We are a global multi-energy company. We offer products and services for the well-being of society. We are a diverse and talented team, leading the energy transition towards a more sustainable future with zero net emissions. We are committed to all available technologies and types of energy to decarbonize, including greater efficiency, innovative industrial projects, low emission electricity generation, renewable fuels, new energy solutions, renewable hydrogen, and circular economy initiatives. We are transforming our industrial complexes into multi-energy hubs that can process all types of waste and produce low carbon fuels and raw materials that are necessary for a multitude of everyday objects. We carry out world-class exploration and production activities with projects in strategic geographic areas. Efficiency and the reduction of emissions are key to our operations. Our purpose is defined by our clients. We provide an innovative multi-energy offering tailored to their needs with products for more sustainable mobility and all kinds of solutions for the home. We are a major player in low-emission power generation in Spain with a solid portfolio of global projects. Innovation is one of the pillars of our strategy. Relying on technology and digitalization, we are developing new energy solutions that contribute to lowering the carbon footprint. The fight against climate change is part of our DNA. We are transforming into a more sustainable company and stepping up the energy transition. Good morning, all. Welcome to Repsol's seventh ESG day. My name is Ramon Alvarez-Pedrosa, Head of Investor Relations. I'd like to thank you, Deutsche Bank, for allowing us to use these fantastic premises for this event. It is great to be able to resume this annual in-person ESG event following the two years hiatus caused by the pandemic. On behalf of our CEO, executives and management team, we hope the presentations today will provide insight on the progress we are making on various ESG commitments, and our strong conviction that Repsol is well-positioned to thrive in this complex environment. Before we move on, I'd like to remind you to look at disclaimer page displayed on the beginning of each presentation. I invite you to read it. In terms of logistics for today's event, there will be a mid-morning break at around 10:30 A.M. Furthermore, a Q&A session is scheduled at 12:00 P.M. This will be followed by an informal lunch at around 1:00 P.M. in the room you already had breakfast. We invite everyone to stay with us and use this opportunity to talk to our senior management and investor relations team, who right after this event will embark on an investor roadshow, meeting investors in London and in Paris. Today, our CEO, Josu Jon Imaz, will be touching upon the topic of a just transition and its impact on industry and technology. This will be followed by three main themes. The role of existing and emerging technologies and the importance of technology neutrality in the energy transition. Diversity and talent strategy, and finally, climate frameworks, transparency and 1.5°C scenarios. Without further ado, I'll hand over to our CEO, Josu Jon Imaz. Thank you, Ramon. Good morning, everybody. It's a real pleasure to meet you again in this Repsol ESG Day after three years. Three years that they have been hard for everybody. They were hard in personal terms in many families. They were hard in terms of our societies, and I mean to see you again, to meet you again back some of you after so many time. Let me say that it's a real pleasure even in emotional terms to going back to the normal. It's true that this normality, let me say, is happening in the midst of another deep crisis. Another unprecedented situation we are experiencing today after the Ukraine invasion and the current geopolitical arena that is in some way reshaping the energy sector. It's putting the energy supply and the security of supply at the very heart of the energy policies, and in some way is bringing security of supply at the core of any strategy of energy transition. All these events, everything that is happening is in some way reshaping the pace of decarbonization and is rebasing the assumptions of energy demand. Let me say that coping with this situation is going to require a joint effort of companies, governments, and the whole society to ensure an efficient, a reliable, a safe delivery of energy that is essential in these circumstances for families, for citizens, and for the industries that work in our continent. We are now approaching the end of the second year of our strategic plan, 2021-2025. The strategic plan that we presented in the midst of the pandemic in November 2020. Let me say that we have delivered the key targets we had in that strategic plan. Our transformation is based mainly in two elements. First, the decarbonization of our legacy portfolio, fostering value creation, improving the efficiency of these businesses, and at the same time, guaranteeing the long-term sustainability of this legacy business of the company. At the same time, we are delivering a new operating model. We are building low carbon platforms to grow and to guarantee and support the acceleration of the energy transition in Repsol. Let me say that energy transition has to be faced with ambition and with determination. That is a big challenge because in some way implies both risks and opportunities and costs. The challenge in some way is twofold. We must work to transform our society. We have to be able to become a net zero emissions society by 2050, but at the same time, we have to be able to guarantee and supply the energy that our citizens and our society requires. As of today, it is, I mean, commonly accepted that the well-being of our society, and I think that we are unfortunately experiencing this reality these weeks, months, and we are going to experience this reality in coming months, that we have to promote this well-being of our societies, we have to guarantee the security of supply. We need accessible, competitive, and sustainable energy that is going to support the economic and the social development of our society. Let me say that the key issue is to, I mean, to face this challenge, leveraging on the industrial and technological capabilities we have, without sacrificing the standards of life and the well-being of our societies. At the same time, we have to guarantee the opportunity of the next and future societies to experience and to have the same well-being we have been able to build over the last decades. The energy transition doesn't represent for me a disruption that destroy the past achievements. In fact, I think that this is a journey. It's a journey with a clear starting point. Starting point is the current energy mix we have that has served the planet for decades, that is behind the well-being we have built in our society over this last century. We have a destination, and the destination has to be the target to be net zero emission by 2050. In this journey, we have to be able to decarbonize the energy mix. Let me say that we are not talking about ideology or dogmas. We are talking about working on uncertain path. We have to invest heavily in technology and in new assets over this period to get this target we have by 2050, and we have to move the world towards a less carbon-intensive energy. Our case is very clear. I mean, I remember that in 2012, we were in some way a trailblazer when we achieved an agreement with our trade unions, creating or establishing or settling a new variable bonus for all the workers of industrial plants of Repsol, 7,000 people, linked to the CO₂ emissions of our refineries, the units, the chemical plants, and so on. You know that in 2019, we became the first oil and gas company with a clear target of getting net zero emissions by 2050. At the same time, we were able to define and to establish a comprehensive, clear, and pathway to get this target, defining a carbon intensity index and with clear milestones in this pathway. I mean, with the commitment of reducing a 15% of this carbon intensity index by 2025, at 28% by 2030, and at 55% by 2040. The goal of our strategy, the driver of the strategy of Repsol is this target of getting net zero emissions by 2050. Each of our business is fully oriented in its strategy, their strategy, better said, to get this objective. Based on these convictions, I like to share some additional thoughts today. About how to approach the energy transition in this complex and tough time. I mean, my first thought, we have and we must guarantee the security of supply. Security of supply means that we need to guarantee the energy that the world is going to need in coming years and in coming decades, and we have to do that at a competitive cost. I mean, what we are seeing now in many European countries with families, that they are not going to be able to afford the energy bills in coming months, I mean, that is not sustainable. We need security of supply and we need competitive prices. Let me say that that is in moral terms, the first responsibility that an energy company has today in this time we are experiencing. At the same time, we must guarantee production, and we have to guarantee the access to all kinds of energy without demonizing it. Not doing so will mean facing the energy transition in a misguided way. We have to take an approach that has to be driven more than by ideology, has to be driven by technology. In fact, I mean, the stigmatization on following some dogmas could be popular in some European countries. I have to underline that all that has increased the risk of security of supply, has provoked a delay of investment in many sectors in the primary energy mix and this situation has driven an imbalanced situation between demand and production. Europe has given up producing our own hydrocarbons despite having natural gas, and that is a big mistake. We have gas in our subsoil in Europe, and we have increased our dependence. In addition, this single-minded commitment to electric mobility will make us dependent on rare materials and on Chinese precious metals. We can't build the dependence of the future after suffering the dependence of the current gas situation in Europe. Europe, from my point of view, has adopt a clear strategy of guarantee of supply, and we have to avoid any energy dependency. To do that, we need diversification. I want to be very clear, and I say that from the full commitment we have as a company, and we have had as a company over the last years and decades. Security, securing supply and avoiding disruption won't delay the energy transition. On the contrary, it will accelerate a continuous progressive transition towards zero emissions at lower cost to society, and let me say, with the support of the society, because we need the support of the society, because otherwise we could put at risk the energy transition, and that will be a double dramatic situation. First of all, the current suffering, and secondly, we will be building a new suffering for the next generation, not being able to redress the problem we have as a planet. My second thought, the transition must protect and reinforce the European industrial base, including industrial skills, capabilities, and employment. To develop this energy transition, we need a European robust industry. I mean, and there are another, let me say, moral, social and economic reasons to defend the European industry. One of them is that industry generates jobs, stable, quality, well-paid jobs for young generation. It's industry, I mean, when I'm talking about industry, I'm talking about the whole European fabric. It's nurturing an environment of science and technology, and we need this ecosystem of science and technology to thrive in the energy transition. Otherwise, we are not going to have a real transition. In order to solve this industrial problem, we have to take into account in Europe that CO2 is a global problem. I mean, I'm going to be, let me say, a bit provocative. CO2 is not a waste with local impact. I mean, the emission of a CO2 molecule here in London or in Shanghai is exactly the same for the climate in the planet. It's exactly the same for the climate in London. We have to understand that in Europe, we are not reducing emissions if we are taking them and sweeping them under the carpet, and we are exporting CO2 emissions, we are exporting industries, and we are exporting jobs to some other continent. To do that, we have to understand, and European authorities, they have to understand the concept of net emissions. That means taking into account the whole value chain, the whole carbon footprint of products and direct emissions. That they are the emissions that are emitted in the European Union. This, I mean, this clarification is crucial from my point of view because, I mean, what is happening now in Europe with many industrial sectors is that competitiveness is damaged by high CO2 prices. That is okay. I'm in favor of CO2 prices. But if we don't have any kind of border adjustment, and that is not happening. It's going to be very difficult to happen in coming years. What we are pushing is to export these industries. In the whole equation, we are increasing the CO₂ emissions in the world because in many cases, I mean, the export of these industries and these jobs provoke that we import these products that are produced in a less efficient way with a higher CO₂ emission level. After that, we have to transport these products to Europe, increasing our total carbon footprint. We have to take the picture of the total carbon emissions in Europe. There is, from my point of view, another big mistake in this debate. That is the identification of decarbonizing and electrification. I mean, our goal has to be to decarbonize the society, not to electrify it. Electrification is a part of this equation because a lot of sectors of the economy are not going to be electrified in coming years, decades, taking into account the current I mean, I prefer to be humble because things could change. When we are talking about technology, things could change in the future. With the current foreseen and the current knowledge, we are not going to see in coming decades a real electrification of the aviation sector, the maritime sector, heavy trucks, many industrial sectors of the economy like, the chemical business, steelmakers, paper mills, and so on. This sector I mentioned, they are going to be, more than a half of the economy in coming two decades. If we put all the focus only in electrifying the economy, it's going to be okay, but we are going to be decarbonizing a half of the economy. We don't want to decarbonize a half of the economy. We want a solution for the whole economy to be decarbonized. Otherwise, we are not going to have a solution for the planet. To do that, I know that's complex, and it's not an easy task, but we need new, efficient, and sustainable renewable fuels because all that is going to be crucial to decarbonize all these transport sectors I mentioned before and to decarbonize many industrial sectors. I mean, I firmly believe that without these renewable fuels, and I'm talking about liquids and gases, Europe is not going to be able to achieve the carbon neutrality goal by 2050. In this sense, technological neutrality is crucial because these technologies that are going to help us to decarbonize the world, I mean, they can't be seen as antagonists. I mean, I'm clearly in favor of decarbonizing the electrification of the company. I mean, we have, let me say, and being very humble, but we have the credibility to say that because we have built over the last three years, I mean, a quite significant electric power generation business. We have to go ahead, and we have to do additional things to do that. We have seen a very strong technological evolution in many fields. All that is happening, of course, in power renewable technologies. It's happening in batteries. It's happening in hybrid vehicles. It's happening, of course, in electric cars. It's also happening in combustion engines. It's happening in advanced renewable liquid fuels. It's happening in hydrogen. All that is having and experiencing a dramatic cost reduction over these years. What I'm trying to express is that we can't predetermine which technologies or which combination of them will be the winner in the long term. In this transition, it's essential not to turn down certain technologies driven by our own perception that we are going to see winners and we are going to see losers. The target has to be to reduce as many CO₂ tons as possible at the lower cost for citizens and, of course, with the greatest impact, positive impact on industry and unemployment. I mean, and I'm going to be also a bit disruptive, just in case about what I'm saying now. I mean, the European Union is going to impose a ban of the internal combustion engine by 2033, 2035, sorry, from my point of view, a big mistake. Because de facto is disabling the effective deployment of technologies that could contribute to decarbonization. I mean, all the effort in terms of improving the combustion engine, all the effort we need to develop this circular value chain to produce sustainable fuels. I mean, to have all these technologies work in this direction will be a great driver to decarbonize the economy. I mean, we need the development of all this circular economy, raw materials, urban wastes, agricultural and forestry wastes to build fuels we need to feed the combustion engines of the future because we are going to need them for the aviation sector, for heavy trucks, and so on. So we are, in some way, losing opportunities to contain and reduce the CO₂ emission level. I'm going to be very clear. When I'm talking about combustion engines, I'm talking about combustion engines able, from 2035 on, to fuel these engines with net zero emissions over the whole cycle of this vehicle. Less technology working in this direction. My third thought, a fair transition with social progress. I mean, it's not enough to emphasize the environmental and economic advantages of the energy transition. I mean, we need an energy transition that will be able to be paid by citizens with the cost, this, the price of carbon that citizens could afford. Now, it seems that the cost of this energy this winter is only consequence of the war in Ukraine. Let me say that that is partial truth or a partial lie, as you like. What we are dramatically accelerated now was happening before the Ukrainian invasion. I mean, if we analyze the gas prices in December 2021, I mean, it's true that the $75 per million BTUs, they were not there, but 45, 50 were there before the Ukrainian invasion. Last summer, for instance, in 2021, the power price in Spain was similar to the current price we have now in August 2021. The oil price was in November 2021 above $80 per barrel. I think that if we simply reject oil and gas as a position, what we are promoting is clearly a lack of investment in this sector. Because the incentives to produce hydrocarbons are reduced. The consequence is that families can't pay this energy. The consequence is that we are punishing our industry, I mean the demanding sectors, and the consequence is that we have to burn some other energies with higher CO₂ emissions because people can't afford to use gas to produce power. All that is really already happening with a severe impact on households, economies, and industrial competitiveness. A just transition is a concept that also involves guaranteeing on an adequate way the supply of energy, including hydrocarbons, because we have to meet the current needs of our society and the future needs. From my point of view, these decarbonization policies, they have to be very sensitive toward social policies. I mean, we can't promote regressive policies. I mean, I'm fully engaged and in favor of the electric vehicle. As responsible of the new energy business of Repsol in 2009, 2010, I was in charge of launching the first electric vehicle recharging service in Spain 13 years ago. We are leading today this market. That is a part of the solution. It's not the only part of the solution because, I mean, if we subsidize vehicles for people with revenues above EUR 100,000 per year as a second or a third vehicle, that's okay. A lot of people in our countries they can't afford buying an electric vehicle today. They are driving old cars. Today, the main emission problem, for instance, in my own country, in Spain, is not the diesel, the gasoline, or the electric vehicle. It's the old vehicle. It's the old car fleet. Before the 2008-2010 crisis, the car fleet average in Spain was at around eight years. Today, it's 13.5 years. I'm very sad saying that, but today the most dynamic car market in Spain, unfortunately, is the secondhand diesel cars. Mainly because, I mean, people, they don't have any kind of support to buy a new car. I mean, only substituting an old diesel by a new diesel could reduce enough 30% the CO2 emissions of the car, taking into account the current technologies, and 84% the nitrogen oxide emissions, and 94% the particles emissions. I mean, what we are developing in many cases is a regressive policy that is impacting in a negative way on many social sectors of our society. Let me say, in this, and if today that is my concern, it's not only because we are experiencing a hard economic and social situation in Europe, it's because we need the support of our society to thrive with the energy transition. Otherwise, we are not going to be able, in this combination and common work of governments and companies, we are not going to be able to thrive in this energy transition. We need the support of the society to do that. We are ready to do that. Let me conclude, I mean, emphasizing that Repsol is fully committed to the target of being global carbon neutral by 2050. We have a clear strategy to do that. We have a streamlined organization that is prepared for this target. We have the right operating model to do that. We have the carbon platforms to grow and to get this objective. I think that we have the team of people that is ready to make it happen. Our strategy is based on a multi-energy approach. We want to be provider of all kind of energies. An approach that is multi-energy, but at the same time combine a hard decarbonization process of our legacy operations, the growth on renewable electricity generation, we are fully committed in this target. What is also important, because talking about liquid fuels is not only blah, blah. It's a huge commitment, as you are going to explain later, Tomás, to decarbonize our industrial sites. We are changing the concept of refinery. I mean, oil is going to be less and less the only feedstock, and we are going to add some other feedstocks to allow us to reduce, in a dramatic way, the carbon footprint of the products we are going to sell in the future for these combustion engines, either for the aviation sector, for the maritime one, for heavy trucks, and why not for cars. Let me emphasize that the acceleration of the energy transition towards climate neutrality, and that is our target, to try to accelerate this transition, requires to have a transition just for all. A goal that will be better achieved by guaranteeing the security of supply for everybody, and affordable and cheap energy for everybody. Of course, when I'm talking about these parts of the triangle, I do that because I believe on that, but because I have a full commitment about the third one, that is the sustainable part of the equation. It's the target of being net zero in coming decades. We can't in any way get rid of this target. That is crucial for guaranteeing the future of future generation. Let me say, we need the support of the society, we need the support of public powers, and we need the support of public policies to have enough coalition in our society to thrive towards this target. Thank you for coming here today, and it seems to me that we have the opportunity to discuss about these things and perhaps some other more practical and interesting over the whole day. Thank you. Thank you very much, Josu Jon Imaz. Now we are going to have Javier Ariztegui with us. Javier is a mechanical engineer and holds a doctoral degree from Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. He has served an extensive 20-year career at Repsol Technology Lab, where he's now Senior Manager responsible for the development of energy products and services. Javier's presentation highlights the importance of technological neutrality, and he will elaborate on how Repsol is leveraging on technology to accelerate its transition, and which are the most disruptive developments across our different platforms. Javier, the floor is yours. Good morning, everybody. Can you hear me? Thanks for this opportunity to show you how we put technology in the center of our operations, as our CEO has just mentioned some minutes ago. My presentation will take us in the following minutes through three topics. The first one is why we say technology should be a key ingredient for the energy transition. The second one is a reflection of what our current capabilities are, how we approach this technology development within Repsol. Then we will cover four examples of disruptive technologies which are happening today and which tackle some of the biggest challenges we have ahead of us. One around hydrogen, the second one around synthetic fuels, one of the types of renewable fuels that we have at our disposal. The third one around circular plastics for the circular economy, and the fourth one around how we feed renewable electricity, which is a non-firm electricity, to all these processes working 24 hours, seven days a week. These will be four examples of things that we are already doing, we are already developing, and some final remarks at the end. Coming to why we need technology, we have identified five main reasons why we need to push technology in order to enable us to do this energy transition. The first one is perhaps the most obvious one. We need to do new things. We need to extend the limits of what is possible. You will see in a minute an example in photoelectrocatalysis. That's a technology which enables us to do something which we couldn't do some years ago. We have a block around improving the economics, because it's not enough to have an idea. It's not enough to have something in the lab. We need to scale up that idea, and we need to make sure that the final product is affordable. For that, we need to improve the added value of our processes or products, higher yields, better qualities. We need to reduce the energy consumption and the carbon footprint of those products. You will see in a minute, the plastics to olefins project is exactly targeting that. We also need to look at the investment cost of these technologies in a holistic way, not in every step, but as a whole. Trying to reduce all these things will make us have an affordable energy transition, and technology is lying at the bottom of these developments. We have a reason which is very particular to this energy transition. I just mentioned it. We need to couple renewable resources, which by nature are variable. We have daily variations in the sun, seasonal variations, and we need to couple that solar resource with industrial processes, which we aim to run on a 24/7 basis. We will see an example, we call it H2O Opera, which is exactly targeting that point. Finally, even when we have these processes, we produce renewable net-zero products. We need to put those products in the hands of the final user, having a fit for purpose product, meaning that the final user will not have any glitch, will not have any problem when using it. You will see in our synfuels project, we're exactly targeting that. These are the five main reasons why we think technology should be a key ingredient of this energy transition. How are we prepared to do this? Well, we believe a dual approach is a very important part of this challenge, because we need to combine our internal expertise, and we do have that expertise. We have more than 200 researchers, an extremely fine facility, which we call Repsol Technology Lab, with pilot plants, analytical labs. All kind of expertises coming together from advanced mobility, to process design, to advanced mathematics. We do our internal research, but we need to combine that internal approach with an external approach, because there is plenty of talent out there. For that, we have, under the same umbrella, under the same organization, a corporate venturing fund endowed with EUR 50 million to invest in startups with disruptive technologies. We also have another fund which has been recently launched, that's a shared fund, endowed with, in principle, EUR 150 million to invest in more mature technologies. We have a group within this organization dedicated to what we call open innovation. That's approaching researchers, technical centers with good ideas, willing to co-develop them with us and making us much stronger than if we do things only by ourselves. The results of these in 2021, for example, were, as you can see on screen, nine new patent families, 70 technology products, and more than 200 partnerships all around the world looking for those technologies. In all, we think we are well prepared to tackle those challenges that we have ahead. How are we doing that in concrete terms? Well, starting with hydrogen, we have this boom around electrolytic hydrogen today. The way we produce this electrolytic hydrogen is, as you can see in the scheme on the left, we have the resource, in this case, the sun. With that resource, we produce electricity with a photovoltaic cell. We then pass the electricity through a cable, the electric grid, whatever. We send it to another equipment, which is the electrolyzer, which takes water and this renewable electricity and produces hydrogen. This is the state-of-the-art. This is what we are putting at industrial scale. As you can see in all these processes, we have energy losses in the different transformations of energy, and we have to invest in quite a lot of equipment in order to produce this hydrogen. What is our proposal? Well, our proposal is photoelectrocatalysis. We will see a video which explains this. Okay. Photoelectrocatalysis enables us to use the sunlight directly to produce renewable hydrogen. How we do that? Well, with a technology which is similar in appearance to a photovoltaic cell. We have, in this case, a photoelectrocatalytic cell composed of three components, the photoelectrode, the separator, and the anode. The photoelectrode is exposed to sunlight, and as it receives this sunlight, it decomposes the water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen, which we can recover at the top of the cell. By combining these technologies, we have a solution capable of producing hydrogen directly from sunlight. The obvious advantage of that is that we're relying on proven technologies, photovoltaic cells, and alkaline electrolyzers. We have developed a proprietary technology for the photoelectrode and the cell, which are the core of this technology. All in all, we aim to increase the efficiency of how we use the sunlight, and we intend to reduce the total investment of these panels, which bring together both processes, the reception of sunlight, and the production of hydrogen. Where are we with this development? Well, we started some 10 years ago with the basic principles, designing this photoelectrode, designing the cell, illuminating it artificially in the lab, and proving the basic principles. From there, we jumped together with one of our partners, in this case, Enagás, and we built a pilot plant, you can see in the photograph there, with two big panels capable of demonstrating that this could work in real conditions. This is installed in, you know, Repsol Technology Lab with the sun in Madrid, and we built what we call the balance of plant. That is the rest of the equipment, which takes the hydrogen produced by the panel and separating hydrogen and purifying hydrogen in order to be used. That was finished last year, and at that point, we decided two things. First, we created a spin-off, another company, which is in an investment round, as of today, trying to get the funds in order to build a demo plant, which will be in the range of 100 kilograms of hydrogen per day, proving that this can be industrialized and that we can reach the reliability, the economics of scale that will mean that in 2025 we can deploy the first commercial plants of this photoelectrocatalysis technology wherever in the world there is, enough resource and enough sun. This is the first example of how we can approach hydrogen production with an innovative idea and making it happen. The second one is around renewable fuels, something our CEO has just mentioned. We do have a demand for net zero fuels, net zero liquid fuels, and we have two basic approaches. One is biofuels, which we are already scaling up to industrial scale. At some point, we will touch the ceiling of this solution because we need to use biowaste, so it's biological waste, and that's, let's say, a limited resource. It's big. It's not limited for tomorrow, but at some point we will touch that ceiling. What can we do to produce more renewable liquids? Well, the solution to that is synthetic fuels. In a nutshell, you have a scheme on the right. What we have to do is we have to produce renewable hydrogen, typically from renewable electricity. We need to capture CO₂, either from industrial processes or in the future, directly from the air. With these two ingredients, hydrogen and CO₂, we need to pass through these three processes. First, converting CO₂ to CO so that it is a more reactive element. With CO and hydrogen, we produce syncrude, which is something similar to the crude oil we have today, but synthesized from these two ingredients, hydrogen and CO2. We need to upgrade that syncrude to produce, let's say conventional solutions such as gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, which are perfectly compatible with the engines that we have today, which have been synthesized artificially and which are net zero. These upgrading processes are well-known processes, very similar to what we do in our refineries today. In order to do that, we have to overcome some of the barriers that we have ahead of us. First one is this conversion of CO2 to CO. That's the reverse water gas shift process. It's the acronym is there. That hasn't been scaled up to an industrial size, and we need to prove that that's possible and that that works. We also have to integrate the whole plant. We need to make sure that the quality of the products that we produce is fit for purpose, and we need to run field tests to make final users aware of this solution and to give them the peace of mind that they can change to this, complying with the net zero objective they have, but at the same time, without any problem. That's exactly what we plan to do. We have partnered with Aramco in order to build a demo plant. It will be a 50 barrels per day plant in Bilbao, in the north of Spain, next to our refinery there. At this moment, we are undergoing the basic engineering phase, designing the plant so that we can take a final investment decision by early next year. Start building the plant, hoping to put everything starting up the plant by the end of 2024, so in two years' time approximately. With a total investment estimated at a little bit above EUR 100 million nowadays. It's quite an investment, but if we can prove these works, then we can jump to the next phase and produce these at industrial scale. That's the second example that we are targeting right now. The third one targets a different challenge, which is circular economy. What we do with used plastics, one of the other main products coming out of our industrial sites. Well, with plastics, we need to reconcile three, sometimes opposing requirements. One is we can't continue dumping plastics in landfills. We need to recycle those plastics. We need to reduce the carbon footprint of those plastics, and we need to make that at an affordable cost. Okay. In order to do that, the more obvious way is what's called physical or mechanical recycling. That's basically taking the waste plastic, grinding it, mixing it with virgin plastic, and using it again. Well, that has two limitations. First, you need to process very clean, very well-sorted plastic. The problem is that used plastic typically comes from the rubbish bin, where it's been mixed with other things, so it's not easy to sort the plastics in order to feed this mechanical recycling. Second point is that although we mix recycled plastic with virgin plastic, we cannot get exactly the same mechanical requirements. There is a fundamental limitation to what extent we can bring these mechanical recycling to. At some point, we need chemical recycling. For that, we have two technologies available. Tomás Tomás Malango, the next speaker, will talk about gasification, which is the perfect solution for big amounts of waste, but which has some difficulties when there's not so much plastic waste available. For that, we now have pyrolysis, which is proven technologies. We have plants already functioning. The technology we have available today, it's called low temperature technology. It's oriented to produce liquids, as much liquids as possible, but those liquids then needs to be upgraded and processed in a steam cracker in order to produce the ethylene, which is the brick with which we build plastics again. It's a long process. What we thought is that we could try another avenue. You can see on the graph, on the right that depending on the temperature we use to process those waste plastics, if we stay in the 500 degrees region, which is pyrolysis as we know it today, we maximize liquids. If we go to a higher temperature, around 900 degrees, we produce gases. The majority of gases. A good portion of those gases are directly ethylene, which is our objective at the end of the day. We think that if we go to processing plastics at high temperature, we will be able to produce directly the building blocks, the monomers we need to make plastics again. In order to do that, we decided to use an electrical heating technology, which enables us two things. One, it's a very fine control of the process. The second one, you will see in our fourth example, we can feed renewable electricity and decarbonize the whole process. That's the idea. Where are we? Well, we've formed a consortium with many partners. Two of them are core partners for this development. One is ETIA, a French company, specialized in electric heated pyrolyzers. They have the technology. The other one is Técnicas Reunidas, which is an engineering company with a good expertise to bring lab and pilot plants to industrial scale, and us as the leaders of the consortium and final users of this technology. We've been granted a Horizon Europe program, and we signed the grant agreement last June, and we're already working on this technology. By next year, we plan to have a pilot plant in Repsol Technology Lab here in Madrid to fine-tune all the process details so that we can then jump to the demo plant scale, which is a sizable amount of waste plastic, around 8,000 kilograms per year, which will let us jump to a complete industrial size if everything is successful. The whole process should take us the next five years with an investment of EUR 33 million. The final example I want to put on the table came as a legal requirement in something called the Delegated Act on Hydrogen, which was published by the commission, and they set some regulatory requirements for electricity to be fed to the electrolyzers. Now it's under revision, and we don't know where this regulatory process will end up, but basically it put on the table three requirements called additionality, time correlation, and geographical correlation, which are very stringent requirements on the electricity we can feed to electrolyzers. Perhaps the most stringent one is the last one. That's the time correlation. They were asking for us to balance the energy generated in a renewable electricity plant with the energy consumed in the electrolyzer in periods of one hour from 2027. That's a very strict requirement. How can we answer this? Well, we studied the problem, and we need to take into account some boundary conditions. First, we pretend to operate the electrolyzer 24/7 because it feeds downstream processes which cannot be stopped at our will. We need to feed it with electricity coming from wind and solar plants, which is not accurate, completely accurately predictable. That means that with 24-48 hours in advance, we can make a prediction of what we will produce, but it will not be totally exact. In any case, we need to submit a plan to use the grid, the electrical grid, in order to transport the electricity produced in a plant to the electrolyzer. The operator of the grid needs to know what we will do in order to check if there are bottlenecks on the grid or whether we need to download some of the things in order to make this happen. We need to put this with 24-48 hours in advance. As the time approaches, that prediction should be reviewed, and we have to take into account in the final hour the local conditions, what's happening with the clouds, with gusts of wind, which alter the prediction we have for that electricity production, and adjust continuously our plan. We have two, let's say, flexibilities in all these processes. One, that we can put electricity storage in the system, which decouples to some extent production and consumption, but it comes at a high cost. Storing electricity, at least for the time being, is a high investment. We can sell excess electricity to the market if someone buys it. These are the, let's say, rules of play in order to develop this technology. What we are doing, and this is an internal development, is to create starting from what we call the physical layer. That is the solar and wind plants, the electrical grid, our electrolyzer, a storage of electricity, a storage of hydrogen. Those are, let's say, proven physical technologies. We want to create a digital layer over all those physical systems, so that in three steps, we first get data from the solar plants, we create predictions of what might happen in the following hours. All this data will feed an optimizing system, which will create this plan, which we need to submit with one-two days in advance. It will recalculate this optimization plan on a continuous basis so that we maximize the revenue that we get from hydrogen, and we comply with all the regulations. Finally, once this plan has been created and updated on a continuous basis, we have an orchestrator, which is the system that controls the whole thing, the physical elements, in order to put the plan in practice. This development, we started last year. By the end of this year, we plan to have what we call a minimum viable product in order to have a system in production by 2024, which is approximately the date when we plan to have big electrolyzers in place so that everything is well optimized by 2027, if finally regulation brings us to this system. Again, these were just four examples of four technologies we are developing, either internally or in collaboration, but which we think tackle the main challenges we have ahead of us. In order to summarize all these ideas, we think technology is the key or it's one of the key ingredients to boost this energy transition. We at Repsol, we want to be at the forefront of those technology developments. For that, we engage with others. We plan to develop things with partners. We don't stay small. We want to do world-scale projects. In any case, after all, I told you about these four examples, we always keep our technology-neutral approach, because if any other technology, which was not shown here, is finally successful, we will adopt it, and we will scale up in our industrial sites. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you very much, Javier. Our next speaker is Tomás Malango. Tomás is a chemical engineer from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. He joined Repsol back in 2001 at the Puertollano refinery and moved in 2006 to Repsol Technology Center, where he has managed different development projects. He is now responsible for renewable fuels and circular economy in the Industrial Transformation division. Tomás will provide you a deep dive into one of these promising technologies, the gasification process of waste feedstocks that is being implemented in our Ecoplanta project in Tarragona. So Tomás. Thank you, Ramon, and good morning, everyone. Following the previous presentations, I'm gonna share with you an example of how we are trying to get value from the technology. I think it has been pointed out during the morning that the energy transition is a major challenge, and this bring us three things clear ahead of us. One is that we need a source of renewable carbon and renewable hydrogen to create these new molecules. You know, we are evolving from a cracking processes to a synthetic processes, so we're going to join together these two platforms. The second one, of course, is the challenge regarding the supply of renewable energy, which I think is relevant and will be something that we have to talk about in the upcoming years. Finally is the how we need to get involved in accelerating the technology deployment because there are a lot of technologies that they are already there, but not at industrial scale, and other ones that have to be developed as Javier has mentioned previously. I will move ahead in this conversation, particularly about the gasification, which is one of the carbon sources that we're going to work on in these upcoming years. Of course, I will have a deep quick review on our ambitions. After that, we will talk about our choice in this technology development and the project that we are running right now in our Tarragona facility. These are the goals from the company where we're working on, and let me say that these goals are before REPowerEU and before Inflation Reduction Act. Therefore, probably the next year when we'll be here, this will be somehow some extensions changed for sure. At the moment, I think it's a significant bet on renewable fuels. We're talking about $ 2 million tons by 2030. Regarding hydrogen, it's this 1.9 gigawatts by 2030, and circular plastics, circular materials, 20% of our production, 0.4 million tons per year, by 2030 again. Just to remark that our ambition is there. Our set to become net zero is not a long shot, but we are working to make it year by year, starting by now and getting clear targets for 2025 and 2030. In the current context, Josu Jon Imaz has explained that very well, is bringing us some clear conditions that are encouraging us to move forward in this pathway. One is regarding the energy transition and the independence of supply, and I will not go back on that because it has been very clear explained by Josu Jon Imaz. The regulations are there, the push is very clear, and the situation is a challenge for the supply in the short term. It's an opportunity for accelerating the sustainability in the longer term. On the other hand, we have a significant push also regarding the circular economy. We do believe that all resources have to be taken as relevant. We're talking about, and this carbon source is critical. Circular economy will be for sure one of the sources of this renewable carbon that we need to create these new molecules, these renewable molecules that will be completing the energy transition together with the renewable power. The third point, this I think has been very relevant this summer for sure, is the client demand. We are foreseeing that the social pressure in order to move to more sustainable products is there, and this is becoming a target for the companies that are working particularly in the packaging areas, on the sustainable aviation areas, to put two examples. It's very clear that the requirements from the society is becoming into targets for these companies. Therefore, there will not be only a demand coming from the regulatory perspective, but also from the client and the market itself, and this is already happening in the plastics and the materials markets. Last but not least, of course, the current situation of the commodity prices. I will, again, not go back on that because that was already very well explained. It's clear that this is, let's say, giving an opportunity to be more competitive to some solutions that two years ago seems to be very far away from the competition. Gasification is a key technology, and it's a key technology for this transition for the, for the, for two main reasons. One is the flexibility of the feedstock that can be put into these processes, and you can see municipal solid wastes, plastics, biomass. And this brings all these residues into essentially CO, which is the carbon platform, and hydrogen, and adding some hydrogen there, then you have the flexibility to move to all the products that we have in our portfolio. As I already mentioned, this is the switch that we are moving. We are moving from, say, picking the crude and breaking it down in different molecules, then taking the CO and the hydrogen, putting them together, and go to chemicals, fuels, both biofuels and synthetic fuels. There are different processes in the middle. There's a picture to split it up. The main advantages that we get from gasification are related to this. One is the flexibility. Javier was pointing that we are working on a lot of technologies, but the other technologies have more limitations on the feedstock that can be introduced in them. At the same time, you have a limitation with the volume that can be processed. By the moment, gasification seems the more promising technology in order of getting higher volumes and more flexibility. The second one is what I pointed out just a minute ago, is the production of this combination of hydrogen and CO, what is called syngas or synthetic gas, which is a combination of gases that can leverage the production of any molecule that we sell today, from molecules for the plastic, for polymers, up to the heavy oils. You can produce almost everything from this syngas, which is the outcome of this gasification process. The third is the efficiency. Efficiency is of course relevant in our industry, and we always have this in mind because the possibility to put in all kind of feedstocks, it allows you to produce at the same time outcome of products. We have... If we're talking about renewable hydrogen, we're talking about biofuels, we're talking about synthetic fuels. You can make almost everything coming from this. This allows you to deliver the amount of feedstock, hydrogen and everything to define the better operational point, what you want to achieve. The fourth is the maturity. Maturity is important because these technologies, as I mentioned, are not at industrial scale. Indeed, with the project that we are going to explain is the first of a kind in Europe. From the studies that we have, this is the more close to market technology, and this is relevant in order to select it as a key technology for our development. Of course, scalability is important. Again, we are looking for volume, and we need to replicate these projects several times to get the volumes that we are looking for. This is a technology which is modular, so essentially it's quite easy to replicate in different scales. For sure, finally, the sustainability. This is a process that allows us to produce what we're looking for and make sure that we meet all the requirements from the European and the American regulation. Now let's talk about our partner, which is Enerkem. Why we selected Enerkem to make this experiment together is very related to the position that they have in the different technologies that we are trying to upscale. There you... As you can see in the picture, Enerkem core business is the gasification, of course, and this is the most advanced technologies in this area, as following our studies of the market. Not only they are working on gasification, they're also working on some processes downstream that will be relevant for us in order to end up in the different solutions we are looking for. One is the conversion of syngas into methanol. We believe that methanol is gonna be an important molecule in the future, due to the ability to become, as a fuel, for instance, for the maritime sector, which is working on that, but at the same time become as a feedstock for the production of olefins or some other materials. Therefore, we strongly believe that methanol will be a key molecule in the future, and they are working on this, and they have already a demo plant that is producing methanol at the moment, and this is gonna be part of the technology that we are going to deploy in Tarragona. And they are also working on some other processes, like alcohol to olefins, which is a... Will be a kind of by-process to increase our profitability, if the market switches from electron materials to SAF or to other things. Therefore, the position of Enerkem is very flexible and very relevant in the post-treatment of this syngas that is coming out from the gasification. Of course, this is the. As I mentioned, Enerkem is a partner of our choice because of the experience that they have shown to the market regarding gasification. They have a relevant experience operating the plant. They have a facility in Canada already running for several years, and we have been there, and we are sure that they are the most flexible and reliable technology operating by the moment. We believe that they are very oriented to this downstream integration, as I mentioned, with these by-processes together with the gasification. Since we are working with them together, we have been awarded in this Ecoplanta project that I'm gonna talk about it in the next slides. From the commercial perspective, they have a strong pipeline, which is significant because I think that this is a big difference in these new businesses. The size is relevant, and we don't have a lot of players that are able to make it in a while, at least at the timeline that we are trying to push it at. This is the point where we are with Enerkem at the moment. We decided in April to make an investment of CAD 107 million both in equity and loan and convertible in equity. We do believe again that from Repsol perspective this will be a significant advantage in order to push our roadmap ahead both in hydrogen because this gasification requires hydrogen to increase the yields so it'll be a way to speed up our hydrogen roadmap. Of course a reduction of synthetic and biofuels and bio and circular materials. We have the possibility to integrate these processes so we will be part of the production together with them and also at the same time relevant of taking these molecules coming from the gasification and the methanol. We are taking also advantage on the possibility to drop in different projects together with Enerkem. From the Enerkem side, this, I think the main thing that I find with Repsol is the top lane of the roadmaps and the possibility to scale up faster and to get better integration with the downstream, which is outside of the battery limit, let's say, somehow. How we are making this real, because now up to now it has been a very nice story to how we approach to this. Now we are trying to work on making it physical and making it real as soon as possible. This is the Ecoplanta project, which is a project that we are developing in our Tarragona facility in the northeast of Spain. The project is aiming to process 400 tons of waste per year and to come to operation by 2026. This waste by the moment is gonna be essentially non-recyclable municipal solid waste, therefore, we are at the same time tackling the circular economy targets and the production of this carbon renewable carbon source for our products. The downstream process, it will be the conversion, this in-house is methanol, as I mentioned in the previous slides. We're gonna produce methanol, and this will be our first methanol production and the first step in order to develop this market or this development of a set of products that will be coming out for methanol. As I mentioned, we believe that methanol is gonna be a pivotal molecule in the future. The technology, as I mentioned, has been proven, and is already working in this demo plant. Regardless of this is a first of a kind industrial facility, therefore, it has been awarded and recognized from the European Union. We are expected to get this 70% of carbon recycling in the process and a significant reduction on CO₂ emissions, up to 3.4 million tons. The reduction of landfill is something that I think is gonna be relevant and it makes a difference of what Repsol approach to the energy transition than other companies. This is because conversation is always focused on energy transition, and it makes sense because it's a major challenge. We do have another challenge, which is the management of the residues. There are a lot of policies behind this, trying to push the reuse of the residues and at the same time limiting the amount of residues that can be delivered to fuel, but they must be delivered to materials. There is a kind of target that in Europe trying to take materials to materials instead of materials to fuel. Having a petrochemical division enable us to satisfy this goal and at the same time take the amount of product that doesn't require to go to materials into fuel. This is a split that a lot of players cannot do because the integration of petrochemical and refining sections in the same company is not that extent, I would say even worldwide, particularly in Europe. This is clear that there are not a lot of companies with these both scopes. This lab enables us to meet both directives. One is the circular economy requirements in the products, not only from the regulation, but also from the market. On the other hand, all these targets regarding advanced biofuels and what the so-called renewable fuels from non-biological origin or synthetic fuels. We can produce almost everything and at the same time meet the market requirements and the regulation. This is the summary of the project. Essentially, as I mentioned, we're going to process 400,000 tons per year of residue. We will add some hydrogen you can see up there. This is an electrolyzer of 150 MW to give you some ideas, and probably with this is the electrolyzer that we are really willing to start in Tarragona by 2025, and it will be by that time the biggest Tarragona electrolyzer in Spain. This is a project of the scale. Again, comes to this renewable or circular methanol, depending on the residue, and this will be split in fuels and materials. This is the timeline. We have, at the moment, the project has been awarded with an Innovation Fund, and we are running up to make the final investment decisions by the first quarter of the next year. But we are still working on public administrations permissions, and so on. The idea is to end up the construction of the plant by 2025, and start the production at the beginning of 2026. As I mentioned, this is very well aligned with the European requirements and the project has been awarded in the Innovation Fund call from last year. It was one of the seven projects awarded between 300. At the moment it's the only single industrial project awarded in Spain. I think we're talking about one of 14 in Europe at the moment, so it's a recognized project. Just for Repsol, this is a first move in order to create a beta tester, which is this project. It should be the way we will construct all this pipeline in the future. We know that there will be a challenging operational issue for us. Moving from crude to residues is relevant. But again, as Josu Jon Imaz has explained, clearly we think that we have the right people. Industrial challenges is something that we have faced in the last, I would say, 30 or 40 or 50 years, moving from light crudes to heavy crudes and moving to different products and increasing our portfolio. We are used to face this, and I will say that probably the oil and gas industry is the strongest industry able to face these kind of situations. Being an early mover, we believe that gives us the opportunity to get these capabilities earlier than the others, understand the operation and understand the markets and be able to move faster. At the same time, taking this equity and technology developer enables us to understand better the technology in the very deepest way and taking advantage in, let's say, conducting some of the developments in the future in order to get the right products and the right slated product that we are looking for. At the same time, understanding the waste management, as I mentioned, is gonna be our new upstream in the future, so we need to understand how the business works. This initial project would help us to create all this value chain and this understanding of what we need to create the business for the future. Thank you very much, and we'll be willing to hear your questions after the coffee break. Thank you very much, Tomás. Next speaker is Carmen Muñoz. Carmen holds business and law degrees from Universidad Pontificia Comillas. Having developed her career at Repsol mainly in marketing and commercial positions from loyalty programs to business development and leading the LPG business until 2020. She's now Executive Managing Director for People and Organization and a member of the Executive Committee of Repsol. Carmen will talk about how Repsol is promoting diversity and inclusion across our organization as one of the key levers to safeguard equal opportunities and develop the competitive advantages that reside in our people, independently from gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Now, Carmen, the floor is yours. Thank you very much for attending this meeting. From technology to people, this is hard to start, talking about, people after these, speeches we have, had in terms of, technology. I'm going to try, to share with you we are doing in terms of boosting diverse talent at Repsol. I'm going to give you a global overview about, how we're working, boosting this diverse talent, why and how, we do. After that, I will share with you some data about, the representation of the different groups of, minorities at, Repsol. In the third part, I'm going to try to convince you that we are doing very concrete action, looking for very concrete objectives to move this talent and to be able to face the challenges of the transformation of our company with our people. Of course, next step, because we have still room to do many things to improve and to increase participation of different collective, different groups in our staff. Repsol is fully committed to diversity. This is really a priority. This is strategic, and this is global. We are absolutely convinced that giving our best in the workplace is the key to be able to work in a sustainable way, not only because of the technology, not only because of the digitalization, but especially boosting and supporting our key talent to be able to do this transformation. Diversity and inclusion are core in our culture and are linked to our values of respect, of anticipation, of efficiency, and value creation. It is impossible to think in creating value without the talent of our teams. Attaching with these values, we develop our policy of management talent, which is sustainable, based on belonging to the company and developing a relationship based in mutual and respect and trust. We work to ensure in the short, medium, and long term for giving to people development opportunities and to assure that we work in an environment in which there is no room for unequal and discrimination behaviors. This principle is stated in our code of ethics and business conduct, which is the reference framework in which we are working to give and to provide our employees the main guidelines of which are expecting from them in terms of their conduct. In this code, we prohibit expressly any discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, or, age or social condition. We have also an available 24-hour channel, which is our ethics and compliance channel, which is a channel oriented to raise questions and to fulfill complaints about possible breaches against our code of ethical conduct. In short, our objective is to approach diversity in all its dimensions to be able to assure that we have this diverse workforce that will be the competitive advantage that arises from the potential of having this diverse workforce in our transformation. Why are we convinced that we have to work in diversity and inclusion? We talk a lot about the business case of inclusion. Pilar Rojas, today with us, it is completely convinced that we can talk about the business case of working in this diversity and this inclusion with our staff. Why it is not just a question of doing what it is right to do? In a pure business sense, we are convinced that we will be more successful if we have diverse staff. Why? Because we will have a wider access to marketplaces, talent. It is demonstrated that improving employee satisfaction give more productivity to our staff. Of course, we are a commercial company. We have a clear strategy of customer centricity, and we won't be able to reach this capacity to cover the needs of our customer if we are not really a reflection of the society in which we are acting. Diverse workplaces boost creativity, and of course, having different perspective lead us to a much more innovative environment. Finally, it is just a question of also improving reputation and having from the society this license to operate. This is about virtuous cycle in which we have to work and which we have to boost the talent on that. How are we organized to be able to face these challenges? I'm going to start by the completion of this Diversity and Inclusion Committee. This is a committee comprised by top executives of the company. You can see that our CEO is chairing this committee. This committee promotes and oversees the global measures we have to promote really to assure that we're evolving to this fully inclusive workplace that we are looking for. This committee drives different initiatives of all dimensions of diversity and from time to time reports it to the board of directors. Our ambition to be a diverse company is global, but we need really to deploy locally in different countries, in different geographies, in different businesses, and we need to have many people involved in this deployment of the different actions. How do we work to assure this deployment of the different action we are boosting? We count with a team of D&I, which is represented by Pilar, who is our manager of diversity and inclusion. We are very proud of taking into account a group of more than 40 professional, which are called the group of ambassadors, who leads and who links to the different businesses and countries to be able to boost and to be able to implement the different action we are working in the different dimension of diversity. These local allies of the company work in very concrete committees. For example, recommending participation and training in different activities and building local initiatives to extend knowledge about diversity and inclusion topics, supervising process. We work a lot in process, in talent process, to assure that they are free from unconscious bias. They provide us information about their perspective in their business and in the different countries to include in our policies of diversity and inclusion. Of course, following and sharing with the different teams the achievement we are doing in the last years in terms of diversity and inclusion in our staff. The contribution of this team, which are supported by our HR business partner in each geography, is absolutely essential to be able to be effective and to be able to deploy all our policies in terms of inclusion. Talking about our ambition in extending these goals of diversity and inclusion, we like to say that our ambition is to work and to extend diversity in all dimension. It is not easy because we are talking about changing culture. We are talking about moving behaviors to a complete inclusive workplace environment. We are convinced that it is the way we have to enhance to be able to reach and to be able to achieve this full talent to do this transformation. Talking about the different dimension we are working in, we are working in the primary dimension of diversity because we think that it is in this that we have to focus our impact to build identity and to move this culture. Our challenge is to achieve greater representation of different minorities and to develop in the whole organization this greater sense of belonging that we need to have this committed professional. In gender diversity, we want to balance the women representation in all levels of the organization through removing barriers that you know that especially in our industry are still very present. In terms of integration of disability, disabled people, we have a very long experience. We are talking about more than 20 years working in integrating people with disability in our staff. Our commitment aims to exceed the legal percentage required in each country in which we are working in. We understand that if we have an available talent of people with disability increasing and exceeding this percentage, we have to do something different to be able really to exceed this legal percentage that we have in every regulation. Regarding generational diversity, we are working to ensure that around the whole professional career of our professionals, we are sure to have our people active, motivated, and developing their capacities to be able to give their best during their whole career. Our approach to the LGTBI+ community is strongly based on our value of respect, and it is very simple, but it is very difficult what are we looking for working with this community. It is just to give them the possibility to be themselves also in the professional field, not only in their personal environment, but also in the professional environment in the company. Of course, talking about culture and ethnicity, well, we have quite an international profile. This international profile is one of our main assets, and we just need to assure the respect and inclusion of our employees for all races, ethnicities, and cultural backgrounds. Well, this is all dimensions we are challenging, and we are trying to develop, to really assure that our employees can develop their potential, their full potential, and so that be able to reach and to achieve our challenges and our goals in the strategic plan. Moving to the representation of the different collectives, I'm going to start with sharing with you some information about the female talent, the representation of female talent in our staff. I think that we have done really a long way to be able to share with you this data. Perhaps some of them could feel that it is not enough, and I agree, this is not enough, but I would like that you take into account that we are working in a traditional industry in which females have been always underrepresented. We have made a big effort to be able to achieve this data you can see here. Talking about the total women representation at Repsol, now we are close to 40%. If you look just 10, 12 years ago, we were just at 27%, so in just 12 years we have increased the participation 12 points, which is really a challenging action. How we are doing, starting with hiring, with recruiting. We balance always recruiting to be able to reach this 49% that we have now, and now we have consistently this percentage of new hiring at Repsol in these levels. It is not an easy goal because we are moving to much more technical and digital profiles, and it is not so easy to find women in these technical profiles. Our goal in terms of leadership position is to reach the 35% in 2025, but now we're in 32, which is quite an important representation of women in leadership position. Of course, we will go on working and I will share with you the different action we are working with women to assure this representation. I think that you can think that in executive position we are really far from being a benchmark in women representation, but we are working a lot with our female talent pool. We are really proud to look at our female talent pool and to be able to say that we have a perfect balance between women and men. We have 55% of women ready to go to this executive position and in a medium term, just two, three years, we have 46% of female represented in this talent pool. In terms of age distribution, you can see that we have people represented at all level of the organization and quite a balance between women and men if we talk about age distribution by gender. You can see that of course in the highest ages of the organization, the representation of women were smaller, but now we are achieving to this balance between men and women in all ages in the pyramid of population. Talking about representation in different culture, at Repsol at the present moment work 77 different nationalities in our staff in 36 countries in which we have different kind of operation. In terms of people with disabilities, we have achieved the amount of 500 people working in our facilities in our different industries, which is a percentage in Spain of 2.3%-2.4%, more or less, which is our commitment to exceed this regular this demanded percentage by regulation, which is in the 2% in Spain. The average of our staff, you know, that you can see here, it is 42 years for women and 45 years for men. I'm going to share with you the voice of employee. I was hesitating about sharing with you the result of our survey, with our culture survey. Talking with Pilar, we decided to be transparent with this voice of employee because from this survey we extract very interesting information about how to deepen and how to personalize different action in different geographies, in different segment of age, of gender, and in different moment of the professional career of our employees. You can see here that the global perception of our index of diversity and inclusion, which is in our culture survey, it is quite positive. It is, we have 73% of our employees who has a very positive view about how we are working in diversity. Of course, there are room to improve in some dimension. I want to highlight that the youngest people under 30, have a very positive and consistent view about how we are working in diversity at Repsol. Where do we have more room to improve? In women, especially in top talent women, in which they feel that we are not working enough to assure this life balance and to be able to support them in their careers. Moving to the concrete action we are deploying to be able to achieve these goals, we are working in five different lines. We are working in setting goals. I think that if we don't have a concrete goal for different dimension of diversity, we won't be able to measure and to adapt our action to be able to achieve these goals. In these goals, I want to underline that we have this commitment of 35% of women in leadership position by 2025. We are committed with this priority in hiring, in our talent acquisition process. As I have shared with you, we have committed to exceed the legal obligation regarding employment of people, and this is really hard in the last moment because it is not so easy to integrate people, especially with mental and with intellectual disabilities in our staff. Of course, to be able to achieve this inclusive environment for the LGTBI employees. We work also in people analytics. We have developed a very useful tool of analytics in terms of talent and in terms of people, which give us a lot of information to be able to measure the performance of the company, to be able to find, for example, recruitment patterns and uncover potential bias regarding performance and regarding some process as talent processes. Will support us with a deep analysis of data to be able to correct and to react in the different action we are launching. Of course, these talent management campaigns to ensure that in our performance campaign, in our potential high-potential talent campaigns, we are free from bias. Working also in this talent management in training, in coaching, and in mentoring programs, and of course, personalizing these development programs, especially focus on this in those minorities in which we are working with. We have to go working in awareness and in training, because it is absolutely essential to go on communicating the importance of diversity and inclusion policies all over the company. Finally, of course, but very important, working with leadership. It is essential to train our leaders, to develop our leaders with this conscious about the importance of diversity and inclusion in all our staff. Starting with the first dimension we are working in, gender. We want to share with you that it is really a challenging dimension in which we are working a lot. Just taking into account, I'm going to share some information that our CEO share always with us. Taking into account that in the early eighties, it was forbidden by law that a woman could work in a refinery. We have done a lot in this last 40 years to be able to have this representation of women that we have now. We work in two different lines of action. The first one consists in surveying and overseeing the different processes to be able to assure this balance in the integration of women in our organization. This consistently achieving parity in external recruitment. Programs of mentoring. Now we have more than 40% of our leaders, women leaders, in mentoring programs, in different programs of accompanying these women to be able to avoid this leak we have always in the pipeline of female talent. We have a special upskilling and reskilling program focused on female talent. For example, the data school training, which is oriented to reduce the gap in digital abilities and digital skills between men and women in the organization. Of course, to give much more exposure and much more visibility to women with internal mobility and to work in this parity executive talent pool to be able to assure that in next years, we will have enough talent also in executive position. This is an important part to work in this concrete action in the different processes, but we want also to share with you that we have worked a lot in an external initiative to be able to benchmark our performance against best practices. We are proud to have occupied last year the first position among energy sector in the Bloomberg Gender-Equality Index. We have signed different agreement of Igualdad en la Empresa, equality in the company. A company for a society free from gender-based violence. We are really committed in our active participation on all those forums. We participate also in different initiative which has to do with the developing of of STEM vocation in the youngest population. We have signed the STEAM Alliance for Female Talent with the Ministry of Education in Spain, and we have a active role in this organization. We are also a very active participation in the youngest vocation of females in STEM vocation with our program of Repsol Digital Girls. With all this action in processes, but also in awareness and in training and external participation, we are sure that we will move to a much more inclusive organization in terms of gender in the next years, and to be able to achieve this target of 35% in representation of women in leadership position. Moving to people with disabilities. Just to focus on the most important achievement we have reached during these years. We have reached to integrate in our staff almost 500 people in the last year. We are a reference in the market in adapting our facilities. We are talking about the adapting of 500 petrol stations in Spain. Our corporate headquarters have been built under universal accessibility criteria. In this field, we have shared our wide experience in different publications as From Word to Action, Overcoming Barriers or Accessible Service Station Guide, which is a reference in the petrol station market in Spain. As you can see, we are always working also in raising awareness about the integration of this group of minority collective with a different agreement. The most important and the most representative is the one we signed for the fifth edition with Fundación ONCE, which is the most important reference organization in terms of integration disabled people in the professional environment. Talking about gender identity and sexual orientation. Our challenge is to be able to assure to this collective to have an inclusive environment in which they can really develop their work with any fear and feeling that they have they can demonstrate how they are in the same way that in their private life. To participate and to support this collective, we are participating in different external initiative that are giving a much more orientation about how to work with this. We have signed the UN Standards of Conduct for Business, tackling discrimination against LGBTI people. We have also signed an agreement, a national agreement, in which we are participating very actively, the REDI network, which is a professional network for inclusion of this collective. Internally, we develop a volunteer group of employees, which is called the Allies Networking, which help us to boost all this action on this collective. They have developed a training course, Energy with Pride. We have been analyzing the different regulation different countries to extend benefits of marriages and civil unions between employees in these countries, in this the regulation doesn't contemplate this right. Of course, other kind of action as travel safety information on a respect guide for this group of people. We have talked about culture and ethnicity. For us, to develop these multicultural competencies is one of the goals that Repsol considers key for a diverse and inclusive company. It is important really in this moment in which personal interaction has descended and face-to-face interactions are more complicated. We develop a special training and communication action to raise awareness on the different collectives and the different cultural realities we have at the company. Especially, we have a special moment of communication coinciding with different calendar days in which we celebrate different realities in terms of beliefs, culture, or race. Finally, talking about generational. We have here a great challenge because working lives are longer and longer. We have a very heterogeneous staff in terms of age, and we need to balance the senior talent, the motivation, the interest of this new talent with the integration and the hiring of new people, young people with completely different skills and with completely different motivation. For that, we are working in different programs. First, we are working in a program oriented to assure the transfer of knowledge from this senior talent to young hires of the company. Especially in industrial facilities, it is a talent mentoring program, very focused on technical knowledge, but also on safety management and business planning. We have a long history of a young talent program, and we are especially proud of our dual vocational training program in which we have integrated to have hired in our company more than 1,000 professionals in our industrial facilities. Of course, it is essential to work in policies of health and well-being to assure this active participation of all our talent in during their work life. We are convinced that we have made great progress, and with the data we have shared with you, we are convinced that we are in the right direction. Of course, it is not enough. We have room to do many things in terms of boosting this diverse talent. Of course, going on, setting new goals, analyzing the main challenges and the main barriers we identify in the different collective and working with talent and leaders, we are sure that we'll change and we will reach, and we will achieve our targets of our strategic plan. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Carmen. We are approaching the end of our presentation this morning. Final presentation will be done by Luis Cabra. Luis is a doctor in chemical engineering from Universidad Complutense de Madrid, with almost 40 years' experience at Repsol Group, where he has had several technology and management positions. He's currently Deputy CEO and Executive Managing Director for Energy Transition, Technology and Institutional Affairs, and he's also a member of the executive committee. He has represented Repsol in various international association, associations, and in June 2021, he was appointed President of FuelsEurope and Concawe, associations that represents the European refining industry. Luis will update you on Repsol approach to assess the climate credentials of energy companies, the importance of transparency, and the different scenarios that can lead us to achieve a net zero. Thank you very much, and Luis. Good morning. Well, it's a pleasure being here in person this time after three years of virtual contacts with many of you. We are, as Ramon was saying, heading the last part of the session today and probably the most boring because we are speaking about methodologies, ways of assessing the climate credentials of an energy company. Well, today I will be, with all modesty, I will show which is what Repsol thinks about which is the best approach to assess these climate credentials of an energy company, of an energy company that, in our case, is moving from oil and gas to a multi-energy approach. With all modesty, I will be quite assertive, and I will make some comments on what we think that are good, on what's the way that the sector and the stakeholders are judging us, and also to put some point of improvements, also, if we may. I will not repeat. I believe Josu Jon Imaz, our CEO, has said the same very well, but we need to remind that we are in a very complex world and we are facing a very complicated and complex matters. We have a lot of urgency on reducing emissions. We are not reducing emissions. That's the hard fact. On the other side, we have the so-called energy trilemma, in which we need to continue supplying secure and affordable energy, which is the energy that has been allowing the development of the world during these last 100 years. At the same time, we need to change things in order to decarbonize our mix. That's really a complicated matter. We have an ambition, and the ambition is now set, and with most of science behind that, we shouldn't surpass 1.5 degrees Celsius global warming by the end of this century. Hopefully by mid-century, we should be carbon neutral. That's the ambition. Around in my transparency, there was some comments around the complexity and every sentence in the last slide was pointing out to a complicated matter. We are speaking about global governance of climate change. We are speaking about technology neutrality, about sustainable finance, very relevant to this audience. We are speaking about geopolitical implications and dependency, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Complicated matters. Very simple is not bad to start by speaking about where we are today. We have secure and affordable energy, but we are continuously increasing emissions. We need to remind that more than 40% increase of emissions has happened this century in the world. This is not sustainable. We need to remind that we are discussing about probably the end state, how we should be in 2050. We are not doing even the easiest ways of reducing emissions today. Moving from coal to gas, this has been done in the States, in the UK, in parts of Europe, but we are still continue using coal to produce power, even more now in this big crisis. We are doubling emissions as compared to using readily available natural gas. We need to assess that. The European Union, because our company is very much focused in Europe and in Iberia, good job. 32% reduction of emissions in this century. Really this is the result of the ambition of the European Union towards the decarbonization. A significant part of this decarbonization, as Josu Jon Imaz explained before, and I will put some figures over there, have been the result of delocalization of the European industry. This is not the way forward. We are moving industries from Europe to other parts of the world, and probably we are increasing emissions because probably our way of producing is more decarbonizing some way that the practices in other parts of the world. You see the weight of industry in the GDP of Europe has been consistently decreasing during this century. We need to revert that situation at the same time that we decarbonize our energy mix. Very simple statement. Josu Jon Imaz said not everything is electrification. Definitely, electrification is gonna be one of the key pillars of what we have to do in order to decarbonize the energy mix. That's why the single growth business that we have now in our company, growth in terms of volume, is renewable electricity generation. The others, we are transforming, we are decarbonizing. Definitely, electrification will not be enough in order to overcome the challenge of being climate neutral in 2050 and 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. In a simple way, we say we will produce renewable electrons, but we will continue producing molecules. These molecules have to be renewables too, have to be decarbonized too. With this combination of electrons and molecules, we can faster decarbonize our energy system. What we cannot do with electrons and molecules, both renewables, we will do it through carbon capture and use or storage. It's a combination of three single concepts, many technologies behind that, and you have seen some examples of the renewable molecules in the presentation of Tomás Malango and Javier Arístegui. Let's go. This is the, let's say, the introduction. Now let's move into the assessment of climate credentials. We believe that any framework which is trying to assess the climate credentials of an energy company should follow some principles. The principles are inclusiveness. That means that we need to evaluate everything which is decarbonizing from where we are today. If we are substituting coal by natural gas, this is decarbonization. We now know the big debate in Europe about whether natural gas is green or brown. If you use natural gas and you are substituting something which emits more carbon, that's gonna be a transition activity that should be included into the positive evaluation of an energy company. Not just looking at the end state, 2050, where maybe some believe that everything will be renewable electricity, others will believe that it's gonna be a combination of things. Let's start by thinking what we can do today in order to decarbonize the level of CO2 emissions that we have today. Technology neutrality is very clear, not to be prescriptive on which are the solutions. There is no reason to prohibit any technology. There is a reason to prohibit emissions, progressively prohibiting emissions and leaving entrepreneurs and innovators to develop technologies to fulfill the objectives. Standardization of metrics, we all know that there are a lot of initiatives that are going on that. From our point of view, standardization is one thing. Using a single metric fit for all purpose to define in a very simplistic way, whether or not you are green is not the right way. Standardization means that we may use a combination of metrics, a set of metrics, but we need to clarify very clearly which are these metrics and we try that everyone is using the same type of metrics, but more than one. That's our position. Long-term uncertainty, again, when looking at assessments, we use metrics and we put targets and goals. We believe that there is a different time perspective on that. Say, if you are putting targets for this decade, you can measure and monitor the progress. That's a firm target. If you are looking at something which is beyond this decade, 2030, 2040, 2050, some may be firm targets. For us, net zero is a firm target under any scenario. There are a number of metrics that when the evaluator is asking, which is gonna be your production of oil, your production of gas in 2040, we have to say it all depends on how is the macro scenario of the world is moving at. It's gonna be the net zero emissions of the European, of the International Energy Agency. It's gonna be something else. At the end of the day, our firm target is being net zero. There are a number of metrics that we will use that we can consider that they are projections in the long term or even conditional targets, conditional to something else happening in the world. Say in terms of technology or in terms of demand. This is something that should be incorporated into the assessment framework. Expert judgment. We need the experts from the energy companies, and we need the experts from the stakeholders in order to have a dialogue on which are the evaluation and assessment frameworks that allow you to judge in a better way which are our climate credentials. These are the principles, and now in the lower part, a little bit complicated, but we have tried to say, okay, what we believe is going in the sense of the principles and what is going a little bit far from those principles. We have here some approaches that are end-state focused only, just looking at 2050, that there's a significant technology determinism. Renewable electricity is okay, natural gas is bad, nuclear is whatever. Oversimplification. Seeing, okay, this is the path, this is the metric. If you are there, you are green. If you are not there, then you are something else. On the other side, this is the type of approach that we firmly believe in. Transition and end-state activities are good, provided they decarbonize, technology neutrality, and a little bit more sophistication. We are not speaking about rocket science, but we may need a set of metrics for in order for the stakeholders to judge on the climate credentials. On these extremes, how we see the ones that are developing the scenarios. If we look at the International Energy Agency, I believe they are more in this side. Like, they are setting very deterministic way, this is the net zero scenario. In the report, they say this is one of the possible scenarios, but when they speak about that, with the director speaking about that, it looks like he's just saying this is the scenario. I believe they are more in this side. IPCC, which is probably collecting the best science in the world, in climate change, they are at the other side. You will see later some comments about that. Sustainability frameworks, organizations, associations, and regulations around climate change and that touches the assessment of climate credentials of energy companies. Well, here we have the EU Taxonomy. Quite deterministic. A list of green activities, a list of brown activities. Very easy to judge, but probably oversimplification. The so-called Science Based Targets initiative, modestly speaking, we don't like science-based to be just associated to a single initiative, which very deserves a lot of respect, but it's one initiative. It seems that everything which is science-based now is just what this initiative is determining. That for the time being, and you all know it, and you probably know, they are saying there is no way that today we are able to judge whether oil and gas is at all, green or brown. They have stopped the work. We've been working with them for two years. Now they say, "We want a panel of independent experts to put a framework on what is a target setting for the oil and gas industry." Okay? We are still willing to participate and working with them. OGCI, an association of companies in which we participate, are trying to engage with them and see whether they can bring something which is meaningful for our sector. I believe this Science Based Targets initiative, they have been doing a very good job with many sectors. One of the positive things is that they've been in touch with the sector in order to target setting what they call a science-based target for each sector. We would like that to happen also with the oil and gas sector. Climate Action 100+, you, most of you probably are engaged with this initiative. We see that even more on the other side, with some room for improvement from our modest point of view. We are engaging with TPI and Climate Action 100+ trying to explain which is our views about some of their methodologies. Well, we see BlackRock, and now BlackRock seem to be in the past the leaders of climate change in terms of investors. Now they are a little bit more blamed about whether or not they are not green enough. I believe if some people think that BlackRock is doing right and others say that they are doing wrong, probably they are in the middle and they are a little bit more balanced than others. We are very much aligned with this type of view on setting a holistic framework which requires expert knowledge and expert judgment in order to assess whether or not a company is deserving the investment of a sectoral company. Regulations, just a word. We see Fit for 55 package a little bit on this side. They are promoting a number of things, but a little bit prescriptive. Everything around renewable electricity generation, it's okay. Hydrogen is okay, but you've heard something about the complexity, all the limitations, you need to produce the electricity in that way or the other. We tend to be very prescriptive in Europe. We see much more room for decarbonization and much more room for capital flows towards decarbonization in the States now. You know the Inflation Reduction Act in the clean energy part of the story. They are putting a lot of incentives to promote many different parts of decarbonization. Renewable electricity generation, carbon capture, hydrogen, sustainable aviation fuel, et cetera, et cetera. Well, you will know more than me, but I have the feeling that there is a lot of capital that will flow now under this more, I would say, open way of thinking about decarbonization. That said, which is our approach? Basically, we are trying to land these principles into our specific framework and say, okay, we need to assess the strategy of the company. It's not just a matter of showing a graph and saying whether or not you are decarbonizing well or bad. Second, all methodology should be science-based. We would like to speak about science-based not to be just identified with a certain initiative. We believe we are doing things which are science-based and comprehensive in terms of methodology. Now landing that, a set of metrics, and I will show which is our set of metrics, that will allow you to judge each of them with a meaning, different parts of the value chain, and probably by having something like a dozen of metrics, you will be able to judge our strategy and how this is in consistency with 1.5 degree C and climate neutrality. Quite significant for me is this one, we have firm targets and we have projections. Normally, in these decades, everything needs to be firm targets, and you will see. From 2030 to 2050, we have a firm target, which is net zero, and then we have projections and a scenario analysis and metrics on how we intend to do that, depending on how the world will move in terms of energy in the future. Definitely continuous engagement and detail. Disclosing is something that we offer to all of our stakeholders, and we would like to continue looking at that. Expert judgment from both sides. This is the set of metrics. It's not new. I believe that you may have seen these metrics in our speeches, in our strategies, and so on. They're not so many. Carbon intensity reduction, I will make a comment on Scope 3 because this is one of the key elements of the debate and discussions on how to measure Scope 3 emissions. As we say, it's important to have interim targets. That's very key in our strategy, and we have it, 2025, 2030, 2040, and 2050. Three metrics of Scope 3, and I will dedicate just two minutes to explain a little bit about that because we, in a very assertive way, we continue saying that we would like to maintain our net zero commitment based on the products that are produced from our primary energy production. I will dedicate some words to that. If you want us to explain which are the Scope 3 of all of our sales, we will do it. We will put the metrics on top of the table such that any stakeholder can judge and can make their own calculations and their own mathematics and put in the emphasis on what they consider. Absolute emissions. We learned a couple of years ago about the. This is the best way to speak with the stakeholders and say that you were saying, many of you were saying you need to put absolute emissions targets, and we did it. We now have Scope 1 and Scope 2 operated and Scope 1, 2, and 3 net. This is something well explained with specific targets on that. E&P, we deserve a lot of attention to E&P. Scope 1 and Scope 2 of the E&P, they have their own target in terms of methane intensity, routine flaring. Not so complicated. Now, the other side is these are the targets and metrics that are feeding these decarbonization metrics. We can explain, and we can detail, which is the contribution of renewable power generation, of production of renewable liquid fuels, of production of hydrogen, of production of E&P, how this fits into the carbon intensity index. Not so complicated, but look at this. This is very important and very relevant. Firm targets under any scenario. This one. Carbon intensity index measured from our primary energy production. There are others that are projections that will be targets if the scenario in the world from 2030 to 2050 moves into one direction or the other. Finally, sorry, capital allocation, this is something that we also got from communication with the stakeholders, how much capital we are dedicating to low carbon and how much CapEx, how much capital employed. We have firm targets for this decade and projections for 2030 to 2050. This is, we believe this is not so sophisticated, not so difficult to understand, but this is the set of targets and the set of metrics that we are offering for you to judge our climate credentials. A small comment on this. We all know that there is a debate here on whether we should measure the Scope 3 of all the products that are produced from our primary energy production or whether we should go to the other side of the value chain and measure and target the Scope 3 of our sales. We need to take into consideration the whole value chains. We are producing, we are buying crude oil from others, we are refining ourselves, we are getting products from others' refineries, we are selling to the final end user, we are selling to others that at the same time or after ours, they are reselling, and they go to the final user. It's good to have both metrics on looking at this side of the chain and looking at the other. When looking at the other, which is gonna be relevant? From our point of view, it's gonna be the end user. We shouldn't be double, triple counting the same emission every time that a molecule changes hands. This is no way of having a science-based evaluation of things. When we speak about sales, we will be first giving information about which is gonna be the scope sales, which are the Scope 3 of the sales to end users. You will see very interesting results when we communicate that, because in the short term, our metric is gonna be better than the one than using the primary energy. Is that good or bad? It's not good nor bad. It's just a matter that two different metrics means different things, if you look at this side and the other side. Now we know that there are certain stakeholders that would like to see the Scope 3 of whatever is the biggest figure that you can get. Simply speaking, I believe that this is the approach of a number of stakeholders. Okay, we will provide the information. Total sales is gonna be total sales. But then we would request which is the meaning of that for evaluating the climate credentials. This is where we are. Why we still believe that this one, based on the products that are produced from your primary energy, is what drives your strategy. It's because here you have the capital-intensive long-term investment. Every time we put money in upstream, in new production, it's gonna be a CapEx which is high, it's high intensity, and on the other side, it's for many years to come. You will continue producing from this CapEx after some years of investment. You'll continue producing maybe seven, eight, 20 years. There are decisions that will drive your needle long-term. If you are there, why you have to decide today that you are not going to sell oil and gas products? This is gonna be driven by demand, and the decision is gonna be like that. I mean, if there is no demand, I will not sell product. It's a light CapEx activity. It's something that I can decide according to the evolution. Of course, we would like to see the world moving into scenarios that are compatible with 1.5 degrees Celsius, but we cannot move the world. We have to move our company. This is the way we are going to tackle this. But again, we would like to be providing any information which is requested by stakeholders, but we will continue modestly defending our positions on what drives the needle of an energy company to decarbonize. I'm finishing. 1.5, because at the end of the day, we are speaking about this and that, but at the end of the day, you would like to see whether or not our carbon intensity pathway is gonna be consistent with 1.5 degrees Celsius. This is not easy. Again, this is another tool for you to judge. We have seen a number of approaches, and I believe TPI is some way like that. They say, "Okay, which is your carbon intensity as a company?" The red one. Which is gonna be the net zero emissions intensity of the International Energy Agency? Probably they start here. They land that. Because this is higher than the net zero emissions of the International Energy Agency, they say, "Hmm, I don't like it." Okay? This is one scenario. These are the 160 scenarios of the IPCC that, again, incorporate most of the knowledge, scientific knowledge in the world. Each of these lines, you have here 160 lines, they are compatible with 1.5 degrees Celsius at the end of the century. Some of them are not net zero in 2050, but then later on it happens. In this IPCC, out of the 160, there are 28 different scenarios. Some of them are here, some of them are there, that crosses the figure in 2050. 28. The International Energy Agency is one of them. What we believe, this is our curve, this is reduction of the total, and this is in terms of percentage. When you reach 100%, you are net zero. This is another tool. This is something to look at and say, "Okay, this is or is not more or less aligned with our 1.5 degrees Celsius world." Finishing, very modestly, we still believe that our core metric in order to be net zero is the carbon intensity indicator, which is Scope 3, defined from the products that are obtained from our primary energy production. We are very much willing, giving all the information about other Scope 3 of sales based on end users and others, and just for any stakeholder to make their own judgment. We are working also and we will incorporate into the integrated management report of this year or next year, early next year, in the general assembly, we will incorporate some further information as per TCFD recommendations on which is the financial impact on our company or the different scenarios that we are depicting. We have provided already significant information about capital allocation, et cetera, but we need to complement that with which is the financial impacts in terms of NPV in our company based on the different scenarios for you to judge which is the risk, the financial risks to which we are exposed to. Well, continuous engagement and continued proactive participation. Definitely we would like to participate in any initiative which is trying to set the standards and targets for our sector. Thank you very much, and we are very much willing to take any question in the roundtable later on. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much, Luis Cabra. With this, we have finished the presentations we have for today. Now I just see raising hands. I'll we'll conduct the order and Josu Jon Imaz will lead the answers. I'd like you to say your name and the organization you work for. We have a mic over there. The lady over there. Hi. Thank you. This is Isabel Falkenberg from Vektor Partners, a VC fund investing in mobility technologies. Thank you so much for your presentation. It's been very illustrative and congratulations for everything you're doing. I had a couple of questions. One was more a quantitative question and the other one was more of a qualitative nature. With regards to quantitative, I mean, in addition to bringing, for example, partners and external investors to develop emerging technologies, everything that you have explained today, what else are you doing to ensure your CapEx will be aligned with your ambition to be carbon neutral by 2050? That's my first question. My second, which is a little bit more of qualitative nature, is with regards to this last presentation, regarding your Carbon Intensity Indicator, could you actually please explain a little bit, if you consider the so-called Scope 4 emission within its calculation? Okay, thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. I mean, first of all, going to your first question, I mean, let me say that we have a full commitment to decarbonize the portfolio of Repsol. In this context, what we are going to have as average in the period 2021-2025 as CapEx applied focus on low carbon initiative is going to be more or less 35% of the total CapEx of the company. I mean, it's fully aligned with the targets we have to decarbonize the company, fully aligned with the targets of the evolution in our pathway of the Carbon Intensity Indicator. That's we are doing that, of course, in a profitable way. I mean, we are investing in low carbon platforms to get returns, and we are seeing that. At the same time, I mean, the picture we have for the end of the period is to achieve a figure of capital employed in low carbon initiatives that is going to be at around 40% of the total capital employed of the company by 2030. That means that we are changing the picture of the company. What we do every time we have to approve an investment in our either the executive committee or the board, depending on the intensity and the amount of the investment, is to classify this investment as an investment aligned with the energy transition. That is the investment that they have a neutral or positive impact in the Carbon Intensity Indicator evolution of the company. Our board every time approve an investment, it knows that what is going to be the impact. Some other investment are what we call the enablers of the energy transition. They could have a neutral or small negative impact in this figure that could be compensated with some other additional actions. On top of that, we have investment misaligned with the energy transition. That could happen sometimes because, I mean, the target we have is the evolution of this carbon intensity index. Sometimes we have to approve investment because, I mean, they are coherent with our strategy, mainly DMP, that will have a misalignment with this. Of course, when I talking about misalignment, I'm going to put the borders and the constraints. We decided to be fully out of the Arctic. We decided to be out of operating ultra deep waters, the oil sands. I mean, we are focusing our exploration mainly in activities that could be bolt-on around the current assets we have. I mean, in a coherent way with this CapEx policy of the company, we classify the investments. Our board and our executive committee knows exactly what we are approving and what is the impact on what is the main driver in terms of the strategy of the company. That is the evolution of the Carbon Intensity Indicator, as Luis explained before. I mean, this is an interesting reflection, what you define and some investors are defining the Scope 4. Scope 4, it seems to me that you are talking about, I mean, if we are producing gas that is substituting for coal to produce power, I mean, that could be a way to reduce the numerator of a company. I mean, we are not applying this concept in quantitative terms. We are applying the concept of Scope 1, Scope 2, Scope 3. Scope 1, Scope 2 is clearly defined. Scope 3, I mean, you know also the meaning is the, as we explained before. The primary energy we produce, the impact in terms of the CO2 emission or the methane emissions, the CO2 emissions, better said, when this product is used. I mean, qualitatively, it's an interesting concept, the concept of Scope 4, because, I mean, let me be provocative, I'm sad saying that. What we are doing in the world over the last months is a transition towards the coal. That is really sad because it's increasing in a dramatic way, the CO₂ emissions. It's underlining in some way the importance of producing gas in a responsible way. Of course, reducing below this 2.2% the methane emissions of this gas produced. I mean, and B, I mean, agreeing the concept, I mean, we are not applying this concept in our metrics. I mean, we are using what is, Luis, you know that better than me, something that could be more accepted by investor community in these terms. Complementing what Josu Jon Imaz is saying, because the Scope 4 is a new, still not standardized, I would say, denomination, but it may happen. We are not using, let's say, the dis. When we put natural gas into the system, we are not using substitution of coal because we believe that in relatively short term, at least in our core markets like Iberia and so on, there will be no coal. So we are not giving that emission shift into our calculations. What we are doing is using the emissions, what we call the emissions shift. When putting renewables, you are substituting the electricity mix in the country in which you are located. We are using that, and we can quantify which is the impact of that in our carbon intensity reduction. We clearly speak that maybe it's a thing, something which is not so standard, but I believe is fair, more fair and more robust. If we are investing, for instance, in Norway, this emission shift will be zero because most of the power generation in Norway, it's hydro or renewable. If you are doing that in Spain, you still get the credit of substituting natural gas. As soon as in the energy mix, a significant part or most part of the production is renewable, then you do not take this credit anymore. This is how we are managing what it maybe ended up being called as Scope 4 emissions. Yeah. Michele Della Vigna, Goldman Sachs. Thank you for the presentation. It's quite interesting to see a technology-based ESG presentation. I had two questions. The first one on the EU Taxonomy. Clearly, it has its limits, but it's going to be an important metric for investors to focus on, over the coming years. Could you quantify what you believe is EU Taxonomy eligible percentage of revenues and CapEx that you expect for Repsol, in the near term, let's say for this year, for instance? And is there a material difference in the calculations versus what you call effectively low carbon CapEx and, capital employed? And then my second question really is related to some of the use from the disposals that you are executing this year. You will end up with a very strong balance sheet at the end of the year after the disposals, which is great to have in this uncertain macro environment. You made clear comments that this would accelerate your energy transition, and I was wondering how to think about organic versus inorganic investment for that incremental capital that you've got at your disposal for the low carbon transition. Thank you. Thank you, Michele. I'm going to jump into the second one. Luis, if you like, I think that you could answer the first one in a better way than myself. It's true. I mean, the rationale for disposals is not, let me say, making cash. I mean, you are always making cash with disposals. In the case of the E&P, you know that, over these three, four years, we have put our focus in trying to put more rationale in our portfolio. We were operating in 24-25 countries four years ago. I mean, we are fully committed to be present in less countries. Now we are in 14. It's okay. I mean, something in between 10-14 is okay from our point of view. Being in countries where we could have more impact, more where we have more materiality, and in some way, we have a more streamlined portfolio, doing that. In the case of the recent disposal of our 25% of our E&P, is from our point of view, a strategic movement. First of all, there's a clear crystallization of value. I mean, with this valuation of $19 billion, all our E&P portfolio. Secondly, I mean, a reputable investor is taking a stake and is endorsing not only the current asset, but also the investment and development story we have in our strategic plan for our E&P business. That's important because you know that we are a company where, let me use the term, perhaps the legacy asset of Repsol is the downstream. Having, I mean, foreign investors underlining and recognizing the value and the journey of the Repsol EMP is important. As we said before, you expressed in your question, I mean, we want also give to the company more flexibility for the future in terms of accelerating this energy transition if we see opportunities for that. I mean, we are of course getting returns is important to invest in this low carbon businesses. In this sense, you know that we are mainly focused in organic transactions because, I mean, we are showing to the market that we are creating and making real value. The example of the renewables is a good example because, I mean, after investing EUR 1.6 billion-EUR 1.7 billion, the market and investors, they have recognized a value of EUR 44 billion for the whole business. We are getting returns in above 10% in almost the main part of cases in this business. We also see value in the organic growth in the industrial side. I think that we have to compatibilize, and we are doing that. This organic growth with small inorganic transactions where we could add value. I mean, these transactions are going to come. In the renewable business, for instance, something similar to what we did with Hecate in the United States, I mean, and a small developer that is going to give us the opportunity to grow with our growth platform in that country. I may imagine that in coming months, years, we could do something similar in some other geographies. I mean, going to industrial business, perhaps in this alliance and partnership strategy, probably we have to increase our exposure to the supply chain of wastes, raw materials in sectors that perhaps they today are not included in our activity, but are going to be crucial to develop growth Javier and Tomás explained this morning. I see an acceleration through this kind of transactions in the short, medium term, Michele. I think that we have to make a real effort on that. I know that I'm going to have difficult quarters in this year because let me joke, my patience and my I'm going to be patient and cold in coming months in terms of looking for opportunities. I know that you analysts and investors, you are going to ask me to, I mean, to jump into the growth because we have the cash for that and so on. I think that is important. As we said before, when we present our strategic plan, we are going to use all the excess of cash, first of all, to try to accelerate the low carbon growth of the company, to increase the distribution for our shareholders. We are doing that. I mean, you know that we amortize 75 million shares, or almost a 5% of the capital in May. In coming weeks, we are going to close the program we launched in July, and we are going to redeem. We are going to amortize an additional 4.9, I mean, 75 million shares again. I said when we presented the second quarter results, I mean, we'll announce at the end of October, the dividend policy for next year and potential in coming months and years, potential new share buybacks. We are going to combine all that with increase of CapEx in these businesses. This year in 2022, I mean, we are going back to the pre-pandemic CapEx. I mean, we are going to spend probably more CapEx this year than what we did in 2019. That means that we are starting this post-pandemic mode. We are accelerating this investment in the low carbon. Probably the effort I have to steer in coming months is that we have to be patient, cold, resist, let me use the term, having cash in our hands, because I think that is very important to guarantee to our investors that we are getting returns and we are really taking advantage of these potential opportunities. Okay, the second question, Michele, was around the EU Taxonomy and implications. Any question about the EU Taxonomy has no single answer, because it's complicated. I mean, it's a complicated piece of legislation. So if you know that there are two stages and then more stages later on to in order to be filtered and screened, whether your activities are have the stamp of the taxonomy or not. If you look at the first stage, which is the qualification, say you qualify your activities as aligned or not aligned with the taxonomy. At that level, there is a significant coincidence of the percentages of your activity, which is aligned with the taxonomy, with our definition of low carbon. You enter into the more complicated second filter and they say, "What is eligible?" Well, let me say it's a little bit crazy. What this second step about qualification to eligible, I will put a couple of examples. Chemicals. Chemicals is aligned with the, with the, let's say, taxonomy, which is saying that climate change, we say, yes, it's qualified. Then what is eligible on chemicals? Just those plants and activities that fall into the 10% more efficient facilities in Europe. Why? I don't know. But you are taking just 10% of everything which is qualified. You are taking that out of the taxonomy. Same for hydrogen, same for biofuels. If you You see even inconsistency. The EU Taxonomy for eligibility in hydrogen and biofuels are excluding things that are being promoted by the Renewable Energy Directive of the European Union. Why? Don't know. Let me be as critical as that. I mean, for qualification, we are there. Low carbon and qualified, aligned, I would say is okay. When you enter into eligibility and what they call eligibility is a little bit of a mess. The EU Taxonomy says, "Okay, don't worry too much about this because this is not gonna be prescriptive. It's just an orientation for investors and so on." We expect this is just for orientation, because otherwise there is a lot of capital that will move from Europe to the States now they have the Inflation Reduction Act. We need to be as assertive as that. Let's see how things evolve. Irene? Thank you. It's Irene Himona, Société Générale. I had two questions. Firstly, hydrogen from sunlight. I realize it's early days. I wonder if you can give us a sense of the energy efficiency gain of that process versus, electrolyzers and therefore, any potential cost advantage. Secondly, on asset disposals, if I can come back from a different angle. You have sold a quarter of your renewables and a quarter of E&P. You brought in private equity experts. Can you please help us understand, the new constraints introduced on Repsol by your new partners as a result of these deals? In other words, what is it that you will have to do now which you didn't have to do before the disposals? Thank you. Javier, probably you are the most qualified to answer the first one. Regarding the first. The microphone. There. Can you hear me now? No. [Foreign language] From here it's easier. Regarding the efficiency question, as I mentioned in my presentation, in the conventional route, we have to mix the efficiency of the photovoltaic panel with the efficiency of the grid and the electrolyzer. To give you some rough numbers, the state-of-the-art electrolyzers that we have now lose approximately 40% of the electricity we feed into them. That's, let's say the state of play. Compared with that, the photoelectrocatalytic system doesn't incur in that loss. But on the other hand, it's not able to use as much sunlight as a photovoltaic cell. It's a balance between those two losses. All in all, the numbers we are getting suggest that we might reach an improvement around 20% in efficiency compared to going through the conventional route. That's, let's say, taking sunlight as the renewable source and comparing to the final product. Jumping into your second question, I mean, my first point is in both cases, E&P and renewables, we maintain the governance and the control of both companies. Secondly, in both cases, the investors, they have endorsed and accepted and support the strategic plan. That means that everything that is related to the commitments from now on until 2025 is going to be part of the business plan that is going to be developed by both businesses. It's true that in both cases, anything outside this framework, I mean, M&A operations that could exceed depending on the business the figure I have in mind is something in between EUR 350 million and EUR 500 million of inorganic investment or disposals. I mean, they could have the right to accept it or not accept it. That is quite logical. It seems to me that seeing the profile of the investors we have in the case of the renewable, I mean, their appetite to grow and to invest is going to be very high. I mean, I think that the bottleneck is going to be the return as Repsol we could have in this kind of investment, but that is not going to be in practical terms a restriction. It seems to me that in the E&P case it makes sense. Let me say this restriction that it has also. It makes sense in the case of Repsol knowing that, I mean, we have to be also prudent about the capital, we have to expose to this business. Roughly speaking, that is the picture. We have control and majority in both boards, and I mean, that's the main framework of these partnerships. Thank you, Irene. Joshua? Thank you. Hi, it's Joshua Stone here from Barclays. And thank you for the presentation in person. It's great to see you in person. Two questions, please. One slightly longer term, one slightly shorter term. The longer term one. On your net zero 2050 targets, I believe in the past you said 70% of the way could be got using existing technologies. And that you were planning to, or you know, planning that technology would improve over the time, and that would help you get some of the way there or all of the way there. What's the case today? Is that still the case you see? And which technologies are we really talking about, and where do you see the most opportunity? And connected to that, you haven't talked about offsets at all. Is there a role of offsets in these scenarios? Then my second question is looking shorter term here. We've got a rate rising environment. The cost of debt is going up. Recession fears have grown. Traditionally, renewable businesses have been highly leveraged and making the most of this, you know, the cheap money available. To what extent, if we're in a higher rate environment for longer, do you need to reconsider the optimum business model around renewables and maybe having more equity in the mix? Thank you. Thank you, Joshua. Going to your first question, I remember, I have in mind that when we presented our strategic plan in 2020, we said at that time that 76%-77% of the target could be done using the technologies we foresaw at that moment. Our commitment will be. You know that we said that in 2019. Mm-hmm When we defined the net zero target by 2050. Mm-hmm. that our commitment as a company was, I mean, to be able to offset the rest before 2050 in order to fulfill the commitment. I remember that last year, when we presented the low carbon update of the company in October-November 2021, we tried to update that figure, and now I think that we are close to 89%-90% more or less. I mean, today we are, I'm not going to say comfortable because we are very pressed. But with the technologies that we foresee now, we think that we could be able to fulfill our net zero target by 2050 in 90% of the target. Again, our commitment is to offset the rest. I mean, now I'm entering the speculative language. It seems to me that year after year, we are going to have room to update this target because technology is evolving, and there are technologies that were not there three, four years ago that now are part of what we see. I mean, five years ago, we hadn't in mind anything related to e-fuels, the use of hydrogen to produce synthetic fuels. I mean, part of the gasification process on the carbon pathway, starting from waste to have the carbon monoxide molecule that could evolve either towards the methanol or olefins or so on. I mean, it was not so clear and so defined four or five years ago. It seems to me that all that is going to be part of this development in coming years. We are going to have opportunities to update this figure depending on the evolution of the technology. It's also true that, I mean, in coming six, seven, eight years, some technologies are going to have a more important role than others. For instance, in coming seveeight, eight years, from now on to 2030, it seems to me that it's going to be very important in this evolution the reduction of Scope 1 and Scope 2 in our own operation. I mean, energy efficiency, methane reduction, where we have a clear commitment to get net zero emissions in 2030. That is an ambition. It's like zero accidents. That means that has to be part of the normal, and we have to try to avoid any kind of leakage in the methanol case. The increase of the pathway of biofuels you explained, Tomás, evolving from the 1.3 million tons we are going to achieve in 2025 to $2 million tons per year in 2030 is going to be part of this evolution in this decade. Of course, the hydrogen projects, the renewable power generation in the denominator, I mean, all that is going to be, are going to be the main drivers from now on to 2030. From 2030 on, I mean, we have additional technologies where probably the role of carbon capture, the role of hydrogen, the role of e-fuels is going to be more important. Going to your second question related to leverage and so on. I mean, let me say, first of all, when I answered to Michele, I forgot to add that on top of that, we are reinforcing our balance sheet. I mean, probably at the end of this year, we are going to have a net debt below the lowest level we have. I'm not going to say that that is good or bad. That is a fact and is going to be part of the reality. Perhaps it's not efficient in terms of the use of capital and debt. This too is going to give us a lot of opportunities in any scenario where we could be in a potential recession scenario in coming quarters. Saying that, I mean, what you mentioned is okay, that in some way is going to impact on the debt cost of renewable businesses. On the other hand, we are also seeing all that as an opportunity. Because, I mean, let me say that a lot of developers, companies engaged with pipelines and so on are going to have a negative impact coming of this debt cost increase scenario. For a company like Repsol, with a strong balance sheet, and probably due to the situation we are experiencing now, and seems to me that that could stay for a while. I mean, we could have the opportunity to get good opportunities, perhaps, of pipeline-stressed companies and so on. That could be a way to grow and to increase our bet in this business in a more profitable way. I mean, there are cons, but there are also pros, ups in this potential evolution of the current monetary policies. Because more and more, I mean, having a strong balance sheet is going to be a competitive advantage in this business, and we are going to try to take advantage, as you mentioned, to grow and to increase our position to this business. Thank you. The lady over there. Hi. Zoé de Spoelberch here from EOS at Federated Hermes. First of all, I'd like to thank you for the ESG presentation today. It was great to hear about all the E related aspects. I'm particularly interested in the social aspects, and I thank you for presenting some of this and showing that female representation has increased in the company over time. My question touches on human rights in general, and I'm keen to understand Repsol's priorities in its human rights approach. We note that about 30%, or close to 30% of Repsol's reserves are in areas where indigenous communities are present, and I'd like to understand how you're ensuring your social license to operate. Thank you. Okay, Luis. Okay. With regards to social, definitely, of course, we are part of many, let's say, worldwide initiatives. The, let's say, United Nations Global Compact, we were one of the signatories of, from the very, very beginning. We have a policy on human rights which is fully aligned with the principles of United Nations. This is from the policy to action plans in our, let's say, sustainability plans. Every year, we have in all the countries in which we participate, we have specific actions related to social. I mean, it's fully embedded into our, let's say, what we call the six axes of sustainability, which is our process management of these matters with the specific action plans and targets every year in each of the countries. Of course, depending on the country, we are, let's say, focusing all the action plans, either on, let's say, when we have, in certain operation, indigenous communities, we have certain actions always aligned with the principles and frameworks of well-recognized. I have to say that we have been scored for a number of years quite high, even topping the sector because of our human rights policies and action plans. I believe the acronym is CHRB, one of the frameworks of evaluating the oil and gas companies with regards to that. We have been top quartile and first qualified for some years. Fully embedded into our sustainability and management process. Thank you. Thanks for the presentation and also for taking my question. It's Rachel Fletcher from Morgan Stanley. I had a very quick one on how the 25% stake sale in your renewables business affects your renewables targets, so your 6 GW by 2025, and then your targets beyond that. Thank you. I mean, when we presented our strategic plan, I mean, this dual track either to list the company or to include a private partner was already included. The new investor, I mean, has endorsed the target we had. That is to have six gigawatts of renewable power, pure renewable power in operation by 2025, and 20 gigawatts of pure renewable installed capacity in operation by 2030. I mean, they have. When I say they, I'm talking about Crédit Agricole and EIP, the investors in the renewable business. They endorsed this growth pathway. They are not only, let me say, buying the current business, but also all the pathway we have to invest to get these targets. That's part of the common targets we have. I mean, it will be great, and we are going to do our best together. It will be possible even to increase these targets, but I prefer to be proud today and to commit what we have now in our hands that are six gigawatts by 2025 and 20 in operation by 2030. Thank you. This gentleman over here. Maurizio Carulli from Carbon Tracker. Thank you very much, first of all, for the thorough presentation on ESG. I have two questions, if I may. The first one, I would like to get back on the 20% sale of your upstream to private equity company. There are clearly cash benefits of doing that, and your balance sheet will be certainly improved, thanks to the operation. Also this give you the opportunity of redeploying capital, if you want to do so, in low carbon activities and therefore, this will be potentially beneficial for the environment. Does, however, this operation, this transaction change the amount of absolute emissions of CO₂, in general, of greenhouse gases that you will have in the future with respect to having continued to maintain the ownership, the full ownership of the upstream. Are the absolute emissions of upstream going to be equal to the one that you were having before the sale of the 25%, worse or better, if a change will occur? This is the first question. The second question, which is more for helping analysts in their long-term financial modeling. Now that Repsol is progressively investing more and more in low carbon activities and, in particular, in renewables, and therefore over time will change the characteristics of its business. Is your policy toward leverage going to change because of that? In the past, oil companies were traditionally quite conservative in terms of giving debt that they were having for a number of very good reasons. Is Repsol where renewables will be a large part of its business in the future have potentially different approach to leverage, and therefore that should be reflected in the financial modeling of analysts. Grazie mille, Maurizio. Going to your first question. I mean, let me only add from my point of view that on top of a cash benefit, there is also the flexibility that we are going to have to manage this whole portfolio. In the future, depending on the evolution of the energy transition, is going to give us the opportunity to accelerate in case of being needed because opportunities are there and society is evolving in a more positive way in terms of having opportunities to accelerate the transition is going to give us an additional opportunity of flexibility to the flexibility we have now in our hands. Going to your first question, I mean, we are not going to reduce a single molecule of emissions in the Scope 1 and Scope 2 because the concept we are following is taking the whole responsibility also in the numerator of the assets we operate. As I answered before to Irene, because we are going to govern and we are going to control these current assets we have. I mean, we are going to take into account the whole emissions of the Scope 1 and Scope 2. Let me say, the ambition we are going to have to go on in this pathway is going to be the same or even higher. I said even higher because the partner we have is also a partner, EIG, as you know, has a strong commitment in terms of reducing emissions. Saying that, in the case of our Scope 1 and Scope 2, we maintain our target of being by 2025 in the first quartile of the industry in E&P terms, in terms of emissions. I mean, not doing, let me say, any misleading calculation. I mean, taking the whole emissions of all the assets we operate, we are going to be there. In methane terms, we also have the target to be below the 0.2% of gas emissions in all our gas assets by 2025. I mean, let me say that is going to be maintained or even increased in terms of commitment, of decarbonizing our own E&P operation and everything related to what I said before. I mean, Arctic, ultra deep waters, oil sands, and so on. I mean, exploration, I mean, getting rid of frontier areas, in order to avoid the stranded assets, trying to monetize as quick as possible the contingent resources we have to reduce the exploratory effort. I mean, all that is going to be maintained, in the strategy we have in our E&P. Going to your renewable question, let me say that is a very interesting question because it will be great, and I think that we are changing the risk profile of the company. But I mean, I'm going to be very honest and transparent as I try to be always, even when this transparency is against my own interest. I mean, that is not going to happen, in coming two, three, four, five years. Because, I mean, I don't know what is going to be the EBITDA of Repsol this year. Something in between EUR 12 billion and EUR 14 billion, probably. I mean, we talk about that at the end of the year. The renewable power being a great business that has been evaluated at EUR 4.4 billion is going to have an EBITDA, I mean, roughly speaking, of EUR 300 million. Saying that EUR 300 million are not going to change the profile of a company with an EBITDA of EUR 12-13 billion. It will be great. Saying that, I mean, I have also to recognize that this pretty cleaner and well, in financial terms, this EUR 300 million EBITDA of some other businesses like E&P or refining, where you have to invest hard year after year in your CapEx figure to maintain your own activity and not declining. My point is that all that is going to happen perhaps in years, but we are going to transit a lot of years in this dual world where we are seeing that our profile is changing. On the other hand, I mean, you know, rating agencies and so on are seeing us as an oil and gas company. Going very clearly to your answer, we are going to maintain a financial prudent policy as an oil and gas company evolving towards a decarbonized company. We are going to be forced to combine in a prudent way this current financial policy we have. I mean, we are not going to see, let me say, multiples of 2.5x, 3x, or 4x in terms of net debt EBITDA in Repsol in coming years. Thank you. Alistair. Thanks. It's Alastair Syme from Citi. Josu Jon Imaz, your comments at the beginning were very interesting, and you touched on the issue of energy affordability. Just maybe, you know, think back to your strategy presentation a couple of years ago. You talked about a macro framework of oil price and gas prices and electricity prices. You know, are you thinking differently about the world two years on? First of all, Alastair, let me joke. If I know the oil price for coming years, I mean, probably I'd spend more time doing some other things and less managing Repsol. So I have to be humble and saying that, I mean, I don't have a real clue about that because there are many factors impacting here. One of them is going to be the macroeconomic evolution of the world. I don't know if we are entering or no in a global recession. That's an important factor to know how demand is going to evolve in the short term. Going to the supply side, my point is that if we reduce the incentive to invest in raw materials, commodities that are going to be needed by the world, I mean, what we are doing is increasing the pressure to increase the prices of these commodities, oil and gas. In structural terms, I think that there are reasons to think that prices could be higher, that growth we saw two, three years ago in our strategic plan. It's also true that all that is going to depend on another factor that is the macro evolution of the GDP, growth or stagnation. I don't know. I have also to say that remember that when we presented our strategic plan in October, sorry. In October 2022, we were in the midst of the pandemic, and that happened two or three weeks ago, before the new vaccine that could change the situation related to COVID-19. In some way, our view is more positive about the demand. It's more, let me say, it's more pushed by this supply restriction we are seeing in the world. My view is about prices could be higher than it was two years ago. Of course, all that is going to depend on the macro evolution. I'm not going to hide that I have a strong concern, seeing the coming winter we are going to suffer in Europe, where it seems to me that this lack of supply alternatives are going to impact the normal activity, of course, of the common life of many people, but also the competitiveness and the industrial activity of many sectors in Europe. This situation is also going to impact trade in the world and so on. Factors, all of them, that they could have a negative impact on global GDP. But I don't have a crystal ball. Thank you, Alastair. Dan. Thank you. It's Dan Gardiner from IIGCC. Thank you for the presentation and particular Luis's comments on assessment frameworks, which is particularly stimulating. I had one comment if you would allow, and then one question. Having been involved in some of the development of some of those frameworks, I wanted to offer a kind of further thought or perspective on it. I understood and agreed with a lot of the comments, but on the scenario analysis, there was some I think perception created that the IEA is perhaps unusually harsh on oil and gas. I would just say that 1.5 is very harsh. It's very hard to be achieved, and that's true for all sectors. On some of the alternative scenarios you presented there's many of those pathways will have significant sink components, which may mean that they're not necessarily comparing like with like there. What I would point towards, though, is I think it's unfortunate there's this kind of perception of binary sense of alignment between, yes, you know, companies aligned and not aligned. I think if I understand the development of the frameworks going forward, there's gonna get a more sophisticated kind of relative approach going forward. But I've also emphasized that's gonna be pathway based, so it's not just net zero in 2050. On In terms of the question, it's great to see the sales-based Scope 3 data being published and upstream being the main focus strategically. I just wondered if you could set a timeline or if it was your intention to set a target on that basis, even if you kind of phrase it as a projection rather than a hard target as you'd set up? Okay, thank you. With regards to the scenario analysis, having said that, the International Energy Agency one, it's one of them, one of the potential ones. What the decision we have taken is to anchor our two main scenarios, macro scenarios that define what we are going to do, in the future. We have decided to anchor our two main scenarios on the International Energy Agency net zero emissions scenario and sustainable development. Because sustainable development is something which is not 1.5 really, but is 1.7 or so. We believe that we still have a possibility that the world moves into that direction. Clarifying that we are still using the International Energy Agency macro scenario to define how we are going to move our production from 2030 to 2050. Which means that in the net zero macro scenario of the agency, our production of oil and gas will decrease significantly from 2030 to 2050. In fact, the production of oil would have reduced by 85% or 90%. And in that scenario, we know what we need to do in order to be net zero. In fact, under that scenario really, it's easier to head to net zero because you are not producing so much oil and gas. We use the framework of the IPCC scenarios just to show that we wouldn't like to be very deterministic on the way we look at the very long-term future. That's one. The second one is this is a conversation that we would like to continue engagement with you and other stakeholders is, which is the meaning of setting a target on sales? We still consider that this is gonna be mainly driven by demand, and it's not putting the responsibility on elsewhere, it's just recognizing how things happen. Would our shareholders like us to reduce voluntarily the commercialization of products if there are still a demand for that products, and so some other will do that part of our business? We have a significant doubt about that. Definitely what we are looking at when looking at sales, we are looking at the way of engaging with our customers on, let's say, helping them to at least recognizing the cost, the price of carbon or maybe at some point in time modifying, let's say, their behaviors. You may know that now in our digital application for paying in our service station, you have the possibility to compensate your emissions. This is gonna be done with reforestation. This is not part of our decarbonization story because we are not computing this Scope 3 emissions into our decarbonization path. We're saying, "Okay, if you would like to pay 50% of the decarbonization by offsetting, I will pay another 50%." On the other side, our foundation is looking at reforesting parts of let's say rural areas in Spain. We may also work with cement manufacturers. We can work with airline companies and try to engage on let's say collaboration for moving faster on that part of the Scope 3 emissions. That's how we are now thinking about this story. Let's continue our conversation on that and try to understand what would be meaningful for our shareholders. Hello. Just one question more. I want to congratulate you on the amount of an increase of women in your workforce. I'm going a little bit back, circling back to this, an ESG Day and circling back to the G component of the ESG. Although of course environment is very relevant for a company like Repsol. On the number of women that you have, I don't know if I understood this well. You were mentioning, and I don't know if this is a question for Carmen mainly, I don't know, that you have parity in terms of the executive talent pool. At executive level you have a bit less than 20% of women. If you have parity, that's never really gonna change. I was wondering, I'm not pointing fingers here because I'm sure you're doing a huge effort and I'm Spanish myself, so I know where, how difficult it is and more in this industry. What are the measures do you think you could start implementing in order to get more women? Because maybe you need to. That parity doesn't have to be parity, it has to be slightly different or what else can you be doing to attract that crucial talent at that executive level? Thank you. Oh, thank you. If you don't mind, Carmen I'm going to try to answer because, I mean, gender is not only your responsibility. It's mine. Let me say that I'm not particularly happy with these figures. I mean, we are doing a great effort. We have to go on. I'm not happy seeing that we could have a 32%, I have in mind, of women that are leaders and a 20% of in executive position. It's true what Carmen said that I always repeat, but that is not a disclaimer. I mean, that is not enough. You know that in the hydrocarbon law in Spain till when I finished my studies, I studied petrochemicals. By agreement it was forbidden to work in a refinery. Theoretically, I mean, the bill said to protect women. I mean, that's old time. We have to evolve, and we have to change dramatically. When we say that we have a talent parity, that means that in every manager position, we have. When we are analyzing the succession plans of these positions, of this manager position, we have to guarantee that we have as many women as men in this selection process. Of course, we have to put them to compete. That we have to guarantee that all of them are there ready to compete in this appointment process. In the talent review process that in every function and in the company level we develop year after year, we also are aware that we could have in every position as women ready to be part of these processes. On top of that, as Carmen said, we have mentoring processes to help these women to increase the probability they could have to be there. We are changing the base of the pyramid because, I mean, recruiting at 49% of women year after year is also a way to put more opportunities on that. Every time we analyze the possibility to engage talent from outside the company, we also put this reflection. Again, I'm not happy at all with this figure. As Carmen said, because of course, here there are two approaches. Of course, one of them is, let me say, more ethical, and the other one is more related to the business case, Carmen mentioned in her presentation. The first one is, I mean, we are talking about equal people. The second one is that I want to take advantage of the 100% of the intelligence of the society, of the talent of the society. I'm not going to hide from you that sometimes in some activities, oil and gas company will have difficulties to attract talent in some places because, I mean, you know, there, some activities will be more glamorous. To put the women and the gender equality policy at the very heart of the company is also a great opportunity to attract the best talent for the company. Well, I think we're approaching time. We have time for one more question if there is. If not, I'll hand the word to Josu Jon Imaz to do the final remarks and the ending. Thank you. Okay. No, I mean, just a 30-minute speech to say I mean, to say to you that it has been great to come back to this forum and to see some of you in a personal way after these difficult years for everybody. Secondly, thank you for being here. Third, I mean, I'm not going to hide that we have doubts, we have concerns, we have technological risks. I mean, nothing is written in stone when we are talking about decarbonizing the company. But we have a real commitment to get the targets we put on the table. We are being able to follow this pathway of decarbonizing the company over the last years. We are fully committed on that. That all the incentives and drivers we have in the company to move Repsol ahead are related to this target of decarbonizing and moving ahead the Carbon Intensity Indicator of the company. Thank you for coming. Thank you for being part of this discussion, and it will be great to have the opportunity to go on and to continue with you in this discussion level. Mainly because these are a part of our duty, but also because thanks to your concerns, your doubts, and your comments, we will be able, in a very humble way, to improve the decarbonization pathway we have defined in the company. It's not going to be an easy way, but we are fully committed with this journey because we are going to need it to decarbonize our planet and to give to the next generation the same opportunity that our generation has had to develop our own well-being. Thank you very much.