Good morning, all. Does it work? Yeah? Welcome to Repsol's eighth ESG Day. My name is Ramón Álvarez-Pedrosa, head of Investor Relations at Repsol. I'd like to start by thanking Deutsche Bank for hosting this event at these great facilities. For the sixth time in a row, this session is led by our CEO, Josu Jon Imaz, and attended by our Executive Managing Director in Energy Transition and Deputy CEO, Luis Cabra; our CFO, Antonio Lorenzo, and other members of the Executive Committee. In addition, it is my pleasure to welcome today Mr. Mariano Marzo, Lead Independent Director and Chairman of the Sustainability Committee of the Board of Directors. Just a few words to summarize what is being presented today. Let me remind you that all materials are already available at repsol.com, and you can download those using the QR code that appears in the brochure you have over the table. Today, we will hear more details on, first, how we see governance in action at Repsol, a discussion about Repsol's strong corporate governance system. Then, we will move on to our presentations and on the latest advance on different technologies. Our second presentation will cover the topic of how Repsol is unlocking subsurface low-carbon opportunities, such as carbon capture and storage, hydrogen storage, and geothermal energy technologies. The third presentation will focus on renewable fuels and circular materials, looking at synergies and opportunities for Repsol in these areas, such as waste to fuels and materials. In the final four presentation, we will continue with last year's conversation on how Repsol is aligned with a 1.5 degree pathway and looking at the technical aspects of the IPCC and IEA scenarios. To make you aware of the logistics for today, there will be a mid-morning break at around 10:30 A.M., and furthermore, a Q&A session is scheduled to start at 12:00 P.M. This will be followed by an informal lunch at around 1:00 P.M., and we invite you all to stay with us and use the opportunity to talk to senior management and investor relations team. Now, I'll give the word to our CEO, Josu Jon Imaz, who will be sharing his thoughts on the role that Europe is taking in the energy transition, and that we will have title it as: Who or What is Europe? Josu Jon, it's your floor. Thank you. Thank Thank you, Ramón, for this summary of the topics we are going to cover today. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us here today at this splendid Deutsche Bank facilities. It's a real pleasure to have you here in person again, and I'd like to take this opportunity to formally welcome you for taking part in this eighth Repsol's Sustainability Day. Before moving into the agenda that Ramón explained, I'd like to share with you some personal thoughts regarding the current path to the energy transition and the role that Repsol is playing in it. As I share my critical voice as CEO of Repsol, it may be useful to remind that we were the first company in the world, in our sector, to commit to carbon neutrality by 2050, a pathway we are clearly delivering over the goals we defined previously in our strategic plans. This is not an easy journey. As of today, we can define with concreteness and determination our targets to 2030. Longer term, when we look to 2040, 2050, there is still a significant element of uncertainty about which technologies will support our decarbonization goals. We found ourselves immersed in a complex, ever-changing environment that is rich in opportunities, but it also present many challenges. Here, we should refer to the invasion of Ukraine, which sadly is a conflict still active. An invasion that we firmly condemn and regret, while hoping it comes to an end as soon as possible. This conflict continues to create serious stress in the supply of energy while putting pressure on prices and business competitiveness. These frictions are seriously impacting our countries and our citizens. It's from this perspective that I'd like to talk today about Europe, its role in the energy transition, the role that Europe has as leader within the framework of the energy transition and global decarbonization because one thing is clear to me, that is the fact that world demographics and energy consumption is going and is continue growing. I'm not just talking about U.S. or Europe, but also about some other emerging countries, that they also have the right to grow. These countries need all types of energy to support their growth, whether fossil or not, whether renewable or not. This is the reality of the world we live. I'm totally convinced that our economy needs to decarbonize. While these changes take place, governments and politicians, they have to guarantee the welfare of our citizens. With this scenario in mind, we should think about the role that Europe is playing in the global energy framework. From the very beginning, the European Union has played a leadership role with its ambition of climate change. Its legislation and prioritization of environmental policies have been a real driving force in Europe behind the global development of the energy transition. European Green Deal and the Fit for 55 legislative package are some clear examples of that. Europe is also a strategic space where we must continue building a competitive economy. Our social welfare model is based on the efficiency of our industries and the European economy, and I believe that we must leverage in them and frame the energy transition in this real context. However, on considering the energy crisis that we have experienced in recent times, I like to make a series of reflections looking at the European Union, which is from where the fundamental axis of energy policies are drawn. Are current European Union policies the right approach of the energy transition? Under my opinion, there are several relevant aspects to note. First, the European Union has not chosen the most efficient path to reasonably decarbonize the economy. Europe has used the Paris Agreement rules as a triggering point of its policies, aspiring to lead the process of decarbonizing the planet. However, Europe, although still an influential voice, only represents a modest share of the world's economy. In perspective, nowadays, the cement and steel sectors in China combined produce a similar amount of greenhouse emissions as the whole of the European Union, circa 8% of global CO2 emissions today. We have dangerously disregarded key aspects of the energy trilemma, formed by security of supply, affordable energy, and sustainability. All three make up a triangle whose center of gravity must be balanced. In Europe, without a doubt, we have placed a unique regulatory emphasis on energy sustainability, completely ignoring security of supply and affordable energy. We have built dependencies on Russian energy, which is no longer available to us. We have had then to diversify our gas supply from all over the world, multiplying the cost five times and carrying out an energy policy that has forgotten the competitiveness aspect of energy prices. We are also discouraging investment in our own exploration and production of hydrocarbons, which adds to the imbalance. For this reason, I'd like the European Commission to truly address the energy trilemma as a priority for 2024. Because we talk about decarbonization, and this is crucial, but let us never forget that the, that energy is not and cannot be solely about emission. Above all, energy is security of supply. The energy transition shouldn't be an ideological transition. We must rethink the energy transition in Europe, which is today based on ideological beliefs. We are rejecting investing in certain energy sources for ideological reasons, not technological or scientific ones. As a result, consumers are paying more for the energy they require, and industries with high energy consumption struggle to compete in the global markets and must close or relocate to some other regions in the world. For example, if gas prices increase to unaffordable levels, then this will increase our reliance on coal, while we wait for a long-term future where renewable electricity with storage is widely, or is going to be, better said, widely available. For this reason, I'd like energy policies to focus on competitiveness and pricing considerations, as well as decarbonization. This is because energy is not only climate. Energy is not only ecological transition, but energy is also many more things. It's a key factor in Europe's industrial competitiveness that must be fostered. We need a European policy with a holistic vision, which guarantees that all parties can respond to the trilemma. What has happened to CO2 prices in previous years because of these policies? Well, they have disproportionately increased, raising more than 250% since 2019. Here is a shocking fact. Today, in Spain, for instance, car users are paying EUR 327 in taxes for each ton of CO2 they emit, four times more than the European price of CO2, that, as I said, has increased a lot over the last years. My third reflection, the energy transition shouldn't be an energy revolution that ends up being paid by households and industries. If we look at the European regulation, we could say that it is too short-sighted. Europe seeks to eliminate CO2 emissions, if possible, as soon as tomorrow. But this is not possible, and if done, it will be at the expense of other countries increasing their emissions. Weakening European industry means that what is not produced in Europe is built in other countries, such as India, China, and some others. By moving European industry to other places with more lax decarbonization policies, we are exporting emissions and losing our industry. And by losing industrial fabric, we lose competitiveness and our capacity to support our welfare state. It is not coincidence that the European Union has been missing its target of retaining a 20% rate of the industrial GDP in relation to the total European gross domestic product. We are currently at 16% and going down. And a society without industry is a society without a future. It's a society where there is no innovation, where there are no quality jobs, where universities no longer lead technology advancement and scientific research. Fourth thought, the energy transition can't be prohibitionist or solely be based on bans. Radical, pro-prohibitionist activism has a lot of responsibility for current gas prices, and this radical activism also puts pressure on financial institutions, on investors, who often find severe limitations to financing and investing in oil and gas projects. Just remember that, electricity today is the largest emitter of CO2 in the world. Simply by increasing the production of natural gas and replacing the coal used to generate electricity, we'll be reducing more tons of CO2 than those emitted by all the road transportation in the world. We are talking about the coal used for electricity generation and heat. That is being responsible for around 10 billion tons of CO2 per year, versus around 8 billion tons of, per year, of course, from all means of transportation in the world. On top of that, the energy transition must be part of a regulatory framework able to provide certainty and stability. A stable regulation fosters profitability, and in my humble opinion, the current European regulation are too complex, out of touch. They put a brake of investments. In this sense, I think we must learn a lot from what is being done in the U.S. Much has been said about the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, which has been deemed by some as protectionist. Perhaps, but it's mobilizing big investments since its approval. I think that in Europe, we are very far from achieving that goal. It has three things that are very important about the IRA from my point of view. First, predictability. Investors, we have some certainty about public support for coming 10 years. Secondly, simplification. European regulation is complex, with many rules that many times overlap and even contradict. Third, technological neutrality. Nobody knows what technologies will be required in 2040 or 2050. Let them all compete or complement each other and prove themselves without ideological biases, without restrictions, without prohibitions. If I have to define in a single word what the United States does encouraging investment, I will define this policy as a carrot, while in the case of Europe, it imposed targets and it imposed obligations, so the stick. So to conclude, what would I ask the regulator for? Firstly, humility, freedom, technological neutrality, that is going to allow us a wide range of potential solutions to prove themselves to contribute. There should be an open vision of decarbonization. It should be founded on technology and on the capabilities of our society, the talent of our society, the capabilities of companies, of research centers, of universities. Let us make the energy transition, saving the industrial interests of our countries, together with employment, technology, science, social equality, and with maximum consumer protection. We all know that in Europe, there has been a strong bet for electrification as one of the main drivers of the transition. But I want to remind to this audience, that you know that, of course, that electrification is not the only way to decarbonize. And in this respect, no one could say that Repsol is not investing in this business. At Repsol, renewable electricity generation is one of the pillars, as you know, of our decarbonization goal. We have a target to achieve 6 gigawatts of renewable capacity in 2025, and those gigawatts, they have all of them names. 20 gigawatts in 2030, and let me say that they also have a name now. We have the platforms to get this target. We continue to advance our transformation, and last month, we entered in the U.S. onshore wind business with the acquisition of a 20 gigawatts renewable project portfolio and development capabilities. If we talk about electrification as a form of mobility. Let me remind you that we were the first to launch an electric charging services company in Spain back in 2010, and I'm proud of that, because at that time, I was leading that business in the company. Currently, Repsol is positioned as a leader in electric mobility in Iberia, with more than 1,200 charging points, and since December 2022, we have one charging station every 50 kilometers in the network along the main roadways of the Iberian Peninsula. Now, let's talk about the fact. So I said all that because we are not suspicious of not betting in favor of the electric mobility and of the electric power generation. Let's talk about the fact that European legislation prohibits the use of the combustion engine from 2035, while betting on electric mobility, while the reality is that Europe doesn't have neither the raw materials needed for an electric vehicle battery, cobalt, lithium, nor the social support to produce those materials internally. We regret the strong dependence built in the past from Russian gas, but now Europe is building enormous dependencies on critical materials, mining, and producers. By building another dependence on third countries, we are confronting again one of the pillars of the trilemma: in this case, guaranteeing energy security. Our governments are today discussing the implementation of an import tax on electric vehicles coming from China to avoid dumping prices. However, this late measure is not going to be the solution, as nearly 90% of the total value of the battery supply chain will remain in China. Trying to support a European batteries industry through this kind of measures will be useless, as only the remaining 10% of the product value will stay in our continent. Furthermore, the electrical vehicle is still an expensive car which not everyone can afford to buy, and a type of vehicle that doesn't fit to all family needs. For example, the data on the Spanish car fleet where vehicles have an average life of 14 years and growing, unfortunately, and where families who have a diesel vehicle lack any kind of scrappage framework. By simply renewing the Spanish automobile fleet, accepting all technologies, we will reduce the CO2 emissions in transport in Spain, in one shot, in a 30%. Therefore, let's stop subsidizing only the car demand of a few, the affordable layers of the society. With these policies, what we are really doing is making the investment case in the automotive sector weaker. Let's accept that the mobility of the future depends on multiple solution. We can, and we must complement what is being done in renewable generation with renewable fuels, using the concept of circular economy and waste management. We have a diversified raw materials that we can use to make renewable jet and renewable diesel, and there are solutions available today. I'd like to remind you that we have invested, over the last 14 years, EUR 11 billion in making our refining system more efficient, and now we have the capacity to transform our refineries in these multi-energy hubs, where feedstock is going to be more and more coming from wastes and from some other sources different from oil. Our strategic plan contemplates the production of 1.2 million tons of advanced biofuels in 2025. This quarter, I mean, in 2023, we are going to launch the C-43 project in Cartagena. In 2030, we will be producing in Spain more than 2 million tons of renewable fuels without a CO2 footprint. These 2 million tons represent the same reduction in CO2 emissions as 4 million electric vehicles on our roads. Let me let me remind you that today, the figure of electric vehicles in Spanish roads could be something in between 200,000-300,000 cars. So the equivalent in terms of CO2 reduction of these measures we are taking in Repsol is going to be, in CO2 reduction terms, equivalent to 4 million electric vehicles. Secondly, I will ask for an orderly transition in which we don't cause supply-demand disruption, and of course, taking advantage of all the endogenous sources we have in Europe. I will ask for a transition that is not based on bans. We want to carry out an energy transition with the European framework, but considering the strategic interest and realities of each country, of each society, and taking advantage of the resources that each country has. I find it quite hypocritical that, to give you an example, in Spain, we have a law that prohibits the exploration and production of gas when we desperately need that gas, and we are asking the rest of the world to supply us this gas. At the same time, we are increasing the price of the LNG in the world, and due to this increase, many countries, they can't afford buying gas, and they have to go back to coal. And we are increasing, at the same time, the CO2 emissions in the world. And with this kind of laws, we are responsible for increasing the CO2 emissions in the world, on top of impacting the bill of our families and on top of destroying European competitiveness and European industry. We are importing gas from the US-... Gas that produce CO2, of course, in this structure, and methane, and to which we also add CO2 emissions from transportation. Thus, the CO2 abatement is an illusion. It's pure fiction. The only thing we are achieving is greenwashing, thanks to this kind of laws. But we are happy in Europe with this greenwashing because we say that we are sustainable. We say that we are sustainable when the truth is that we are damaging our industrial competitiveness and increasing CO2 emissions globally. So, reducing the capacity to invest in the gas industry, pressing the investors and the financial community to not invest in gas production, what we are doing is mainly increasing the CO2 burden in the world. Finally, I will ask for an intelligent transition so that consumers can afford the energy they need, so that companies don't have to shut production because they cannot pay their industrial cost. We need to carry out, let me say, a holistic energy transition. Ambition in terms of CO2 reduction, of course, but with a holistic approach to cover this target. With an energy transition policy just based on ideology, we will strongly reduce oil and gas production to cut emissions. Instead, the only thing we will achieve is to create a system that structurally leads to higher prices, and we know that the demand of oil and gas continues to rise. If Europe is committed to reducing oil and gas, and the public administration is careful, the financial sector, so that they don't finance, for example, gas or its infrastructure, the only thing we achieve is to raise prices and create a serious competitiveness problem. And let me say, I'm not a cynical guy, but that is not going to be a problem for oil and gas companies, because high prices is going to be pretty, pretty good for oil and gas companies. It's going to be a problem for our society, and it's going to be a problem for the CO2 emissions in the world because people is going to go back to the coal, and it's going to be a problem for industrial jobs and for the competitiveness in our continent. So I know that it's not easy to say that. I'm not going to say that you have to agree with my reflections, but I think that after being CEO almost over the last 10 years of this company, and with, let me say, a clear commitment to decarbonize our company, I mean, facts are there, I think that my duty is to be honest with my reflections. I'd like now to finalize, to say that, first of all, that I'm proud being the CEO of a multi-energy company that efficiently produces oil and gas, renewable power, biofuels with a low carbon footprint, and that is making firm progress in our commitment to decarbonization. What we said in 2018, in 2020 in terms of commitments, we are fulfilling, and we are delivering it. Secondly, and above all, I believe in the value of the industrial sector. I believe, probably because I'm from an industrial entourage, so, I know what important is all that in terms of job creation, in terms of giving opportunities to young people, and so on. I think that industry is the base of innovation, the base of employment, and is the base also for technology. And if we want to decarbonize the world, we need industry, and we need technology. And finally, I'd like to urge the legislator in Europe, and in our case, in Spain, to consider energy policies that don't solely revolve around ecological transition or electrification criteria. We need a combination of climate ambition, decarbonization, but fully based on the industrial and technological capabilities we have. And having said all that, I wouldn't want to leave with, I mean, with a wrong, pessimistic impression. I have a solid belief that the future ahead is bright for Europe. We have talent, we have people, we have companies, we have a great society, and I think that we need a regulation that, in an open way, take advantage of all these raw materials, let me use that term, we have in Europe to combine this ambition in terms of decarbonization with the ambition in security supply terms, because otherwise we are going to create dependence, and all that, fully focused on building a competitive society. So our future is one of optimism, collaboration, and improvement, and we want to create a suitable ground for sustainable investment in Europe and prosperity in the region. It's not blah, blah, blah. That is what we are doing. We are investing, and we are investing hard in Europe, and we are investing in decarbonization. This year, we are going to invest up 35% of all our organic investment, and 42%, if we take into account the inorganic ones, in decarbonizing the company. So our commitment is fully supported by facts, and we are going to try over this morning to show and to show you, I mean, the kind of projects and strategies we are following in the company to decarbonize Repsol. And thank you for giving me the opportunity to develop this reflection. Thank you. Thank you very much, Josu. I'm sure, but at 12, we will open the Q&A session with most of your reflections. Before we move on, I would like you to remind to look at our disclaimer page that is at the beginning of each presentation. I encourage you to read it. Now we are moving to our next part with Mariano Marzo. Mariano Marzo was first appointed a board member of Repsol back in 2017. He's currently, as I said before, our Lead Independent Director, Chairman of the Sustainability Committee, and a member of the Audit and Control Committee of the board. A Ph.D. graduate in Geological Sciences, and a professor at the School of Earth Science at the University of Barcelona. He has developed a very prestigious career in this field across Europe, the U.S., and beyond. So Mariano, the floor is yours. Thank you. So good morning, everybody, and thanks, Ramon, for the presentation. Well, as he said, my name is Mariano Marzo. I think we have to move. Okay. I am Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Barcelona and a member of Repsol's Board of Directors, where I perform the functions of Lead Independent Director and Chairman of the Sustainability Committee. My presentation for this ESG day is aimed to briefly review Repsol's corporate governance system. My talk, for that purpose, comprises three points. Oops! No. Okay. The first point is a general introduction to our corporate governance system. Second is ESG at the board of directors, and the third point is remuneration linked to ESG targets. Let's focus on the first of these three points. Good governance is one of the fundamental pillars of Repsol's culture, and we believe that it is a way of ensuring that both our management model and the decisions of the board of director and its committees are geared towards guaranteeing the group's sustainability and preserving the long-term interest of our stakeholders. Therefore, the company's corporate governance system is under constant review and improvement, incorporating the main recommendations of international markets and the most advanced trends, as well as the latest regulatory development in this area. To this end, for more than a decade, the company has maintained an ongoing dialogue on environmental, social, and governance matters with institutional investors, proxy advisors, and other stakeholders to know firsthand their opinion on these matters and to explain the company's practices. Our ultimate objective behind corporate governance is to lead the highest good governance standards at the national and international levels. In relation to good governance practices applied by the company, I would highlight the following. With respect to shareholders' rights, we follow the principle of one share, one vote, without any limitation on the maximum number of votes that might be cast by a shareholder or the requirements of a minimum number of shares to participate or vote at the general shareholders meeting. Likewise, there are no double voting shares for loyalty or any limitation for the acquisition of shares. In addition, the company implements periodically measures to facilitate, as much as possible, the participation in the general shareholders' telematic, sorry, shareholders' meeting through telematic means. I'm a bit lost because I have some flashing on the screen behind me. Okay? Regarding the composition of the board of directors, which I will refer to in detail later on, I would like to highlight the separation of the role of the chairman as the person more responsible for the efficient functioning of the board from the executive functions of the Chief Executive Officer, which guarantees a balance of powers, promoting the independence and objectivity of the board of directors in its supervisory duties. This separation was carried out... I think. The separation was carried out in an organized and well-planned manner after a transitional period to ensure the stability of the company. It should be noted that Repsol also has a formalized succession plan, which was coordinated by the Nomination Committee and myself, the Lead Independent Director. In terms of gender diversity, the company has been gradually increasing the presence of women on its board of directors, which currently stands at 40%... thus complying with the applicable good governance recommendation in Spain. In addition, it should be noted that the audit, nomination, and remuneration committees are chaired by independent female directors. It is, therefore, a diverse and balanced board of directors, not only in terms of gender, but also in terms of academic background, professional and international skills, and experience. 93% of the board member have international experience. The board of directors is composed of 15 members, within the limit recommended by the Good Governance Code for listed companies in Spain. 93% of the board members are non-executive directors, all except the Chief Executive Officer, and a very large majority of 73.3% are independent directors. As I have indicated, Repsol also appoints a lead independent director. I am the current one. Among my duties, I am responsible for contacting investors and shareholders to ascertain their points of view, especially in relation to the company's corporate governance. In addition, the composition of the board committees complies with the most demanding international standards to ensure the strictest autonomy of criteria, especially in auditing and compensation matters. Thus, the audit, nomination, remuneration, and sustainability committees are chaired by independent directors and do not include executive directors. The board is periodically renewed with an average term of office of 6.3 years. In accordance with its director selection policy, before proposing the appointment of a new member, the board reflect previously on the competencies and skills that it would be advisable to include or strengthen in this body, considering circumstances and challenges faced by the company. In addition, the board is assisted by an independent executive search firm for the quest of most suitable candidates. Another relevant issue that the nomination committee verifies before proposing the task or re-election of each director, is the confirmation of his or her availability, dedication, and commitment, also taking into account the over-boarding limit established in the regulations of the board, whereby directors might not sit on more than four boards of other listed companies other than Repsol. Each year, a breakdown of the individual attendance of the directors at the meetings of the board and the committees is published. Likewise, the board of directors annually evaluates the functioning, quality, and effectiveness of its work and that of its committees, as well as the performance of the chairman, the Chief Executive Officer, and the secretary of the board, and on the basis of the conclusions reached, prepares an action plan. In addition, at least once every three years, the board of directors is assisted in its evaluation by an external consultant, which is happening this year. Other noteworthy corporate governance practices of Repsol are the following: continuous review of internal regulation to ensure that they remain at the forefront of corporate governance best practices, the public dissemination of the individual attendance of directors, the constant dialogue with investors, proxy advisors, and other stakeholders, practice in which we were pioneers in Spain. In terms of transparency and information, the company is also a benchmark in Spain for institutional investors and proxy advisors. Since the regulations allowed it, we have been preparing both the annual corporate governance report and the annual director remuneration report in free format, providing shareholders with clearer, more detailed, and complete information than that established in the official model, also facilitating the understanding of our corporate governance practices and their applicable remuneration systems. In addition, we were also the first in Spain to publish an annual report on ESG activities with investors. Another relevant proof of our commitment to ESG has been, and continues to be, the leadership positions we have been occupying in the indexes and ratings of the independent agencies, top-rated at each moment by our shareholders and stakeholders. Thus, Repsol was the only company in the oil and gas sector to be the leader for several consecutive years in the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices, and now continues to occupy the top position in its sector in the evaluation of the most recognized ESG rating agencies in the market... MSCI, Vigeo Eiris, Standard & Poor's, and CDP, among others. Let's deepen now a bit more about ESG at the board of directors. Repsol is fully convinced that it must be part of the solution to the energy transition challenge, and was the first company in the world, in the oil and gas sector, to publicly commit in December 2019 to become a company with zero net emissions by 2050. To achieve this goal, the company also set a decarbonization pathway with intermediate targets from 2020 to 2040. Subsequently, the board of directors agreed on even more ambitious interim targets for increasing renewables generation and emission reductions, as well as investment in low-carbon solutions until 2030. Likewise, at the 2022 general meeting, the company's climate strategy and objectives were submitted to an advisory board of the shareholders, which was supported by a large majority. For Repsol, decarbonization is not just about mitigating emissions, emissions to protect the planet. It's something more. It is an opportunity to generate value, to participate in a decisive moment for the future of humanity, in which we are changing the way we produce and consume energy, and with the support of technology, we are shaping new industrial sectors that will generate wealth and quality employment. That's why ESG discussions are an essential priority for the board of directors and are integrated into Repsol's culture. Board members also receive regular training on ESG-related topics. In particular, the board of directors is the body in charge of approving the company's sustainability strategy, as well as the decarbonization strategy, both integrated into the company's strategy. The board of directors supervises the compliance by monitoring sustainability and energy transition objectives and indicators. It also monitors safety and environmental key performance indicators, KPIs, monthly, and periodically reviews emission reductions, low-carbon energy generation targets, investment plans, and technological developments and applications related to energy transition. Likewise, Repsol has internal mechanisms to promote the allocation of capital to low-carbon investment, such as the internal carbon price and the investment qualification methodology for its alignment with the energy transition and its compatibility with the company's decarbonization path. Thus, since 2021, every investment proposed to the board of directors includes a report reflecting the impact of the investment on the company's Carbon Intensity Index, depending on whether its impact is positive, neutral, or negative. It's very relevant on this point, the Sustainability Committee, created by the board of directors in 2015, and which I chair. That plays a very active and relevant role in all matters related to energy transition, personal and process safety, non-financial risk management and control systems, and reporting of non-financial information. This committee is also responsible for guiding the group's policy, objectives, and guidelines in ESG areas, reviewing and reporting to the board on the expectations of the company's stakeholders, and proposing to the board the approval of a sustainability policy. The committee also reviews, at every meeting, safety and environmental performance indicators. The committee also periodically monitors, among others, the following issues: the sustainability strategy and the fulfillment of the related actions and objectives, together with the annual local and global sustainability plans and their objectives and the sustainability risk map. The decarbonization roadmap and the fulfillment of related action and objectives, as well as emerging risks related to the energy transition. Performance in natural capital and biodiversity, as well as water management. Strategic environmental and safety projects, community relations, and human rights performance, and its contribution to the sustainable development goals, non-financial information and reporting frameworks, and ESG rating performance. In this area... We have also made a great effort in the preparation, integration, and simplification of non-financial information, and specifically, sustainability information in the integrated management report, inspired, as always, by best practices, and in particular, complying with the recommendations of the International Integrated Reporting Council and the most demanding option of the Global Reporting Initiative. Here we come to the third and last point of my presentation: remuneration link to ESG objectives. The issue of a remuneration linked to ESG objectives is also of a special relevance in our company. Thus, to ensure that the entire company is properly aligned with the sustainability strategy, sustainability and decarbonization objectives have a direct impact on the variable remunerations of Repsol employees. In fact, two members of the Remuneration Committee are also members of the Sustainability Committee, so that the cross presence of these directors also allows for the consideration of relevant aspects in these matters that are related to the remuneration of the CEO and senior executives. Specifically, in the CEO's 2023 short-term variable remuneration targets, the decarbonization and sustainability commitments have a weight of 25%, 15% corresponding to the development of low-carbon platforms and 10% to safety indicators. In addition, Repsol has long-term incentive programs for all executives and members of senior management, including the CEO, as well as a high percentage of leaders. The weight of energy transition-related objectives in the 2023-2026 long-term incentive program is 40%. 20% linked to the achievement of the Carbon Intensity Index reduction pathway, 10% to renewable generation targets, and 10% to the production of renewable fuels. All this demonstrates, again, the company's strong commitment to sustainability and its leadership in the energy transition. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you very much, Mariano. Now, before the coffee, we move to the first technical presentation, Unlocking Subsurface Low-Carbon Opportunities. It's going to be presented by David Ramos. David Ramos is a geologist, and he's Repsol's geological low-carbon solutions director since last year when the unit was created. His worldwide responsibilities include all businesses, commercial and technical aspects of geothermal, CCS, and hydrogen geological storage within Repsol. Prior to his role, he had acquired a wealth of expertise with the Repsol exploration businesses across the world, having joined Repsol in 1998. So David, the floor is yours. Thank you, Ramón. Good morning, everyone. It's a pleasure for me to be here and trying to explain to you the role of a subsurface in this energy transition. So far it's been clear the role that the subsurface has played in affordability and availability of energy resources. Now, the question is, what in the transition? What is the role the subsurface is going to play? As Ramón just said, I come from an exploration background, so this is a personal task of mine to develop these opportunities in the subsurface that will help us to transition into this new, low-carbon world. My presentation is gonna be structured in a very easy way. We're gonna be talking about the why and how we're doing this, and then the three main, main aspects of our, strategy, which is CCS, geothermal, and hydrogen storage. So the first point is very important because I'm trying to set the ground of what is the reason to do all these things, and why us, in upstream, within an oil and gas company, are taking the task of doing those activities. You probably have seen this because it's been explained in other ESG days, those four pillars of the transition within Repsol: the industrial transformation, renewable generation, customer-centric business, and the creation of carbon sinks. These three lines of activities that I explained before, the CCS, hydrogen storage, and geothermal, integrates seamlessly into these four pillars. I'm gonna start talking about a little bit on hydrogen storage. It's a perfect fit into our strategy of renewable hydrogen generation. The characteristics of a green hydrogen is that it's intermittent. You generate hydrogen when you can, not when you want. So having this spare storage capacity is a nice complement to our renewable hydrogen strategy. Geothermal, it's the most evident subsurface resource. It's heat. Actually, heat is the most abundant resource available to us. Problem is, it's not easily accessible, and there is a lot of technology developments that need to happen before this is something that can be taken mainstream. Geothermal can play, or we see geothermal as a baseload generator of electricity and district heating applications that integrates with our generation, renewable generation and customer-centric business. So it's not that it's a complement, as the storage is to the hydrogen or hydrogen storage to the generation of hydrogen, it's part of the business. But when it comes to carbon sinks, CCS or geological carbon storage is a pivotal piece of it. There is no CCUS without geological carbon storage. The role of geological carbon storage here, it's super important because it's a technique that is mature. When you talk about the energy transition world, some of these technologies need to be developed. Carbon storage underground has been here for quite a few years already. Creating this full value chain, capturing CO2 at the emitters, transporting and storing underground, it creates what we call the logistics of the CO2. It creates this supply of CO2 that later can be used to support your synthetic fuels or other uses that could be needed in the future that we don't foresee yet, but we already have this logistic chain put in place. And why we do that within the upstream? That is a big question. I mean, many other companies will have this CCS business separated. Well, we think there are two important aspects to keep in mind, and this is a very flashy statement here because it's in our DNA. If you look at the business side of the CCS, specifically, and geothermal as well, it's got the same characteristics of the business that we do in the upstream. Those are solutions that can be applied internationally. There is risk, subsurface risk associated with it. They're projects that require significant investment in CapEx, and most of them are gonna be under contract with government. Nothing different from what we have been doing in the upstream business. And also, we believe that being an oil and gas company, when it comes to subsurface, we have the right to win, or we have this competitive advantage compared to other players that we are seeing coming up on this energy transition scheme. I mean, we've been doing this for many decades. We have the operational capabilities to do this, and more importantly, to do this in a safe way, 'cause... And we'll talk about that in a second. This is gonna be very important. If we want to do this, it has to be accepted by society, and that means it has to be done responsibly and with a very high level of safety. So we conceived this unit as a decarbonization tool for our upstream opportunities. We talked about that two years ago, about Sakakemang. We expanded this to as a decarbonization way to our industrial activities, but now we see that as a strategic component that can generate value and can have a sizable growth potential. Very briefly, this is the story of the unit that it was created last year in 2022. We all started looking into these things back in 2019. This is where we discovered the Sakakemang field in Indonesia with 26% CO2. At the same year, we announced that we wanted to be net zero by 2050. There is no way we're gonna develop a gas field with 26% CO2 if we announced that we're gonna be net zero by 2050. So we started thinking, we have to do something about it. The next year, we created, within exploration, these groups, looking at this, what options do we have in the subsurface to help us with the energy transition? In 2021, we recognized these three main lines of business, still within exploration, and we start seeing these problems that will come in the future, the risk. If we're gonna develop this CCS and geothermal, we have to pay attention to safety, and we have to have the social license to operate. So we started developing this kind of capabilities within the group. Seismicity, for us, is super relevant, especially being in Spain. Monitoring, when you put CO2 down in the ground, you're gonna make sure that the CO2 is not coming back to you. And we start signing these first licenses and MOUs with the main stakeholders. And it was last year when we became adults, in a way, when we became independent from our exploration house, and we created this independent unit. And we start putting together our thoughts in a strategic plan. Okay, this is what we're gonna do, and this is how we're gonna do it." Now, we are in 2023, when we are starting to execute the plan that we put together last year. A little bit of... I don't wanna spend a lot of time in here, but just to give you an idea, when we talk about value creation and sizable growth potential, this is our view of these three main lines. CCS, by far, is the most, the one activity that has the most growth potential. You got here revenues in billions of dollars, and each one has got a different opinion about how much is this, how this number is calculated. But just to give you an idea of magnitude, and this is the annual growth rate for the business in Europe and the United States. Geothermal is quite modest, and it's quite modest because it is constrained by technological advances. There is this line of thought, and we share this line of thought, that oil and gas industry, oil and gas business, the know-how can be applied into untapped geothermal resources and can speed up this geothermal development. So those numbers that you see here is an actual view of the current status, but those numbers, we hope that will go up. The growth will be much bigger if we get to unlock this potential. And hydrogen storage has very modest global numbers when it comes to revenues, although the growth is also very significant. So let's talk about CCS. I'm going to give you just one slide on very broad lines of our strategy and key mention to some of our projects that we have. We define our strategy, first of all, with a localized geographical footprint, and we define three main areas. One is the U.S. Gulf Coast in the United States, obvious reasons. Josu Jon already mentioned the IRA that came out last year, that was a big green light for everyone to start thinking about CCS into the U.S. Southern Europe, Iberia, South of France, North Africa, this is another area where we want to focus our strategy. And obviously, our sort of... Talking about legacy in these early stages of a business is kind of a joke, right? But this is our legacy, Sakakemang. It's something that started back in 2019, and we believe it has the ability to progress into a big geographical area for us. You have down here, a kind of, storage target, and it's just a target, and it's broad. It's not very specific on purpose. The CCS business has to-- It's different from the any other business in the subsurface, in a way that you have to have everything aligned from the beginning. It's not that you have to have the pore space. It's not that you have to have a pore space that can be developed in an economical way. You have to have your emitters aligned with you. And to be honest with you, there are very few contracts nowadays that can tell you, "Okay, though, I'm gonna have all these emissions contracted for the long term." So being very specific on how many tons, net, working interest rights are gonna be on the ground, is a very difficult task. Because I don't think nobody can give you with a high degree of certainty, by 2030, I'm gonna have 5, 6, 7. This is our view. We're gonna try to move between these two lines, but being not very specific is done on purpose. Let's talk about 3 projects in these 3 geographies on CCS. This is almost breaking news. I don't know if some of you are aware of that. The Texas GLO, this is the General Land Office, proposed results on pore space to develop 2 hubs in their state waters. One hub in Corpus Christi area, down to the south, and one hub in Galveston Bay area. In this map, the yellow dots are the level of emissions. We participated in the Corpus Christi hub, and we were awarded 2 blocks. They were putting 5 blocks for offering. We know that they awarded us 2 blocks, a consortium led by Repsol, and we'll talk about the partners now. We knew that there are other participants in the Corpus Christi, but they were not selected. Then, in Galveston Bay, ExxonMobil got 3 blocks, and BP got 1 block. We know that other companies all participated in Galveston. We're not sure whether the Texas GLO decided to leave some of the tracks unawarded. Probably, they did it on purpose, because if they award all the tracks, they're gonna create a lot of competition to capture all those emissions, and this is not good. But this is the. And we're very happy to being awarded these 2 blocks. These 2 blocks have a combined capacity of more than 600 million tons. It's in an area with, between 21-25 million tonnes per annum available, but it has the capacity to capture up to 60 million tonnes in the near future. We are the operator of this partnership. We are with Carbonvert, an independent, developer of CCS solutions in the US, Mitsui, and POSCO. This is the second RFP. To give you an idea, this blue block right there, that was the first, block awarded by the Texas GLO. That was two years ago. It was awarded to a consortium of Carbonvert and Talos. The two companies were on that block. Carbonvert decided to sell out for a very good price, it's my understanding, all the participation in that block, to focus with us in, Corpus Christi. Moving geographies from west to east, we are going to Southern Europe, and this is the PICASSO project in the south of France, where we participate in this PICASSO project. The PICASSO project is a program that is created around the Pôle Avenia, and there are more than 30 institutions that participate in it. The objective of the program is to find CO2 solutions to the industry in the south of France and north Spain, either giving value to the CO2, using the CO2, or storing the CO2 in geological formation, depleted gas fields that we have. There is a steering committee composed of many companies. I highlighted here three of them that are taking the leading role in this consortium. One side, we'll start from the right, Téréga is the transport company in the south of France, and they are leading all the efforts in the transportation. Lafarge is one of the big emitters in the area, and Repsol taking the lead on the subsurface characterization. Some of the characteristics in here, there are 50 million tons of emissions around the area. LAC is a, it's an industrial complex that can be used for a valorization of the CO₂ uses. There is ample potential in the subsurface to store CO₂. And it's a unique case in this part of Europe, in the southern Europe. There is a perfect alignment between institutions, administration, and partners in the steering committee. This is what it makes this project very interesting. Society, social acceptance of the project is granted, and they want to do something in the area to give a solution to the industry. You're all very familiar with Sakakemang. Very brief news about Sakakemang, and this is something that has happened this year. In March, the regulation in Indonesia for the CCS was approved, and what it means is that all the CCS costs are considered cost recovery. In other words, you develop your gas field, you can store your CO₂, and that will be assumed as part of the cost recovery of the contract, which is a big achievement. Not only allows you to put the CO₂ on the ground, but also they pay you for that, in a way. They cover your cost. We see this Sakakemang thing in four phases, and when it comes to CCS. Phase one is, okay, we're gonna store the CO₂ that we separate from the gas in Sakakemang, our own emissions, and this is where this CCS helps to decarbonize Repsol upstream emissions. Second phase is, how about we create something that... local hub that can capture emissions from other producers, oil and gas producers, which is also contemplated within this regulation that was approved in March this year, and we are getting to that. But then, more ambitious phase two, phase three and phase four is like, what if we capture and store emissions from the industry, local industry in the country? And what if we developed a hub to capture emissions from other countries that don't have a decarbonization solution? Singapore, Korea, Japan, they don't have the luxury to have storage space to put their emissions. They are desperately looking for places to store it. That phase two, phase three, sorry, yeah, phase three, phase four, has to be developed with a regulation. This regulation in Indonesia is being discussed as we speak. There is a draft out there. Plans are this regulation will come up at the end of the year, and this regulation will go with the ETS system in Indonesia and will allow to store emissions outside the oil and gas industry and emissions from outside the country. This location that we have in South Sumatra is the perfect spot to be able to construct a regional hub that will get access to those kind of, emissions. We got to geothermal energy, very quickly. As I said, geothermal is the most abundant resource. The core, the core of the Earth, it's a temperature... Mariano may correct me, he's an expert in geology. It's 6,000 degrees, and it's cooling down, and it's transmitting the heat up to the surface. The problem is the crust of the Earth; it's very good at isolating the temperature from the core. So in very few spots, the temperature, the heat, makes its way through the surface, volcanoes, and interact with the groundwater, and then we have these fumaroles, and then we have all this, and this is where we developed the geothermal energy. Does it mean only there? No. It means the resource we know is there, but we really need to find a way for untapping this and going around these other locations that the volcanic islands and say, "Okay, we're gonna use the geothermal resources in different places." It might be the number one geothermal number one energy baseload power. It's 24/7. This is continuous, fully renewable. I don't think nobody thinks that heat is going to end anytime soon. So if that works, we have a truly renewable. It's such a way the DOE in the States think that by 2050, it's gonna be the most important source of renewable baseload energy in the energy mix. We don't have to get confused between renewable and low carbon, because this is a renewable source of energy, but in many places, it's not low carbon. You produce the geothermal heat, you come up with a lot of CO₂. So that is also a complication of developing this energy in a sustainable way. Exploration risk. This is pure exploration activity. Unlocking those resources is not just how do I extract the most out of the... with my technological advances, but it's where do I drill? What are the conditions that I need to exploit these resources with guarantees? The way we see that is fully dependent on technology. We have these binary cycle power plants that are becoming very effective, and then we have this Enhanced Geothermal System... or these Closed-Loop Geothermal Systems. Those systems that will allow us to take advantage of not super high temperatures underground and still generate electricity. What we're doing on this, we're focusing, being on a Spanish company, we're focusing on the Canary Islands. It's a volcanic island. They don't have any geothermal per se yet, and the reason for it is no evident geothermal resource. If it was evident, it would have been explored and developed already. But it's a volcanic island, and there is volcanic activity, so the heat is there. We just need to find a way of making it work. They do have a problem with the energy mix because they, most of the electrical energy is from fossil fuels. They have a lot of emissions, limited space to develop renewables, a lot of protected, environmentally protected spaces, and no continental platform to put your windmills, so it has to be floating. So very complicated and very isolated. They are not connected to any other system. So geothermal, if it works, it could be a very good solution for them. We do have three exploration license, and we are in the process of bidding round for investigation licenses in La Palma and Tenerife, where we think is the most potential of the island. I was expecting to come here, and Ramon is laughing because I was... This presentation was put at the very last moment, hoping that I could deliver good news about this, this bidding process, and I couldn't. It's going slow, but we have very high hopes that some of these blocks are gonna be awarded to us, so we have a very aggressive program to put in place in the Canary Islands. Some of the things that we are doing in geothermal comes to are related to our activities in Eagle Ford, in South Texas, where geothermal could be a way that we can use to decarbonize ourselves. If we could generate enough electricity to support our activities in Eagle Ford, right there, we will decarbonize our Scope 2 emissions on those, on those activities. How we do that? It's not easy, but by repurposing wells that are abandoned or are about to be abandoned, you can make this economy of the scale work, and maybe there is an option to do that. This is our project number one, and we have two other projects that are, we requested money to the DOE. The DOE comes up with these funding schemes, and we are applying to them with technological companies, helping us developing this enhanced geothermal and closed-loop system, helping us developing this technology that could help us unlock this potential. And then finally, I'm gonna talk about H2 storage and why we think H2 storage is needed. We'll talk about hydrogen, the fuel of the future, and green hydrogen that will be generated by renewables, solar and wind, it's intermittent. You generate... When you get, you have to have some spare capacity. You have to have some storage capacity. The current technology is proven, the hydrogen can be stored in salt, in salt caverns, in salt diapirs. You have to have a subsurface study. You have to define that the salt is capable of doing that, and this is done historically through salt mining companies. They use this salt for other commercial purposes. So we're talking to them, say, "Can we develop a kind of a partnership where you still develop your business of getting the salt out of that, and we can use those caverns to store our hydrogen?" When you come up with numbers, how big is this business? If you think this rule of the thumb, that between 10% and 20% of the hydrogen production needs to be... or you have to develop this storage capacity, that is on the one hand 10%-20% of your production, that is huge. That is huge. We're talking about storing 500,000 tons, between 500,000 tons to 1,000,000 tons of H2, of hydrogen, in Spain by 2030, and this is between building up 50-150 caverns. That's a lot, and it's, it's a lot to be done in a short period of time. So we believe this is a line of business that is- it requires to be, be explored. There is no regulation on it. We really believe that the regulation will follow the gas regulation in different countries, especially in Spain. Technology is proven and, as I said, between 500,000 to 1,000,000 tons per year of hydrogen needs to be stored. To give you an idea why storing the hydrogen subsurface, those cylinders are the standard cylinders. They are bigger than that, but the cylinders, the standard cylinder is 100 cubic meters. These cylinders store 350 kilos of H2. The biggest storage capacity is being developed by NASA. This is why NASA sends their rockets to the space using H2. Elon Musk sends the rockets using a different fuel, I think kerosene, I don't know. And why? Because they don't have the storage capacity to put this amount of H2. It's only NASA because they have the bigger deposit. When you compare to the capacity of storing H2 underground, it's a whole difference. So that's why the subsurface provides all this capacity, and I think in the case of a hydrogen, it's gonna be a nice addition to our story on, on hydrogen production. I think that's, that's all. Yeah. ... Okay, thank you. Thank you very much, David. I think we are perfect in time. So we are now with the second technical presentation, Renewable Fuels and Circular Materials. It's going to be performed by Berta Cabello. Berta is a chemical engineer. She is currently responsible for the renewable fuel business, including development of new projects to increase our renewable fuel and circular feedstock production. Having started her career at Repsol Technology Lab in 2001, she has been serving key roles in the transformation of Repsol industrial businesses, like decarbonization of our processes, products, energy efficiency, and digitalization. So Berta, the floor is yours. Good morning, everyone. Thanks so much for coming today. I will try to explain you briefly in the next 30 minutes, the opportunities that we see in the waste to fuels and materials space. My presentation will have three points. First, we will explain Repsol's value proposal. Then, we will give you some specific examples about waste to fuels opportunities, and I will finish with some conclusions. Let me give you first some context. There are four main trends that are pushing the development of carbon neutral products. The first two are related to the society needs or regulation. The first is related with energy transition and independence. We see that through the Fit for 55 package, and also, of course, security of supply that from the Russo-Ukrainian war, we have realized that it's more important than we thought it was, and it's reflected in the RePowerEU regulation. But also, in the circular economy, we have a lot of challenges as a society. Waste is a problem. We don't talk so much about waste, and we talk about climate change, but it's there. We have a lot of waste in Europe. It's a raw material for us, so it's really important to look for the regulation, what is asking. We have the Waste Framework Directive. We We have also the Packaging Waste Directive. Also, End-of-Life Vehicles proposal has been submitted this summer, so this is really important for us. But also, we are seeing that clients are asking for low-carbon solutions. A lot of companies have pledged to become net zero, so they demand sustainable products, renewable fuels, and materials because investors ask them to. Final customers are asking also for that, so that's a really a movement that is starting, but is there. And finally, some commodities' prices have been increased. CO2 prices also are high. Some in some cases, the renewable alternative can be co-competitive with the fossil fuel alternative. It has happened these last years with biomethane, for example. So, what is our proposal? First of all, what we are doing is giving our customers the best decarbonization compliant option, the most competitive one. We have different customers. First of all, we have our own regulatory targets as an supplier, fuel supplier, and industrial company. So to comply with ETS, with the RED, ReFuelEU Aviation, we have a combination of technologies leveraged by our current assets to really be competitive and sell the products to our customers in a competitive way, even with a differentiated commercial strategy. Right now, for example, we have more than 20 service stations providing 100% renewable diesel, so they can see that there's an alternative there for them to use. But there are other customers, other customers that have also regulatory targets. We have other fuel suppliers, independent fuel suppliers, the maritime sector with ETS, IMO, and Fuel EU Maritime. We have the aviation sector that also has ETS. We have ReFuelEU Aviation, et cetera, and the chemical business that needs materials to provide the auto industry and the packaging industry with circular materials. So they are already our customers. They trust us. We have been supplying to them fuels for a long time, so now we give them a competitive solution to decarbonize their final customers. Of course, what we were mentioning about voluntary goals, some players are committing to increase. For example, also airlines, some of them will introduce more SAF than the regulatory targets, so we are there to supply these renewable fuels and circular materials. How do we do this? I mean, we have our existing sites, our legacy assets. That is a really nice way to reduce the CapEx of, and the OpEx of the new production. We are investing in new waste primary transformation units to really be flexible and use different type of waste, and this is giving also additional creation to local and rural areas. But, what if we look into our proposal from the waste perspective? Does it make sense? We really think it does. So why it makes sense? I mean, because I was mentioning before, waste is a huge problem of our society. There are a lot of different type of waste that are not currently sustainable handling, so we can give a sound response to different kind of waste and give the owner of the waste a solution for them. We can talk about used cooking oil, manure from livestock sector, municipal solid waste, plastic waste, or agricultural and forestry waste. We can do that. And a very different option from other players in the waste management sector is that we have hydrogen. We have renewable hydrogen that will be key to increase the carbon recovery from waste. And also, we will be able to produce fuels and materials at the same time. So we are giving a very good solution for waste. How do we do this? Technology here is key, and don't be scared, I won't go through all the technologies, okay? But it is key to be selecting the best ones, to select first the mature ones. So you see there, in the short term, you will see a lot of production from lipid hydrotreating, from mechanical recycling, and from biomethane. Those are the most mature, so in this decade, they will be deployed. And then, electrolysis is following closely. Gasification, pyrolysis, and fermentation are key for really using different kind of waste. And also, too, I was commenting before, to increase the carbon recovery, we have e-fuels. The CO2 produced in the other processes will be used with hydrogen to produce more fuels and materials. Let me give you a very specific remark about biomethane and renewable hydrogen. This won't be used only to reduce the emissions of our sites, but also, they are raw materials for the rest. They are completely integrated with the waste, with the fuels and materials strategy. It's important for you to see, and I won't go through all the other regulations. Just Joan was explaining, this is so complex. Let me say to you that these processes are contributing to the different regulations. The integration of the processes, the integration with our legacy assets, and the integration, the contribution to the waste directives, is key to give a competitive solution for decarbonisation. So let me give you some specific examples about this. Let me start about UCO. UCO, and it's a pity because you don't see here the non-recovered part, because it's a light grey, but in the domestic sector, there is not really a recovery of UCO currently, especially in places like Spain. And Spain, as you can imagine, is a place where we use a lot of oil. Italy and other Mediterranean countries, we use it. So we have a huge potential to work on this and recover more UCO. So as a company, we are promoting the collection. In fact, it's something that the waste law is obligating the municipal entities to do. So we are offering our service stations for them to do it. So now we are collecting UCO in 153 service stations of Repsol in Madrid and Galicia, and we are opening this initiative to other regions in Spain to increase this 4%, because we could get almost 200,000 tonnes of UCO not collected currently, only in our country. So this is a very interesting initiatives. And why do we do this? Because as you know, lipid waste to renewable fuels will be one of the key technologies that will give us business in this following decade. We have a strategy based on mixing three different type of projects. New units like Cartagena project that is almost producing already, but also making use of our existing legacy assets to do two things. One of it is co-processing. We have been co-processing for a long time now, and we are introducing waste into our refineries, but also changing the use of old units, like diesel desulfurization units, to be 100% renewable fuel production units. And the combination of the three is giving us a very competitive CapEx versus production ratio. It's giving us the right amount of flexibility in terms of raw materials and products, and it's giving us the product that we need to the market. Let me give you one thing, one data about the SAF production, for example. With this strategy, we will be able to supply a Spanish market in 2030 with most of the SAF that they will demand. So we are ready to supply SAF demand from now. But what is great is that that unit will be flexible to produce also renewable diesel. So we will be adapting to our customers' demand, and we will produce the SAF that they need till 2030. Let me move on to other waste, that is, manure from livestock sector. Livestock sector is a really important sector in Europe. In Spain, very big one. It has a lot of challenges, especially with waste. Waste is a problem for soil and water contamination. Also, methane emissions from manure has a really big impact. So, there is a huge potential to use it to produce biomethane. It's the only technology that can handle manure, so we think that this is one thing that is going to happen in the following years in Spain. I say it's going to happen because we have a potential to be the second producers in Europe, but right now, we are one of the last. So we have a potential to produce this biomethane and it create value, especially in rural areas. But as Repsol, I mean, we won't be using biomethane only as biomethane. We have a very nice open options for using that biomethane. You can see here in this slide. You can use it directly to decarbonize our customers, but we can use it also to reduce the footprint of our fuels and chemicals. We can also use this to produce renewable hydrogen, to reduce the biofuels footprint, and we can use it also, because biomethane production produces CO2, the CO2 can be used to produce synthetic fuels. At the same time, we will be working with the livestock sector, agri-food industries, and also with municipalities. So we will have better access to different type of waste for the, for other routes, and we will be also able to integrate with other routes like fermentation. So it's a differentiated strategy, if you compare to other players in the biomethane industry, like gas players, that will sell directly the biomethane, we can integrate in existing assets and future assets. We have a flagship initiative in Galicia. It's ten plants to produce 600 kW per year of biomethane, coming mainly from manure. The region has a really big problem with that, and we are helping the region to solve, so to make the livestock sector sustainable, and at the same time, reduce the dependency on natural gas. To give you a figure, in Europe, the potential to produce biomethane could replace 30% of current natural gas consumption. So the potential is really big. In Spain, it's almost bigger because of the potential, the waste that we have. Moving to another one, municipal solid waste. Municipal solid waste is also a challenge. You have here current waste management scheme. We have different bins, different sorting facilities, but currently, especially in Spain, unfortunately, a lot is going to landfill and to incineration. In Spain, 53% of the waste is going to landfill. That's around 20 million tonnes of municipal waste per year. So imagine the amount of waste we have underground. It's a carbon source. But the European Union has some specific objectives: to reduce waste to landfill, to reduce, to increase the percentage of solid waste to be recycled. This is a challenge if we are now at 53%, and we have to reduce to 10% in 2035; we need to use different technologies. So we count on increasing the separate collection to increase mechanical recycling. We have an investment in a company, Acteco, that is our platform to increase that. And also, through the introduction of pyrolysis and gasification, we will be able to use the waste that is going to landfill. And here we have our strategic partnership with Enerkem, a gasification technology company, that we believe is the best position to deploy this technology in the near future. And very related is biomass waste. Okay? It's not very evident, but Spain has a huge potential. You go there, and you don't see a lot of trees in a lot of areas, but in fact, it's the third wooded land country in Europe, and we are the second in terms of agricultural production. Also, with a huge challenge in terms of waste management. So using biomass waste is really, really key to reduce the spread of uncontrolled fires, a really big issue in Europe, especially in the south of Europe, so we have to do something. The biomass is there, but it's not being recovered or used, so we have to do something. It's also—it will help agricultural crops because it decreases the pest and diseases and handles the waste that is coming from that sector, and it's giving employment to a lot of rural areas in the country. So it really makes sense. Okay, so the last two waste we were mentioning, municipal solid waste and biomass waste, one of the platforms we really believe it will be making a difference is gasification to renewable fuels and materials like methanol. We have a project that is called Ecoplanta. I think you know about it. It was awarded with an innovation fund grant in 2021. And we are working with Enerkem as the technology chosen, because Enerkem has an industrial demo plant working since 2016, so it's a way to de-risk the technology, because at the end of the day, this is a first-of-a-kind plant, so some technology risks have to be handled there. And this will be key to reduce landfill rates all around the country. The first production will be 240,000 tons of methanol from this municipal solid waste and biomass, and it will be producing biomethanol, circular methanol, and e-methanol, a combination of the three. We have five initiatives under development that will be reducing the waste to landfill in more than 2 million tons, producing more than 1 million tons of methanol. But this is not only about technologies like separated. This is an integration ecosystem, and this is really important for us because we really believe it's different for Repsol. We have renewable hydrogen as feedstock for producing renewable fuels. They are co-produced with circular materials, and thanks to our industrial size, we will be competitive. Renewable hydrogen, I was mentioning before, it's an enabler. It's a raw material to produce renewable fuels and materials. It's needed to improve the hydrogen to carbon ratio of the waste, to really give final customers to the drop-in fuels and materials that they need, and it's increasing the carbon recovery from waste. So renewable hydrogen has to be there to produce renewable fuels. And of course, we-- I think we are really lucky in this point because all phase one projects for hydrogen in Repsol has been funded by the European Commission or the Spanish government. So we have a big push to be scaling up the technology, to be ready from 2030 to really have the production of hydrogen we need for the waste recovery. Circular materials. Material valorization is a must, something that is asked for waste, and we have the two businesses integrated. We have fuels, we have chemical business, so we will be able to use the waste for both. Having better access to waste, for us, it's good to have mixed organic and plastic waste because we can make use of it, and we have a flexibility to use bioproducts that are co-products from the biofuels production to integrate into our chemical business. And lastly, but for me, the most important, our legacy assets, our industrial infrastructure, and know-how is giving us an advantage in terms of CapEx reduction, reliability increase. So everything is built around our current sites. But the integration goes beyond industrial businesses. We have low carbon generation that will be key to produce the hydrogen that is the raw material for these products, and we have the customer base. I mean, we know how to deal with these products, the logistics, the specifications. We have the trust of our customers, so the integration of all our businesses here is key to be successful. So, let me give you a very little example about a specific site that is leading a transformation in terms of circularity. Puertollano site is our inland refinery. It's already recognized as a circular materials and biofuels production reference, with several projects underway. It's really important to say that it's located in an area with low income, with low employment. So the refinery employs currently, directly and indirectly, 7% of total population, and if you include the induced employment, is really, really giving up that value. So if the refinery is not there in the future, the area will have a lot of problems. So we are betting on the site to really transform it into something else. And it's everything is integrated. We have the current industrial site. We have the new units, the one that is going to be transformed to HVO, that was announced this year. And we will use renewable hydrogen into that unit, from biomethane and from electrolysers. We are using UCO and [Uncertain] waste for that unit, but we have been, since 2015, introducing plastic pyrolysis waste in that refinery. We were the first to introduce that pyrolysis oil in a refinery, and we are already producing mechanical recycling polyolefins. We have started up a new unit to treat from foam mattresses waste, and we are working in a solar PV self-consumption facility. So everything is integrated to give us fuels and materials to our customers, transforming the site progressively into something else. And for me, this is a very great example of what we are trying to do. So just to finish, to give you some conclusions, we really believe we have an advantage because we have our industrial sites that are very competitive currently. We are around Iberian Peninsula, having access to a big amount of waste that is not being handled properly right now. We have very nice, cheap, renewable electricity and a low carbon generation business that is there to promote it. We are integrating in the whole value chain, and we are at the same time producer and consumer of this type of product. So it give us a really deep knowledge of how to handle with that, the regulation that is around that, so that's pretty important. We are integrated the fuels, hydrogen and chemicals, circular chemicals, new business. So we are making a proposal to waste that is different from other players in the sector. And we are being able to develop a lot of partnerships because of our current business with international presence. It's good to have partnerships in this new business that has technology challenges. It's big in terms of CapEx, so we are creating the partnerships needed to really be developing this in a good way. Finally, we have the know-how. We have the know-how to do projects. We have the know-how to operate a large facilities that they are not so easy to operate. So we are there to make this transformation. Let me finish just saying, and Josu was saying before, I'm really proud to be able to work in a company that is doing this transformation. I'm a chemical engineer. My team is also proud to be working here, all the company. So I hope I have transmitted that enthusiasm and proud because we are here to do this transformation. Thank you. Thank you very much, Berta. Well, we're approaching our last presentation. That last presentation will be done by Luis Cabra, which probably you all know. He will talk about if Repsol is aligned or not with a 1.5-degree pathway. Well, you know, Luis Cabra is Executive Managing Director for a lot of things, circular economy and other things. He's also Deputy CEO. He has a PhD as chemical engineer, and he currently represents the company in various international forums, serving, among others, as Chairman of the Automotive Fuel Action Group of the European Petroleum Industry Association, and he's also Chairman of the European Biofuels Technology Platform. So you will be in very good hands for finishing the session. So, Luis, the floor is yours. Okay, so, thank you for being here. And, well, after having heard so many exciting news about opportunities of Repsol in the field of renewable fuels on underground, let's go to more boring part of our session today. It's probably the third or fourth year in a row in which we end up trying to continue explaining to you how we see our transformation from the point of view of, let's say, the whole company, our decarbonization efforts. Well, I believe it's somewhat more boring, but still relevant, because while we are progressing in our decarbonization efforts with very tangible projects that will lead very soon to get to our milestone of being 15% reduction in carbon intensity in the way we measure things, as thanks to these efforts, renewable electricity generation, this renewable fuels part, decarbonizing our legacy, et cetera, there is still an endless debate on whether we are doing things right, whether we are doing the sufficient effort, whether our decarbonization pathway is or not, or not aligned with 1.5 degrees C, whatever that means, and be sure that we are making our contribution at worldwide level. So for us, the answer is still yes, yes, yes. We are on the right pathway. We are measuring things in the proper way. We are using science-based tech methodologies, and we are in the right path, making our effort to the 1.5 degrees Celsius. But we know that not everyone believes that, not everyone agrees with the methodology, not everyone, let's say, admits that this company, which is an oil and gas company, transitioning to be a multi-energy company, is doing the right job. So let's continue, and the single solution we have in order to is to be very assertive and also to have a continuous dialogue, conversation, and engagement with all of you and with everyone that wants to discuss with us whether Repsol is aligned with a 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway. So well, we have many things to speak about. First, we like to monitor ourselves. As we said yesterday, one year ago, October 2022, we were speaking about this, and there was a last page in which we said, "Next steps for us." Let's review that before starting, then continue speaking about metrics, then continue speaking about decarbonization scenarios and whether or not we are aligned, and then speaking about a new target that we are putting ourselves, in addition to confirming that we are going in the right way to fulfill all of our existing objectives. Some words about a little bit more complicated things, financial disclosure of climate change risk and how we incorporate that into our reports and disclosures. And, well, ending with something which is a little bit new, is extending the concept of protecting the climate of the planet to protecting the natural capital. That is even wider and more ambitious objective, on top of decarbonization and climate. As we said yesterday, this was the last page in our report last year in this same room. We said, "Okay, we want to be very assertive." We still continue thinking that our decarbonization pathway, measuring carbon intensity index with the scope 3 emissions, which means the emissions of the products that are produced from our primary energy production, is the right way of measuring things. We said, "Okay, some other stakeholders would like to see something different, which is the carbon intensity index with a scope 3 based on whatever you're selling, not whatever you are producing." Let's see how things look like when we make calculations based on that. Definitely, we said we are going to disclose in more depth in our, in our reports and disclosures about financial risk and financial impact in our company of the different scenarios of decarbonization, International Energy Agency, et cetera, et cetera. And of course, continued engagement with all of the stakeholders, very relevant, continuous engagement with investors, and the, and the financial community. So let's see. Metrics, I call it the endless debate because I'm pretty sure that we will not stop speaking about this in the coming one to three years. We will continue speaking about that, but we believe we are doing the right job, and we are explaining why. This is the value chain of oil. Then we are producing oil, we are producing gas. We will speak briefly about that. We are producing renewable electricity. All this has its value chain, and at different stages of the value chain, you have emissions. At the end, Repsol is producing oil. This is a picture for oil. Is buying oil from third parties because we refine more than we produce. We go there, and we have here with our products from the refineries, we even buy refined products from third parties, and we are selling the same molecule to others, which are not end users, and then they continue in the value chain. If we-- when we say, "Okay, let's calculate scope three of our sales," which are our sales? Are they to end users? I believe this, it's worth to do that, and you are going to see figures about that. Is whatever you refine, and you'll see some figures about that. We believe there is no sense at all to say, "If I buy a molecule and I resell that molecule to someone, which is a known end user," I believe this should be excluded, because at the end, we would be measuring things multiple times along the value chain. Okay, this is where we are. And we say, for us, what moves our strategy is the oil and gas that we produce. Once a company produce oil and gas, this is gonna be used by someone at the other value, at the other end of the value chain. This is a strategic decision to produce oil and gas. This is high CapEx. This is investment for many, many years to come. What you are investing today is gonna be to produce oil for many years, depending if you are unconventional, it is less, but this is conventional, then it's for the next 15-20 years that you are investing now for producing oil within the next 20 years. This is strategic, this is long-term. This is what moves, really, your strategy and what moves, really, your view about which is gonna be the future of oil and gas, long term. So very clearly, that we are—we need to monitor that, and this is why we are using the carbon intensity based on the Scope 3 of the products that can be obtained and are obtained from your production of oil and gas. Now, we want to be transparent. We need to engage with everyone that needs that. They want to see how things would look like with whatever you are in the other side of the value chain and, and whatever you sell. Just to note, and we wouldn't like to hide, if we are using a Scope 3 at this extreme of the value chain, whatever I sell, if I sell more than I produce, I can continue increasing the production of oil and gas, not having an impact in my carbon intensity, because this part of the story, you are selling more, and you are selling more because there is a demand today. You don't need to invest more or to invest much. It's like, the commercial activity. You can sell and decide to sell or not sell without long-term investment. So I believe that we have a very strong case for our carbon intensity indicator, the way we measure it. Anyhow, this is the first one that we are going to show. Next graph. Okay, so carbon intensity reduction, when you are 100%, you are net zero. The blue line is the line that we have always explicitly... This is the one that sets our objectives. 15% reduction, and this is 15% in 2025, 28% reduction in 2030, 55%, and then 100% in 2050 be net zero. So if I measure—this is measuring the Scope 3 of everything that can be obtained, products that can be obtained from your oil and gas production. If I measure just the sales that we make to end users, which means our retail stations, our sales to airlines, our sales to ship owners, et cetera, we have a fantastic decarbonization graph. This one. So I could be using the sales to end users and say that I will decarbonize more than, it was 15 plus 11, 26% in 2025. 28 ma 2 plus 26 here in 2030. So I will be very, very happy to say that I will decarbonize this. Well, this is not from our point of view the right way of looking at it. If I measure whatever I sell even to third parties, so we start double counting the emissions, so I will have this one. Not so bad. I could be saying, "Okay, instead of 15%, it's gonna be 12." Well, I could decide to say, "Okay, not so bad," showing that with end users are gonna be fantastic. Not so bad if I'm double counting and using our total sales, that are coming from our refineries, et cetera. So what we are doing now is to very clearly and very transparently all this into your knowledge. We will be happy to discuss about the methodology, about the way we do things, but definitely, we still are very assertive on saying that the right way to measure things is the blue line. Okay, so the next point of debate is, avoided emissions. This is always a very debatable topic. There are certain stakeholders that don't like that we use avoided emissions and incorporate that into our numerator of the CO2 emissions. Very clearly to say that if we are producing renewable electricity, we are giving us the credit in the CO2 emissions, that this, renewable generation, renewable electricity, is substituting the fossil electricity that we are producing today. And we are doing that in a very fair way because we are using that just in the geographies and in the years according to the projections of extension of renewable electricity of the International Energy Agency, just in the geographies and in the years in which in the future, they will still be, fossil energy, coal, gas, et cetera. So but we are using this, the International Energy Agency, this is a graph from their report. They are very clearly stating, which is the substitution effect of substituting, coal by nuclear, et cetera, et cetera. So very, very evident. And again, we want to measure our decarbonization impact, whatever is real. If I take responsibility for the emissions of our clients, I need to take also the credit of whatever is the real impact of our renewable generation has in the emissions at worldwide level. These are... And not always things are so evident. So you have there some examples. Definitely, a new combined cycle with natural gas would reduce emissions if it's substituting coal. If you are in Poland or if you are in Germany, if you are in Norway, you are not substituting, you may be substituting hydro, and then you have a negative impact. But again, a new wind farm in Norway or in France, which is substituting nuclear, is doing nothing for physical, real CO2 emissions. A new wind farm that serves incremental demand of energy is not substituting. It's just in your carbon intensity, you are producing more energy, so per unit of energy you produce, you get the credit, but you are not reducing emissions, so in absolute terms. So all this is factored in our indicators, in our KPIs. So, but again, there is always a lot of questions, and you say, "Okay, how much of your decarbonization reduction is coming from this Scope 3 or avoided emissions?" Okay? Very clearly, these are the figures. In 2025, 2 points out of the 15 are coming from substituted emission, real substitution and real reduction of emissions, and 2030, 2040, 2050. But this is not confessing our sins. This is really stating that this is happening, this reduction of emissions is going on. So we, again, very happy to continue discussions on whether or not to use Scope 4 emissions, and we are still very assertive that we will continue doing so and explaining why. So this is the way. So now, you have this decarbonization pathway. Is that consistent with 1.5 degrees Celsius? Every time that we are engaging in these conversations, everyone is saying, "Is your scenario compatible or equal to the Net Zero Emissions of the International Energy Agency?" And we say, "This is not just the single 1.5 degrees Celsius scenario. There are more." And many of them are from parties that are at least as knowledgeable in terms of climate change as the International Energy Agency. It's a very good reference, and we use it always, and you can be seeing that. This is a complicated thing, carbon intensity reduction, but you hear—this is a decarbonization. We have taken here the carbon intensity. This is Repsol. This is the same graph you saw it before, but is going, reduction is going down instead of reduction going up. But, and what you have here is not reduction in percentage, it's reduction of the carbon intensity itself, but it's the same graph, and this is Repsol. Net zero in 2050. People that just take into consideration the International Energy Agency net zero, they say, "Mm-mm, you are not in the right path because this is the one of the net zero emissions of the International Energy Agency. You are going slowly. You end up here in the same point, but your path, I, we don't like this, this pathway." We say: Okay, first of all, definitely the International Energy Agency takes the whole of the energy mix. We are starting here being oil and gas, because oil and gas is required today, and we need to take a, let's say, a steep decline in order to be net zero, but you start from here and not start from here, which is the energy taking into consideration renewables and so on at worldwide level. Mm. So all these lines that you see in gray are all the scenarios of the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Really, they collect, as it is agreed to be the best science in the world in terms of climate change. They develop scenarios, but they develop more than one, and in fact, they have been able to develop more than 200 scenarios that are compatible with 1.5 degrees Celsius, at the end of the century. You see, interesting enough, that many of these are not net zero in 2050. Of course, there is a second part of the century, and they say, "Okay, all this scenario, they have implicit projections about what is going on from 2050 to the end of the century, such that we do not overpass the 1.5 degrees scenario." There is a big discussion of some of these scenarios or significant number of them. They have what they call overshoot, because you end up with 5 degrees Celsius, but in the middle you may reach something like 1.7 or so. Okay, but this is a different discussion. Okay, but let's take from that, because they say, "Okay, but you are saying that you will be net zero in 2050." Okay, let's take out of these 200 scenarios, just 28, which are the ones that are very near to net zero in 2050, and these are the ones on the right part of the transparency. So again, this is Repsol. This is the net zero scenario, single one of the International Energy Agency, and these are 28 scenarios that are net zero in 2050. So here the message is, it's too simplistic to say, "Okay, just compare this and this, because you are not with the International Energy Agency net zero, then you are not compatible with whatever is at 1.5 degrees Celsius." We are absolutely compatible with that. Interesting enough, this is again a... Because at the end of the day, we are sometimes blamed: "Okay, but at the end of the day, you put the scenarios in which you will be continue producing oil and gas for many years." Okay? So let's take the 28 scenarios. These gray dots are the 28 scenarios of the IPCC that are net zero in 2050. Let's see the variation in oil from 2020 to 2050 and in production of gas. Here is Repsol scenario. Here are the two scenarios which are net zero International Energy Agency. They are two, because every year they are reviewing that, and we have just some days ago, they put in the 2023 version of the same net zero, so it's changing a little bit. They have decided that in the future, gas is not gonna be required in much stronger terms. This is net zero 23. This is net zero 21. I would ask the International Energy Agency, what has happened to project that things will be that different in 2050, but this is up to them to explain. But anyhow, you see that we are, our projection for gas production in Repsol was even more, let's say, steep decline than 2021 net zero. So it's, we, we are not, we have, we are having our own view. We are not committing to reduce oil and gas. We are committing to reduce carbon intensity, and this is something that we always say, because some stakeholders, they say, "Okay, if you think that this is going on, commit to that." And we say, "No, we commit to carbon intensity reduction," because at the end of the day, the future is gonna be very different or might be very different from what we believe today. And we, so we commit on having an impact on carbon reduction, carbon intensity reduction, but we are not willing to commit to any of the KPIs and the components of our decarbonization effort. So this is the way we are working and continue working. So-... With, I was always asked to say, "Okay, but why not to put something more ambitious?" This year, I believe that the ambitious decision is to maintain our targets. You may have seen that, well, some companies are taking a different view after COVID, after the Ukrainian war, etcetera. We still believe that we can maintain our decarbonization ambition, and still having a view that, as Josu Jon was very clearly stating, we need to take care about affordability and about energy security. We still believe that this decarbonization ambition is compatible with that. Anyhow, for different reason, we have one additional objective. You may remind that we have an objective of reducing our Scope 1 and 2 emissions, the emissions we have in our own assets, of 55% in... We've seen a new target, which is a Scope 1 and 2 Net Zero in 2050. This is not because we believe it's an additional ambition. It's to align to an effort that we value a lot, which is what the presidency of COP28 is trying to put together at worldwide level, as many oil and gas producers as possible, international energy, international oil companies, national oil companies, under a common goal. This common goal is intended to be being Net Zero, Scope 1 and 2, in 2050. So we have wanted to give an early signal that we are supporting this effort of the presidency of COP28, and Josu Jon sent a letter to the presidency saying, "Okay, if at the end of the day there is a target like that, which is now being worked out, we are gonna be one of the first on supporting, clearly supporting that effort." So, to be clear, this is not putting things more difficult to us, but we want to be very supportive of a worldwide alignment of, for the first time, of international oil and national oil companies under a, a single decarbonization effort. Okay, so financial disclosure. We thank, in this case, Climate Action 100+, and we thank Hermes, because they were very clearly pointing out to things that they would like to see in our financial accounts and in our non-financial information that every year we put before the general meeting. So, so definitely we had a very good conversation with them, and this is something that we have done along this year. First, they said, "Okay, we need more clarity when you put the financial accounts. Which are the implicit assumptions that are behind the financial accounts that are related to your view of the energy strategy, about depreciation of assets, view about the, let's say, your projections that you are doing in terms of oil and gas production, etcetera?" So we have included significant notes and a good number of notes in the financial accounts, explaining which is behind the financial accounts, which relates to our view of the energy transition and the climate change mitigation. There was a specific request, even whatever we like it or not, this, or whatever we believe the International Energy Agency net zero scenario is just one scenario or the scenario is good or bad, we believe it, which is realistic or not. They wanted to see a sensitivity of our asset impairment if the prices of oil and gas are in the range of whatever the International Energy Agency projects in the net zero scenario. We've done that. Definitely, if the prices go as low as the International Energy Agency projects in this scenario, it will be a 25% or 30% reduction in the value of our assets. Again, I have to say that these projections, whatever they are, whatever they are obtained, are far out of the consensus of the market with regards to prices of oil and gas in the short, mid, and long-term future. Anyhow, this is just a sensitivity analysis is there. So, also, some significant information, additional information on risk and opportunities in the non-financial part of our disclosing and on the right have full explanation. Again, which is the net present value of our future assets when you develop a scenario till 2050? So, which is the impact of the different international energy scenario, net zero, the old sustainable development, and now the, what they call the approved policies, etcetera. I will not go into the details, very happy to discuss about that, but the conclusion here is that there is not big impact of, let's say, the International Energy Agency scenarios on the future value of our existing and future assets, because we are transforming our company. Of course, at, in 2050, we will have less production of oil and gas. We will have less refining of oil, but we will have more refining of waste. We will have renewable electricity generation, etcetera, etcetera. So at the end of the day, it's a matter of substituting net present value of the, let's say, legacy assets for the new ones. So, definitely, whatever we compare that with the sensitivity to the price of oil and gas and the sensitivity to the price of oil is far beyond, and far more than the impact or whatever you are in one or the other, future scenario. This happens because we have a clear decarbonization pathway in which we can explain which is gonna be our production of renewable electricity in 2030, in 2040, in 2050, in the different scenarios. Same for renewable fuels, same for carbon capture and storage, et cetera. So, I believe there I have not much more to say. And, just a word about natural capital. This is, well, this is not a new story. There are some years already, we are, and many others are some years already working on this. And, there is a view that, well, climate is, key for the planet, but there are a lot of interactions and a lot of impacts that goes beyond, climate and global warming, especially in the fields of water and scarcity of water and biodiversity. And in fact, there are some declarations over there that you cannot speak about climate change without speaking about water scarcity and water protection and biodiversity protection. There is a lot of work on that, and we are—and this is for, depending on how we manage that, we may have some issues about the intensity of the reporting that is being started to say that will be required in terms of these type of things. They are. You may remember about TCFD, the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, and the way we are adapting our reporting to that, and we need to explain how we govern our, the energy strategy. It's governance, it's strategy, it's risk and opportunities, it's metrics and objectives. All this, we do that for the energy transition and decarbonization. They say you need to start thinking on doing the same for water management, for biodiversity management, and then you end up putting objectives and targets, and you are starting to see which is the financial impact of not protecting water or not protecting biodiversity. I have to say that we have started very soon, and we are very proud that we have now something which is quite unique, which is our, our own methodology based on best practices on how you value the capital, the natural capital, in terms of euros or dollar. Which is the impact of whatever you do, activity, projects, et cetera, which is the impact on natural capital, which means you can affect temperature of the planet, you can affect water, you can affect biodiversity, you can affect even human well-being. All this is now under a methodology that has deserved the support of, very well-recognized institutions, European Union and so on. It's published in our website. We are able now to, in a recognized way, to measure in euros the impact of a new project, not just on climate, but also on water, biodiversity, et cetera. So this is even being commercialized by Minsait, a company in Spain, because we have put that in the way of a digital tool that is now, ready to be used. We believe that it's gonna be a significant effort on top of what others are doing, because if we want to manage that as TNFD, Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, and you need to end up doing things enough, speaking about the financial impact, then you will be needing some tools like that. For water, we are... And this is quite new now. Well, Berta and all the team in the industrial part of the business, refineries, petrochemicals, they have now a very ambitious water plan, and they call it Water Zero. And now they have the objective of reducing water, fresh water consumption in our industrial sites by 35% in 2035, and being net zero in fresh water consumption in 2050. I believe there are not so many initiatives like that in our sector, and now we are seeing how we can extend that into exploration and production, in particular, unconventionals, which are the big water managers and water consumers in exploration and production. Biodiversity, we have also initiatives in terms of not having activity on what they call the list of UNESCO protected sites. So we are working on all these dimensions, and well, definitely, this is something that will be growing in the future. Definitely in Europe, it's gonna be like that, with a lot of regulatory requirements, and we want to be at the forefront of this effort. So this is what I have for you today. So thank you very much, and well, we'll go to Q&A later. Okay, so thank you very much, Luis. We now open the Q&A session, so I will be conducting it and give the word, so please present yourself and the organization for whom you work. The lady over there. Give the mic, please. Hello. Isabel Falkenberg from, Vector Partners. I just wanted to thank you so much for today. I'm always extremely excited when I, leave your presentations, because I think that you're doing enormous progress and at the forefront of many initiatives. And I also want to congratulate you on the natural capital, evaluation. I think this is an important point and is testament to your commitment to the environment and, and a better world.... I have, like, two questions, really to Luis Cabra. Your presentation is not boring. At the end of the day, we are here to-- for the numbers, so I think it's very, very important, all the information that you provide to us. And, the first question is with regard to, I think it's slide 8, and it has to do with the reduction pathways that you were mentioning before. So out of my notes, I was looking here that you have two... I don't know if we can go back to that slide, but basically, you have two lines, three lines, an orange one that we've spoken about would be the best scenario, but you are being—you're leaving that one out. Then we have a blue line, which is the methodology you are using, and then we have below a dotted line, which is basically the one that is giving us a slightly m— Let me see if we... Yeah, We have that there. Another one? Another one. Yeah. Another one? No, there it was. Well, in any case, one is the one that is a pathway that includes Scope 3 of product sales and end users, if I got this right, and the other one is the one that is includes Scope 3 of total product sales. So, the last one, the one that includes total product sales, basically is giving you a decarbonization of -12% by 2025, while the one you're counting is -15%. So it's a very, very small difference. Why wouldn't you use the -12 figure as opposed to the -15 figure overall? Mm-hmm. Well, on one side, there is something which is more fundamental. And again, it's saying, "Okay, which is the decarbonization pathway that really best represent our strategy, which means that we will make evolve the production of oil and gas in a certain way in the future and the growth of renewables?" We firmly believe that looking at the primary energy that we produce, and then seeing which is the Scope 3 of the products that are obtained from this primary energy is the right way to do it. I have tried to explain which are the drawbacks of going to the other part of the chain. If I go to the other part of the chain, I would choose the upper line because really this is the other extreme of the value chain. You are not double counting anything. You are going to the, your final sales to end users, and, well, this is because of the structure of the company. We are selling to end users less volume of oil and gas products, less than can be obtained from our primary energy production. So the reason... We do not see a reason to say, "Okay, just to make some stakeholders happy, we, we need to go and put that on to, on total sales." I'm pretty sure that if I take that one on total sales and say, "Okay, 12% is not, is not so bad," then I would be questioned why I am excluding the pure trading. When you buy a molecule, you do not transfer anything. You sell it to another one, which is selling to another one. So we wouldn't like to continue playing a game in which we are just being put things more difficult for the sake of putting a KPI, which is more complicated to comply with. So I believe this is... I've always. I'm also told by our people that it's much easier for you to, when we go to one-on-one conversations, we can very clearly reproduce and replicate the mathematics of the primary energy. If you go to the other side, then you end up having many clients, and if you would like to see in our reports how to reproduce these figures, you would need a lot of information, which is normally not disclosed because it's more commercial. Anyhow, for us, the point is that the more fundamental reason. Okay, thank you. And just on that note, a small detail. I'm also quite excited to see that you're talking about a target of net zero Scope 1 and 2 by 2050. I believe that you have already almost reached your target to reduce 30% your absolute Scope 1, 2, and 3, which I think was 2030, out of the top of my head. Mm. So, I think you're well over there, 29% in 2022, something like that. Mm. So are you actually planning on a new target for your Scope 1 and 2 and 3 reduction? Do you have anything in mind maybe? Yeah. - for your strategic plan, which I believe is February next year? Yeah. This is a very good example of the. It's not so easy to keep consistency on this, because you're right. At the closing of 2022, our reduction has been 29%. We are quite there. But just to be very clear, one of the main reasons why in 2022, not for a strategic reason, but for, let's say, ups and downs in our activity, we were producing, if I remember well, something like 550,000 barrels per day, which was a low production as compared to our projections. This year, we are producing 600,000 barrels per day. So the 29% of last year, probably today is 25% or whatever. We need consistency, and these metrics, sometimes if you look one year and the other, these are not KPIs to measure and to try to explain every six months, every one year. Things will move to the 15%-30% when we have in 2025, 6 gigawatts of renewable electricity, when we have 1.3 million tons per year of advanced biofuels, et cetera. These are the KPIs that will move the needle. In between, we may have some ups and downs in production of oil and gas. We may have ups and downs in the production of our combined cycle, and this is gonna be just yearly movements, which are not structural. Thank you. For the time being, 30% is very ambitious, and we'll be there. Thank you. Okay. Michele? Michele Della Vigna from Goldman Sachs. Thank you. Thank you very much for an ESG presentation deeply rooted in science and technological innovation. And I really wanted to focus on two of the more interesting challenges that are emerging with some of these low-carbon businesses. First of all, on the circular economy and bioenergy, there is a whole new upstream business coming from waste and nature, but it's a very fragmented business with a lot of really small-scale developments, which is very different from what the oil and gas industry is used to. Is this a challenge? Does Repsol need a slightly different organization for that? And do you think that this can be an exciting upstream business, or it's just best to effectively have long-term offtake agreements with other players? Then, moving away from the molecules and towards electrons, you are expanding very fast your renewable business. One of the characteristics that has created a lot of value in the past was the ability to resell part of these assets at a large premium to your invested capital. Is this still doable in a high interest rate environment, or that value opportunity has effectively moved away? Grazie mille. Thank you, Michele. I mean, you are fully right in your first question from my point of view. We are entering in a new business, in a new arena. I remember when I presented to the board meeting, Mariano, probably you remember, in... I think that it was in summer 20, the C-43 project in Cartagena that is going to start in operation this quarter, with a pretty good return, close to 30% in return terms. The board asked to me: "Okay, do you have 10 projects like this one in terms of investment?" And my answer was, "I mean, it would be great. We could put in operation 10 projects like that, but we have, I mean, to solve a problem and to mitigate a risk." The problem is, as you mentioned, we have to build the upstream value chain to guarantee that we are going to have the feedstock to feed this plant there. And secondly, we have to evaluate the regulatory risk of this kind of projects, because, I mean, my point is that, the European regulation is going to support this kind of projects in coming years. I think that the payback is quite quick. So I think that this risk is, let me say, quite balanced and controlled, but we have to overcome the first one. And as you mentioned, I mean, we didn't have the capabilities to do that. It's not our business. So what we are doing is building a new different business, and to do that, we need partners. Partners, we are building JVs, we are entering in new companies, we are trying to guarantee that we are going to have in our hands the feedstock to feed these kind of plants. Today, I think that the 90% of what is a C-43 or more is guaranteed in the long term, in the waste supply chain. And on top of that, we also, I mean, we're going to take advantage of the spot market, I mean, to optimize the whole feedstock. But the challenge we have is to go on with these kind of projects. We have the Puertollano retrofitting that we got approved this summer, and we are also trying to build this value chain with partners and so on. As Berta explained, we have the advantage that for many of this feedstock, in Spain, we have a huge amount of potential resource. So that is... The capacity we have as the leading company in the country to be part of this value chain is very, very important. It's positive. On top of that, we have to try to guarantee some international contracts. But, I mean, we are looking for new challenges. For instance, two new retrofittings in potential ways, one of them in Tarragona, in the northeast part of Spain, the other one in A Coruña, in the northwest. To guarantee these projects, we have to build and to guarantee this kind of contract. So you are fully right, and we are putting all our effort to have a long-term supply position in this business. The advantage, as Berta explained, is that we are in the right place to do that. Going to your second question, I mean, I will be more comfortable answering your question in three, four weeks, because, as you know, Michele, my answer is yes. We think that we have some kind of comfortability, even in this financial arena, to have the partners that are going to acquire a 49% in this strategic asset rotation we are developing. I said that we are going to have more clarity about my answer in 3-4 weeks, because as you know, we are now in the midst of an M&A project that is called Ebro, where we are going to take, I think that they are eight hundred megawatts, six hundred—six hundred megawatts, sorry, 400 of them in the wind area in Aragon, what is called mainly the Project Delta II, and two hundred megawatts in solar production in the south part of Spain, in Cadiz. We are in the midst of a competitive project, and, I mean, I could say today that we have strong binding offers that are giving us the comfort that that is going to happen, and we are going to guarantee that our return, clearly above the double digit, is going to be there at the end of this transaction. You know that if we have our return, X, and someone is acquiring a 49%, paying another multiple, we are increasing the return of the equity. It stays in our hand. So I think that we are going to finish these projects in this transaction in 3-4 weeks. So, I will be able to answer with a more solid position, but I think that that is going to happen, Michele. Thank you. Alistair, yeah? Thank you. Alastair Syme, Citi. Luis, thanks for the presentation on methodology. But, you know, you know, we've had about three or four years of these, you know, all scope reduction targets. So do you think the industry has made a mistake in going down this route versus just focusing on Scope 1? I mean, you know, if everyone on the planet went to zero Scope 1, then there would be no emissions. So, you know, why is it on... Again, it's always back to the question: Why is it the responsibility of this industry- Mm to take on what consumers do? For us, it's a matter of strategy rather than methodology. I mean, if we have decided to put a certain decarbonization pathway in the way we explain that we measure, is because we have a view about how the energy mix is moving in the short, mid, and long term. And in fact, the decarbonization pathway is the result of the strategy and not the other way around. So, do we think it's the right way for us? Definitely, because we construct this graph based on our renewable capacity generation objectives, on our renewable fuels objectives, on our decarbonization efforts, reducing CO2 emissions and methane in our legacy assets, because we believe that we have the capability of maintaining, during this decade, the production of oil and gas with a number of projects that are with the reserves that we have already in our books, et cetera, et cetera. So definitely, for us, at the end, the methodology or the curve is the result of this strategy, and I believe this is the best way of measuring it. There are a number of... We will see probably even more divergence in the way that companies are setting the strategy. Then, they would be preferring to measure certain companies that rely just on a continuity on oil and gas. They cannot speak much about the Scope 3, because they will continue producing oil and gas. They just have one lever, which is carbon capture and storage, and then you need to bet on how long you can go on producing oil and gas. So for me, again, it's a matter of whether the investor believes the strategy is okay, and then the KPI is a result of that. That's my. Yeah. Let me say, adding a comment to Luis's clear explanation, that I think that we also have an opportunity as an oil and gas sector and as oil and gas sector regarding the COP 28. I think that this COP is challenging. I think that the president of the COP, Al Jaber, is going to combine the ambition in target terms, but at the same time, committing the oil and gas sector as part of the solution. Not, I mean, putting the oil and gas sector outside the solution, because with this sector, there is no solution to the problem of CO2 emissions. And in this sense, I mean, for us, being bold, being challenging, putting on the table a strong commitments, in terms of scope one and two, is also the way to say, "Okay, we are going to develop a great effort, as sector in this scope, in order to have a combined target as whole sector that could be material in terms of the reduction of emissions in coming years." Of course, with that target, we are taking for twenty... by 2050, but at the same time, with interim targets in by 2025, 2030, and so on. It seems to me that many companies are going to develop similar strategies. Over the last days, I think that the presidency of the COP expressed that, 20 companies, more or less, today, we are taking this kind of commitments. It seems to me that the main international Europeans, we are going to be there, and some of the main Americans, they are also to be there. And if we are able to attract, some NOCs to this kind of targets, I think that what we could put on the table, within the COP could be really material in terms of CO2 emissions. And I mean, in this sense, in our small dimension, Repsol, through this kind of objective, we also want to contribute to this target. I had a follow-up as well. Yeah. Sorry, the follow-up was actually on carbon capture. It was to David. You know, on the Gulf Coast of the U.S., you're doing some stuff, but, you know, one of your U.S. competitors has gone in with a very big project with a lot of scale, and the fact they're their own cornerstone customer. So can you talk about, you know, economies of scale and how Repsol competes against that? David, but you are in audience? Or micro, digo, micro. Micro is, or she not- Here. Maybe this- Ah, okay! This works. Perhaps it works. That's a good question. When you put into perspective what the big companies in the US are saying about capture capacity, it's like two orders of magnitude than what we're seeing today. So if we measure everything according to those objectives of 100 million tons a year, this is 100 times more than we are putting in here. When we thought about our strategy in the US, we didn't want to compete in this place where there are big oil and gas companies that are represented in the both sides of the value chain. Mm-hmm. They are big emitters and also have the right capability. So we decided to focus our effort in the Gulf Coast, in areas where the emitters either are not such a big emitters or don't have the oil and gas capabilities to store their own emissions, and that's why we focus our efforts in Corpus Christi. Corpus Christi Bay, for example, it's got potential. There are 21 million tons per year of CO2 emissions. Not all of them are gonna be captured and stored. We see that. We like Corpus Christi because it's got a lot of greenfield developments on industries setting up their facilities in there. So the amount of emissions... And this is very relevant. In areas where new industry is coming, the CCS is going to be part of the... see we're attracting a magnet for this industry. So if you have a CCS system in place, that will attract industry willing to develop low-carbon business, and this is the case in Corpus Christi. So we're not, we're not super worried about the size. We think, nowadays, a 5-10 million ton per year project, it's top 1% quartile of what is being put together, so we're happy with that, that size. I think it's, it's challenging enough, I would say. Not only for us, for the whole industry. Okay, Alessandro? Yes. Alessandro Pozzi, Mediobanca. First question is for Josu Jon. I was really surprised, going back to your opening remarks and how vocal you've been against the EU approach to energy transition. And I was wondering, do you think this is going to ever change, especially in light of the success the IRA is having in stimulating investments in the US, and whether maybe Europe can adopt a carrot approach, as you said, instead of a stick approach? The second question is just your thoughts about biofuels, the HVO, versus electric cars. I think the main problem with HVO is that it's expensive, whereas electric cars, you can see how they can reduce in price. Of course, supply chain for electric cars is gonna be mostly outside the EU, but at least, they probably can be affordable, especially in the car passenger segment. Mm-hmm. And maybe they can become affordable in the heavy-duty transport segment as well, and therefore, maybe if demand doesn't pick up for HVO, we could be in an oversupply situation of HVO by 2030, which could be a risk for crack spreads. Final question, on production. Just wondering if you could clarify what level of oil and gas production you expect in 2050. Thank you, Alessandro. I finish saying that I'm pretty optimistic because, I mean, that is my personal belief. So I'm not committing the company, but I believe in European project. And I noticed over the history that European project has been able to overcome these kind of difficulties. And what we are experiencing now is an strong difficulty in energy terms in Europe because, as I said before, we, we forgot in some way that security of supply and, and, and affordability, they had to be there. We focus all effort. That is okay, but we've forgetting these two aspects, we forgot the, the two first, and we focus on sustainability, and the result has been that we have built dependence on Russia. We have suffered a year, and I don't know what is going to happen next winter. It's going to depend on temperature and many things, but where families, they can't afford the bills, and we have destroyed probably the capacity of production of 15, 20% of European industry over this year. And on top of that, we are more and more increasing the CO2 emissions in the world. We are exporting these emissions, and we are happy doing that... but that is not consistent. So, it seems to me that the new European Commission that is going to be elected or appointed after the European elections in 2024 is going to have, from my point of view, more concern about trying to balance all that. Because I think that the three elements are feeding one each other. If we have a strong industrial capability, we have focus on sustainability, if we have security of supply, I'm convinced that we are going to reduce more CO2 emissions as a whole. So I think that that could happen, and after meeting a lot of commissioners, after meeting a lot of people in Brussels, in the energy area, it seems to me that people is asking for putting again security of supply and affordability on top of the carbonization, of course. We-- My point is not... I mean, I don't want to reduce the ambition in the carbonization terms. My point is that if we want to get this decarbonization, we have to-- we need a more intelligent energy transition, let me say. Going to your point, first of all, many, many, many, many people say, "Okay, your speech is quite logical because, I mean, you depend on the combustion engine." But, I mean, I think that this comment is misleading because what is happening now is not... and, I mean, I'm not cynical at all, but it's not bad for oil and gas companies. Because when we had the gas, this, I mean, diesel and gasoline consumption curves in our markets, Spain and Portugal, design or forecast ten years ago, we had a quite significant reduction of consumption this decade. That is not going to happen. And why? Because we are focusing in a form of mobility that is okay. I mean, again, I personally, I launched the first EV recharging company in Spain in 2010, so I'm not suspicious of not promoting. We are leading this EV market in Spain. We have today the 30% of the recharging points in Spain, and that is part of our strategy. But what is happening is that we are forgetting that a lot of people can't afford this kind of mobility in our country for socio-economical reasons and in some other European countries. The 75% of cars in Spain, they don't have private parkings. They have difficulties to be recharged. So if we forget all that, what is happening is that the car fleet is getting older and older. In 2018, the car fleet average age in Spain was 8 years, and today is already 14 years. If we say that we are going to ban the combustion engine in 2035, what is going to happen is that the car makers, they don't have any kind of incentive to invest in the combustion engine efficiency. Over years and years, we have reduced the consumption of engines, thanks to this effort. I mean, that is not going to happen till 2035. They are not going to invest in the efficiency of the engine because they don't have any kind of incentive for that. If the average is 14 years, that means that in 2049, 14 years later, half of the cars in the Spanish roads, so in 2050, are going to be all combustion engines cars. I mean, that's, let me say, for someone selling diesel and gasoline, it's okay, but it's not good for this European economy, it's not good for automotive sector, and it's not good for emissions. On top of that, I mean, today, we say that we are going to decarbonize the aviation sector and the maritime sector due to this, liquid renewable that, Berta explained. So when we produce in Cartagena or in Puertollano, SAF, sustainable aviation fuel, I mean, that is not, let me say, a computer that produce the molecule for aviation. We are going to have there diesel, SAF, and so on. If there is no room in Europe to produce SAF because you don't have any kind of alternative for your biodiesel, I mean, nobody's going to invest in Europe. People is going to go to the States, where they don't have any kind of bias, where they are going to promote electric vehicle, the combustion engine in efficient terms, and so on. So we need an open, more open way to deal in a holistic way with the problem, because otherwise, we are not going to have in Europe neither the investment nor the efficiency to cope with the CO2 problem. You mentioned prices. I mean, let me say that today we are starting to... In commercial terms, we are selling 100% renewable fuel in some service stations in Spain. I mean, that is today in the market. You could go with your diesel car and buy it, and today, the price is EUR 0.30 higher in the gas station, more or less, than the diesel we sell. So that's it, it's in the market. And let me say, I'm not asking for less taxes, but if we want to promote some kind of energies, and it's okay, I'm in favor of that through taxation, let me say that these renewable fuels, they are paying the same tax. Today, the high carbon tax that the diesel is paying in our market. So, if we think that we have the capacity to have a more competitive product in coming years, there are studies, for instance, from the Fraunhofer Institute, that they say, and of course, that is, there are a lack of certainty about that, but in 2035, 2040, even the E-fuels, they could be in this range, that. I mean, if you support them, in tax terms, they could be an alternative. So, I don't understand why some European regulators and politicians, they say, "Okay, no, no renewable fuels because they are very expensive." But they give to the batteries, to electric vehicles, and to some other forms of renewable power generation, all the room to reduce cost in the coming future. So I believe on technology, but technology could be applied to, to electric vehicles, to hydrogen. That I mean, a miracle is going to reduce the price of hydrogen from 5 EUR/kilo to 1.5 EUR/kilo in Europe in coming years, because that is going to happen. That is the speech of politicians, but nobody's giving any kind of room to the, to the reduction of price of renewable liquids. So we are going to go on working on that, but we think that is an important way to reduce the carbon footprint in Europe and using the current infrastructure. That is also important. And using European industry, because we have a great automotive European industry, creating a lot of jobs, high-quality jobs. If we destroy this industrial fabric, it's not going to be a problem for Repsol, but it's going to be a problem for European jobs and for European society from my point of view. The third question, Luis, probably you have a- Yeah ... a clearer clue Yeah -about that. Maybe very, very quick. When, when you look at regulation in, in Europe, it's... There is a small letter written. So even for, for passenger cars, for light-duty vehicles, there is a sentence that says that the commission will look at considering the use of, CO2 neutral fuels with, combustion engine. They are, for the time being, they are very reluctant to do that, but because of the pressure of certain countries like Germany, Italy, there is something already written that, is some homework to be done. So we believe that, that we can work around that. Oil and gas production. First, I have to say, yes, we always repeat, when we speak about oil and gas production in this decade, it's a projection. We believe that with the projects that we have ongoing to compensate for the natural decline, booked reserves in our books, we will maintain our production flattish at around 600,000 barrels per day during this decade. We will then foresee a reduction beyond 2030, and then we play scenarios, right? One of the scenarios definitely is the one that the International Energy Agency is promoting, the net zero scenario. To make it very clear, if we would go as fast as the net zero scenario of the International Energy Agency, we wouldn't need to invest more. This is what the International Energy Agency is promoting. Do not invest more on developing new gas and oil reserves. After this decade, we would not invest in anything, just producing whatever we have already developed till there, and the production in 2050 would be around 100,000 barrels per day, just exploiting what we have, after 2030. Then we have a more likelier scenarios for us, but we are using both, in which we say, "Okay, let's assume, let's take another scenario of the International Energy Agency." They call it now something like announced pledges scenario or so, APS- APS ... scenario. So with this scenario, our production, if we decline at the same speed as the International Energy Agency APS scenario, we would be at around 300,000 barrels per day. We say, "Okay, probably in that scenario, national oil companies, Saudi Arabia and so on, would take a more significant part, and we would be at around 200-250." Interesting reflection that, if we are producing little oil and gas, probably the price is not gonna be as low as the International Energy Agency thinks, because it is not gonna be a free market. It's gonna be much more conditioned by national oil companies, and the cheap oil is in Saudi Arabia. We are in the projections, again, as scenarios, we are factoring that our production would be more protected in the States, and we would be producing 200,000 barrels per day, 250 oil and gas in unconventionals in the States, mainly. Thank you very much. Alejandro? Yes, hello. Alejandro Vigil from Santander. Thank you very much for the, for the presentations, and particularly for being in person, no? Instead of Teams, no? That is always very welcome. A couple of questions. One is about the biofuels. What is needed in Europe and in Spain to really turn, transform the refineries into biofuels production centers? What we need, additional percentage of production from biofuels or additional incentive subsidies? What is needed, no, to make this transformation? And the second question is for Josu Jon in terms of the strategy in upstream. Now you have a new partner in the upstream business, which is a US private equity, probably with a financial criteria in investment. How is this financial investment fits with this decarbonization strategy, with all these targets you have presented today? If you have flexibility, of course, to speed up the decarbonization of the company through this financial position. Thank you. Gracias, Alejandro. Thank you. Going to your first question, I mean, let me say that we think that the current directive that is going to be fully approved with quite certainty, the European RED III, the Renewable Directive, I think that is giving us the room to develop all these kind of projects. So of course, we need, and it seems to me that that is going to happen in the central scenario, that all that is going to be approved in the current terms by the European Parliament and the Council. And of course, you know that the member states they have to enforce this directive. So that is going to happen. My point is that in coming years, we are even having a complex European regulation. I think that that is going to be the central scenario. So these projects are going to be supported by this regulation. As I mentioned before, and Berta explained, all kind of projects based on the lipid strategy, so we are talking about the C-43 in Cartagena, the greenfield plant, and the rest of retrofitting brownfields plants, and so on, they are supported by this regulation. That means that today, we are introducing a 10.5% in every diesel or gasoline molecule we sell in our service stations today, a 10.5% is renewable. This figure is going to increase at 11% next year, 11.5, 12% by 2026. So that is going to happen. On top of that, you know that, in coming years, we are going to have also, mandatory commitments for the aviation sector in Europe. That, I mean, 2% is going to be a sustainable aviation fuel. And a part of the rest of, fuels for cars, is going to come from what is called a renewable fuel with known biological origin. That... I mean, hydrogen has to be there to support that. That means that this, regulation that is already there is going to support the business case that we are going to develop in our refineries. You know that this hydrogen, in our case, because we are hydrogen consumers, is introducing in the oil chain, producing a hydrocarbon, so it's part of this biofuel we are going to sell in our market. That is supporting the business case, and thanks to this approach, we are going to be producing 550. We are going to have 550 MW of installed capacity in hydrogen plants by 2025, 2026, as we committed. A part, I mean, part of this hydrogen is going to come from electrolyzers, 300 MW, more or less, in net terms by 2025, and the rest is going to come from the biomethane that Berta explained, that is going to be transformed in hydrogen, green hydrogen, in the reformers of our refineries. So, the point is, we have the regulation there to launch these projects and to grow. We have the capabilities, we have a very competitive refining business. We have motivated and talented people to launch these projects, and on top of that, I mean, we are coping, as I answered to Michele before, with how to build the upstream we need in terms of feedstock to feed all this transformation. So I'm quite, let me say, proudly optimistic about this evolution. Going to your second question, I think that for us to have a partner like EIG in our upstream business is good from many points of view. First of all, they have a strong experience in the capital markets in the U.S. You know that we mentioned that we want to prepare the company, the EMP, to be, in coming years, we have the ambition or the optionality in 3-4 years, to have an EMP company that could be listed, why not, in an Anglo-Saxon market, probably the States. So we have this experience, and what is more important, preparing the company in this direction is going to be good for the profitability and the returns of the business, because that means that we need an understandable history for our business. We need to have a, let me say, a more competitive perimeter, reducing the scope of countries where we operate, what we are doing, disposing, for instance, as two weeks ago, Canada. We have to be very tough in ESG terms, reducing in a dramatic way the Scope 1 and Scope 2 of our upstream and the methane emissions in our gas production, because we have a partner fully aligned with Repsol in sustainability terms. And on top of that, I mean, I don't know what is going to happen in the future, but we have, let me say, an additional optionality of accelerating in the future, if it is needed, the sustainable transformation of Repsol. So from this point of view, we are creating value in the short term with a partner fully aligned with our interests. We are preparing the company for a market where probably, in multiple terms, could have another valuation when we compare with the European one, and and we are, in some way, gaining some kind of optionality to accelerate the transformation of the company if that is needed. Gracias, Alejandro. No, just a follow-up, because all the numbers today were based on 100% ownership of the upstream business, right? All these numbers of, or is 75%? No, it's always. Bruce, I think we take in the Scope 1 and Scope 2, we always take the 100% of the assets we operate. So we operate all these assets, we are taking that. And in terms of Scope 3, and in terms of fuels production in the denominator, we are taking the 75% of the equity. That could be, in some cases, favorable. In the EMP case, when we take, for instance, the renewable business, where we have a 75% of the stake, it plays in the opposite direction. So, but it's there included. But when I say the optionality, I also say because, I mean, that is not today on the table, but, I mean, in the future, we could have the optionality to hypothetically, I don't know, accelerate the transformation of the company, but that would be an option. When you have a listed company, you have more flexibility to do things. Thank you. Maurizio Carulli from Carbon Tracker. Two questions, if I may, probably for David Ramos on CCS. The first question is, you can have a CCS either for an individual project, being that a hydrocarbon project or a power plant or a steel plant or whatever, or you can have a CCS for an entire cluster. The strategy of Repsol is to focus on just one of these two segments or to both? And this is the first question. The second question is more about returns. CCS can be a pure cost, like for a necessary cost, like for example, for health and safety. You have a cost, and you would have a CCS cost for decarbonization. But it can also be a source of revenues if you provide that as a service, and therefore, collecting and transporting CO2 on behalf of third-party clients. But it is a capital-intensive business. There is a lot of CapEx there. What sort of returns are you seeing for the business when you use that as a service, and therefore, for producing revenues just as a—rather than for a pure cost? Okay. Thank you. Now is where I pull my crystal ball and try to answer this question on returns. Let's go to the first question. If your question is whether we see this as a, as a one-off type of business with one emitter or a cluster, which one of the two? My answer would be yes, meaning both. There are two. In our opinion, there are two things that would make this business profitable and doable. One is clustering, economy of scale, but the other one is proximity. In other words, you can go with just one emitter, as long as your solution is a proximity solution, it doesn't cost a lot of money. But if you really want to move the CO2 longer distances and create a big infrastructure, you better go with the clustering profile. So in the profile of a portfolio that we're putting together, there are both examples. Obviously, what I presented here, in the PICASSO project, for example, is a perfect example of clustering and also proximity. Clustering and proximity, it goes in the first phase in Corpus Christi as well. But there are projects that we are looking at where maybe we not need to cluster, but it's one of opportunity for a very, very motivated emitter, I would say, that really need to find a solution. They don't have any other option, so... And there is this combination of factors where there is a proximity solution or proximity that will work. Returns. It all depends on what is, and first of all, it depends on where you are in the whole value chain, 'cause we're talking about geological storage. Are we thinking about transporting as well? Or do you wanna, which is quite unlikely, you wanna extend your footprint into the capture? Because 60%-70% of the revenues are coming from the capture. This is or the expenses are coming from the capture. So 30%-40% is in the transport and storage. Depending where you want to be, your return is gonna be different. Returns are different if you are in the transport. This is more like an infra type of business with a different return profile. The risk associated with the subsurface storage is different. It will require high returns. But at the end of the day, it's how much money you think you can charge for this, service fee? We run our numbers, and the first approach that we do is we call it, what is my breakeven? When we scope one of these projects, the first question we ask ourselves is like: Okay, Josu is asking me to give this kind of return, minimal return. What is the breakeven that I need to charge the clients to get to this? If the number seems reasonable, we go in more, detail. Some projects are quite profitable under this assumption, so we think, "Okay, the fee, which is not negotiated yet," I mean, those, those contracts are still to come. If the fee, I think, an emitter is willing to pay is way beyond this breakeven, the returns, I wouldn't be surprised to see mid-tens, even low twenties, best case scenario. Then you have to have everything lined up. You have to have a superb geological characteristics, where one well will inject 2 million tons per year, for example. You need to have a lot of emitters on the clustering. It's highly variable, geographies and what kind of emitters you're talking to. ... different industries have different level of, they are less motivated than others. In cement industry, they really need the CCS. There is no other alternative. So these guys are willing to pay almost whatever it takes, because otherwise they're gonna be running out of business. Well, they, this kind of business, will give you a much higher fee if you want. So it's difficult to talk about profitability at this point and returns at this point. I think most of the ways that we've seen, we first look at this break-even price, and if the break-even price passes all these thresholds that the company is imposing us, we just look forward. And most of the projects that we're seeing are looking good. And I guess this is a view that most of the industry shares. Alice? Hi. Sorry, Alix Chosson from, Candriam. So thank you very much for this presentation and for the additional disclosure. Thank you for publishing Scope 3 and taking commitments on Scope 3. We think it's obviously paramount to what an oil and gas company should publish. And by the way, when the fuel is burned in the car, it's nobody's Scope 1, so it's good as well to have Scope 3 sometimes to make sure we capture everything. My question relates to this part about alignment with the 1.5-degree scenario. And so I think for me, there is one piece that is missing for this assessment, or one piece of transparency at least that is missing in this assessment for us to also do this analysis, which is, yeah, the carbon budget piece, basically. So yes, okay, in terms of intensity, you can have a lot of different scenarios, and I'm sure if you look at the scenarios that are above you, they are either have obviously a lot of overshoot, and then you need a lot of negative technologies, or they take the assumption that we'll have a lot of energy efficiency, so you can obviously go a little bit slower than with the decarbonization of your energy mix. Obviously, to use the second part, which is about the oil and gas and the share of oil and gas, we would need as well to know exactly which scenarios are compared to what. So my question and remark would be, would you—do you have, or do you plan on publishing or disclosing, carbon budgets or at least absolute kind of numbers, on these type of scenarios, associated with, obviously, carbon intensity? So that we can kind of have a view of what you're planning. Because why do we use IEA Net Zero? We have, obviously, absolute numbers, plus it's seen as one kind of... From an economic and technological point of view, it's seen as a kind of good consensus. Sometimes other scenarios don't take into account economic or technology. So I think for us, that's why we use this scenario, and it would be quite good if we make this kind of assessment to have kind of an idea of the carbon budget and so this absolute emission part. And second question, not climate related, biodiversity and nature capital related. So obviously, we welcome the TNFD, and I think it will open a new way of looking at nature and biodiversity. I think one big part of TNFD is about location. So the leap approach, locate your projects first. This is how you must do to assess your biodiversity impact. So what do you plan on publishing in that regard? In this kind of also, thinking about scientific targets on nature, do you plan on having site-specific, location-specific scientific targets? Because for us, to be totally honest, water issue is a local issue. So we don't really, let's say, mind or care if you have this kind of absolute aggregated target. What we wanna know is, in this location where you have water scarcity or other kind of water-related risk, what kind of actions are you taking on this type of situation? And we are making this assessment ourselves as well in terms of location, so it would be good if we can have also additional information in that regard, so that we can have a full assessment of nature impacts. Mm-hmm. Okay, briefly, trying to address, well, all your questions. Carbon budget, I believe that we should have a more detailed conversation on your approach, on how to translate, let's say, a planetary carbon budget that is relatively easy. This is calculated, and we have a budget which... How this translate into what could be a carbon budget at a company level. So I believe that we have not fully reflected on that. I'm happy to have your ideas into consideration. Definitely, what we have done, and you probably know, is that we have not just put an objectives on intensity, but also on absolute emissions, and this is something which is already in our set of, let's say, targets and not just metric, but. And supervised. Yeah. Supervised by the committees and the board. Mm-hmm. Absolute emissions. So, definitely, we have a lot of support, and more than support, supervision from the sustainability committee of the board on that. TNFD, we are participating in the working groups, and definitely, we recognize that there is a way, there is something that we should go into that direction. But you're right. This is, I would say, this will provide a company umbrella, and then we need to speak about specific locations, both for biodiversity and water. We have detailed information about which of our water supplies are coming from hydric stressed. And I believe that points. It's a very low number, 0.6% of our freshwater consumption is- ... areas that are quite highly, highly, you know, stressed. Anyhow, you know, even in Spain, we have considerations that at least one to three of our facilities are in stressed hydric conditions, which is in the northeast, southeast, and central Spain. We have translated this water seed of 135, 35%—30% reduction in 2035. This is a result of a bottom-up exercises, in which in each of our refineries and petrochemical sites, we have specific plans for each of them. Yeah, fully agree. The biodiversity, we have a biodiversity plan in each of the, let's say, assets, mainly in E&P, in which we are in quite sensitive areas like forests, et cetera. So, fully agree that, and again, happy to exchange detailed information on specific location, targets, and plans. Irene? Thank you very much. Irene Himona, Société Générale. My first question on the new Scope 1 and 2 net zero target, can you give us a sense of the importance of offsets in reaching that target, please? Second question, Luis, you argued that your transformation is essentially value neutral. So if we think about value as the spread, you know, return minus cost of capital, are you saying that that value creation of the legacy Repsol oil and gas and refining portfolio can be, on your estimation, totally offset by the new blended portfolio of biofuels, with a 30% return, but also renewables and CCS and hydrogen, et cetera? Because that is an issue that equity markets really, really struggle with. Thank you. I mean, you asked to Luis. Let me jump into the second one, if you allow me, and of course, Luis is going to answer the first one, and probably complement in a better way, also the second one. But let me say that we are doing all that, and we are so bold in terms of decarbonizing the company, not only because we want to be sustainable, but because we are convinced that we are creating value, creating value for our shareholders. In these terms, sometimes we look at the returns of every project. We have to compare, of course, this return with the cost of capital of every of the projects we have, and to look at the value creation we have in as a result of this investment we are promoting. In the projections we are developing as a company, and that is going to be, let me say, an essential part of the work we are going to explain to the markets in probably in coming months in the presentation of the strategic update of Repsol, where we have, in some way, let me say, to give a clear clue of the markets that the investments we are promoting in these low carbon businesses, they are going to have the returns that markets could expect, and we are increasing also the value creation in the company. And this value creation is going to come, first of all, because the return of these projects, and in the case of the renewable fuels, it's clear from our point of view, that the return of these investments are clearly higher than the cost of capital we have. We are talking about projects, even in the greenfield projects like the C-43, with a return above 20%, and this figure is clearly higher in the case of the retrofitting we are starting to develop. So we see clear returns there. But, even in the power generation business, thanks to this strategy I explained before, taking the whole risk over the value chain, the integration with the market, in our main markets, mainly Spain, plus the asset rotation strategy, we are creating value. On top of that, I think that we are reducing the risk of Repsol as a company, because we are entering in new businesses that probably, they are going to have a more reduced PNL than the businesses we come from. But at the same time, because these cash flows are going to be with less risk, more continuous, and more stable, we are going to change the multiple valuation of the company. That is going to be a hard and long way, no doubt about that, because we are not going to change the profile of the company in one, two, or three years. But more and more, a part of the capital employed of Repsol and the cash flows of Repsol are going to come from these new businesses. So, we are going to see this value creation, but, I mean, we are developing this strategy because we are convinced that the value we are going to create is higher than the value we were creating before. And if you analyze even our EMP strategies, always and also focused on trying to maximize this value and these returns. And in some way... avoiding the risk we could have of discovering contingent resources that could be stranded assets for the future. So my answer will be, yes, we are convinced that we are creating a higher value for investors, and it seems to me that developing this statement to with the granularity to support all the investment cases is going to be probably one of the most challenges task we are going to have in coming months in the presentation of a strategic update to you, to our, the investors and analysts of the company. Luis? Okay, so for your question on offsetting and how we manage that within our strategy, we have a very clear conviction on that. First, offsets are normally related to natural climate solutions or maybe carbon capture direct from the air and so on. We are pretty sure that these solutions will be part of the solution to climate change. Needs to be, because it's a huge challenge. We need everything, eh? We need carbon capture, we need direct air capture, we will need natural climate solutions. Having said that, this is not used in our projections just to not make our homework. So from here to 2030, we are not relying at all in offsetting to fulfill our objectives of 15%, 28% reduction. Longer term, we are going to use natural climate solution or offsetting just in case the energy technologies are not good enough in order for us to progress. That's, that's why we, we make some sort of projections, and for the time being, we see that in 2050, we can get 90% of our decarbonization with energy technologies. Maybe 10%, we are in some way allocating to potential use of, of offsets just in the very long term. So now, the new objective is Scope 1 and 2 net zero. How, how this relies on offsetting? If you remember, we have gone into that new target not because we are increasing our ambition, but just because we want to give a very strong signal that we support a collective oil and gas objective like that for the whole oil and gas industry. So we have done the opposite exercise. Having into account our decarbonization pathway, including the Scope 3, we have eliminated the Scope 3. We have made our projections and said, "Okay, whatever is embedded in our decarbonization pathway, which is Scope 1 and 2, let's check that we can reach net zero without putting more stress on use of offsetting than in our decarbonization pathway." That means that we will go to 2030 without offsetting, and then we will reach the 100%, again, technically, with the allocation of some 20%-25% of whatever we need for 2050 to reach the 100% decarbonization. Let's save a part of it for Scope 3 emissions, and whatever is left is gonna be allocated, and then we are net zero. So it's a little bit technical, but the concept is not a new target, a new ambition, something that requires more effort. It is we have demonstrated ourselves that we can be net zero also in Scope 1 and 2, with limited allocation of offsetting, and then we have committed to that in support of the COP 28 presidency. I think we have time for one more question. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. Joe Mares, Trium Capital. Thanks for a wonderful, very informative day. One topic you didn't specifically talk about today was allocation of credits under ETS to refining and your other businesses, and obviously, that's gonna scale down going forward. I'm just wondering, when you look at sort of the marginal economics, whether it's of your methanol or biofuels, how important that sort of using less credits in those businesses is significantly changes the economics of that, and whether you have explicit forecasts of that sort of going forward. Thanks. Sí. So, today, it seems to me that we are probably in our industrial assets in Spain, we are emitting probably 11.5 million tons of CO2. Combining our refining and chemical business, probably we are paying in the European ETS framework at around 2.8-3 million tons a year, more or less, depending, of course, on our production. So, it's crystal clear, first of all, that, as you mentioned, there is a clear business case every time we invest in the energy efficiency of our refineries and chemical plants, because we are not only saving energy, we are also reducing the CO2e emissions that today, this marginal we reduce, is going to be paid EUR 80-85 a ton. On top of that, the projects we have now to electrify a part of our refineries, that means substituting gas boilers by electric engines, the renewable power we are installing in our refineries and chemical plants is also reducing this burden. So we are not only calculating the return because the power we produce, but also thanks to this ETS reduction. And in the case of the green hydrogen, for instance, this point you mentioned could be important because you know that one of the main CO2 emitters we have in our refineries today is the hydrogen production. We produce, roughly speaking, 360,000 tons a year of hydrogen, so this is... And we consume it. It is 63%-65% of the total Spanish hydrogen production and hydrogen consumption. So, these new electrolyzers we are investing in, they are not only to be paid by or because the inclusion of this hydrogen in the molecule that is going to substitute the HVO we have to import to fulfill the European regulation, but also because we are going to reduce, in a dramatic way, the CO2 emissions of our refineries, and this reduction within the ETS framework is going to increase the return of this project. So, when we put the metrics about on the returns of our investment, we are including this effect. In some other cases, I mean, and I, I'm... Improvisation is not, is not good at all, but, I mean, in the case, for instance, of a plant like the, the retrofitting of Puertollano, theoretically, we are not going to reduce dramatically the CO2 emissions in the refinery. It's going to be more or less the same. What we are going to reduce in a dramatic way is the total carbon footprint, so the Scope 3 of the company, and this Scope 3 today is not included- Yeah ... within the European ETS framework. So in many cases, that is useful in terms of increasing the return on the projects. When we are talking about the Scope 3, in the case of the renewable fuels, in this case, there is no any affection or increase of return... because the reduction of the CO2 emissions of our industrial plants. I don't know if I... I'm sorry, Luis. Oh, yeah, just very quickly, because the regulation also is a little bit tricky on that because there is now a request to go faster on the reduction of the so-called free allowances for the refining sector and for other sectors, too. And this is tied to the so-called Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. So they say, because there will be a protection for the European industry because of the existence of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, then we can go faster on the reduction of free allowances. So this is not of application to refining, at least till now, because refining has not been incorporated into the new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism because they say it's a little bit complicated for the mathematics of doing things. For this accelerated reduction of free allowances wouldn't be of application to refining till we are in the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism system. That is gonna be very complicated to fix. Well, okay, I think lunch is waiting for us, so we thank you very much for your attendance. Hope you enjoy it. Remember, it will be published in our website, all these presentations, and we are at your disposal for anything else. So we invite you to join us for lunch. So thank you very much.