and that's why we really push our managing directors in all the affiliates where we have OBO assets to share this -- the kits I presented to you guys and really encourage these operators to move forward as we have done actually.

Pragmatic objective this year, each of these guys must make the same presentation venue in each of the OBO to show them that it's possible with pragmatic topics with technologies. It's a matter of technology and it's not so expensive. So we can demonstrate now that we have done it, and this is the objective to move the OBO.

Methane emission maybe a last point. methane emission in the OBO perimeters decreased as well, but not as fast as what we have done.

But a country like Qatar with whom we are working closely, they are not happy at all. I can tell you. Last year, when I met the minister, he did not receive the gold standard. He was very unhappy and he said -- I told him we can help and he said with team, we need to be for GMP. So even if they are not necessarily agree with all the Paris Agreement, fundamentally, it's a question also for them to be the leader of the industry and that fast possible. So we can push the OBO assets, we must push them.

Questions in the room? No question in the room. So we have 2 questions on Mozambique, one from HSBC and one from AP 3. The first one is, do you have an update regarding the complaints filled by PNE regarding the Mozambique LNG incidents? And are there any findings from the Mozambique government's investigation as well as the independent Mozambique National Human Rights Commission investigation. So this is the first question. And the second question from AP3 is when you lifted force majeure in Cabo delgado, you referred to the improvement in the security situation in the area. This was linked to the presence of national security forces, but also international support. How will you act if Randa withdraws its support in the area? Will you still consider the situation to be safe and secure?

So on the first question, there was a communication by the Mozambique Human Rights Commission. I think it was around 10 days ago actually. And they say that they're still ongoing with their investigation on the ground. They said they've gone to [indiscernible] actually and they've conducted inquiries verifications, as I understand, interviews. And they say to this stage, they haven't found any evidence that the serious -- very serious allegations of Tortue and Murder were actually supported by any evidence. So that's where it stands today. basically. That's what we know from the Mozambique side of things. And no, there's no news from the French complaint filed in France. So we'll just provide information as and when we are as always.

So the second question is quite clear. Yes, the presence of international forces is part of our evaluation of situation. But -- and so we would have to reevaluate if they were leaving, but they will not leave.

Other questions in the room? So we have the last follow-up question from -- again, from Schroders on Mozambique. Given your focus and disciplined capital allocation and the low cost of supply portfolio, how do you assess and price aboveground risks such as geopolitical instability, human rights issues when evaluating opportunities? In particular, what concrete changes to governance in decision-making have been implemented since Mozambique? or are this applied across other high-risk projects? And what thresholds must be met before capital is deployed?

I think the first answer to that is that actually the fact that we have projects in very diversified geographies. And by the way, we are the most diversified in geographies where we invest and produce oil and gas namely is an answer to that. This diversification in the many places where we operate, build projects, oil and LNG is a protection against the possibility that in any given place today as the Middle East, actually, there can be a crisis. So the fact that we are in so many places is a protection against geopolitical risk in and of itself. Now to the more precise question around Mozambique, First, in Mozambique, when the project was under force majeure, there's something that we did that I think was very important is in spite of the project not being under construction, it was suspended for more than 4 years. What we did, however, that Mozambique LNG ended a foundation with significant capital, and there were a lot of and there are still obviously ongoing socioeconomic development activities taking place. So even though the project was not moving forward, the contribution to socioeconomic development on the ground around the project in the communities are still being advanced. And the reason is you want to be able to do that so that there is some benefit felt short term immediately by these communities so that there is some buying in the project basically. So I think this is a very good lesson learned, I would say, when investing in these geographies that can be risky, that can be tough in an environment that are poor, but we make sure that there is some socioeconomic development going on at the same time as the project is being built because projects will only generate revenues 5 years, 10 years down the line, and you need to make something happen before that for the community. So I think that's one of the big lessons learned from that experience.

The question was about governance and I would say, for future projects. So we, of course, draw some lessons of what happens. We observed that fundamentally and for our company is a challenge that onshore projects clearly raise more the complexities from human rights, from stakeholders because we are onshore. We have to take -- we have land acquisitions, all that. And the answer to that for me is we need to anticipate all that. We cannot just go -- it's a project, let's do it, and we will do it in parallel. The parallel engineering does not work very well. We need to anticipate the phase and taking care of the people, local population to take care of all these land acquisition before to really engage. If we want to want to do everything in parallel, our teams, of course, are dedicated to build the project and maybe not efforts done. So that's a question that a point. So we want absolutely on this type of projects. to have a clear view of what is the status and to have done it before. If we need to acquire land, let's do it before we engage the company in. And then the second point, of course, is that I can tell you much more -- there is more focus clearly on this type of issues. We have a risk committee and even with the Board where we are -- when we have such a project, we go through the different issues one by one to explain what have been the action plan and what we plan to do to cope with it. And we have to be convinced that we have, I would say, the solution in place to be able to face the challenge. That's the point. And unfortunately, we cannot anticipate terrorism and conflicts and armed conflicts.

So we have a question on one with B2B. Following Mr. Puan comments on LNG, do you already see impacts from the Middle East crisis on your large clients, notably the gas intensive ones. Do you expect lasting effects on their demand, which ones?

Honestly, TotalEnergies, we have made one decision, which is not to declare force majeure for any of our LNG customers. So it's a strong decision. We said to our customers, there will be no -- we will not invoke force majeure to tell you we will not deliver the gas. Why? Because we are a portfolio company. We have a large portfolio. So we want ourselves to be the security of supply for the customers. So we will absorb the fact that we -- yes, we'll have a miss of LNG coming from Qatar and Abu Dhabi, but the portfolio is large enough. So we direct part of our portfolio. We know we have some molecules that we are keeping for ourselves at our discretion. And so we told them you will receive the -- so we will respect the contracts. So it's a way to tell to our customers, okay, look, yes, there is a mess somewhere, but you will not be impacted by the supplier, which is TotalEnergies, of course, in terms of price and in terms of volume. So we respect all the contracts which have been signed by our customers. And I think this is the answer to the risk you mentioned.

Questions in the room? Last chance.

HF. I wanted to have your view on the recent events that we saw with the EU ETS. So it was briefly mentioned earlier, but I wanted to know what your view was on the outlook of the regulation because the review is going to come pretty soon. The impact it has today on your refining margins, for instance, and what you expect for the future of the regulation?

ETS, this is really carbon pricing in targeted sectors. This has been a cornerstone of the EU policy around the rating, especially industrial emissions. And I must say it's been efficient. So there isn't a cost. There has been a cost competitiveness. It's being dealt with and managed by the free allowances. So the question to us is not whether or not ETF should stay in place. ETFs should stay in place. Again, it's been efficient, effective as a tool. And there should be a fairly high CO2 pricing through the ETS so that it does drive investment decisions. Otherwise, investment decisions are not driven if the price is too low. Now having said that, there are mainly 2 important things that need to either be maintained or happen for the other one. What needs to be maintained is to make sure that there is a very careful thinking around the free allowances that goes to industries that are exposed to international competition because through the free allowances that some sectors receive, then you can compensate the ETS pricing for some of these industries. And then the other thing that needs to happen, and that's not really the case today is that the revenues collected from ETS they need to be directed to support initiatives, investments to decarbonize. Basically, there should be some kind of a closed loop between that's money taken through the CO2 pricing ETS system, and that money should be channeled back to investments made to decarbonize, to electrify the use and to decarbonize. And this is something that we actually are pushing for.

So fundamentally, we push for ETS, keeping the ETS system as much as we can is our position. I confirmed it to many governments, to French government to the commissions to all -- and we think that the ratio of competitiveness of the industry is not just ETS, it's the energy price today and other factors, regulations as well. So we cannot ask ETS to solve all the issues alone. And I think it will be strange for me that Europe clearly need to drive to security of supplies. The renewables are part of it. If you lower the ETS system, you will not face -- you will not help renewable system to be developed. So we have a question of consistency. So we mix 2 things there. And I think at the end, if we need to give support to industries, to chemical industry, you can do it also by industrial policies by having some special PPAs price, et cetera. So we are on this position ourselves. Then I think that compromise will -- I see many countries, in fact, are supporting the ETS system. And having said that, they also would like to keep some industries in Europe. So we need to find a way. But the system which was explained by fundamentally the idea is, okay, you collect taxes from carbon. So please, the ones which are investing to decarbonize, you have to support them. In particular, on the example of carbon capture and storage, it costs $150 per tonne. The ETS is $80. So if you don't have -- you need to find a way to compensate the difference. And that's where the ETS revenue should be used in order to support that. So I think that's more what the scheme we propose rather than just trying to make the same instrument, many policies. That's what we think. Where will it land? I think it should -- I would be surprised that the amendments will be major. We will need to do something for a few countries, but fundamentally, most of the countries want to keep the basic system.

Any last questions from the room? Okay. We have no more questions. Aurelian, do you have closing remarks?

Well, as always, thank you to all of the teams who've put that together. That's a huge work. And even more importantly, thank you to all of the teams on the ground. As you've seen, it's very much underground work who are making that a reality. So thanks to everyone for having done that. Thank you for your time today.

Thank you very much.