Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, wherever you are on the planet. Thank you to attend this new session of our Strategy and Outlook for TotalEnergies. I am today together with Executive Committee. I will introduce them to you a little after. First, I would like to tell you that today's presentations comes at a turning point for the company. It's the first one under our new name, TotalEnergies, and our new colors. Just one year ago, we were coping with a deep crisis, plenty of uncertainties on three fronts, the oil prices, which have turned around from low. Global pandemic, which is on its way to be sorted out thanks to vaccinations, we hope so, and climate change, which for sure remains at the forefront. A year later, after weathering the storm and emerging stronger, while keeping the trust of our shareholders, we are moving forward toward achieving our sustainable development ambitions for a just energy transition and a carbon neutral future. We have a strong conviction. The world is changing at an accelerating rate. This means that we must evolve and quickly seize opportunities to grow the companies in new area, new energies, or we risk being left behind. Energy is indeed reinventing itself, and so are we, leveraging our skills and global presence to provide more LNG, reduce emissions, and be always more sustainable. Our ambition is to be a leader in the energy transition and to play a positive role for society and the environment, i.e., to produce more LNG with less emissions. More energy flowing from natural gas, LNG, which plays a key role in the LNG transition, as demonstrated this day with the growing demand for LNG, more than 10% per year for the last seven years. More energy flowing from renewable electricity, as power is a form of energy benefiting the most from the fight against climate change. Less emissions, as we have the ambition to get to net zero together with society for both our Scope 1 and 2 emissions from our worldwide operative activities, but also for the Scope 3 emissions of our worldwide customers. Our vision is to secure a future for the company that takes us from our first 100-year anniversary coming up in a few years, all the way to our 2nd centennial celebration. All that is a matter of sustainability, key to creating long-term value for our shareholders. This vision was supported by 92% of our shareholders at the last general meeting. This gives us a strong encouragement to execute it. Our strategy is a balanced approach that takes full advantage of the assets and expertise we have accumulated. We are transforming the company to create long-term value for our stakeholders, we are transforming while combining energy transition and shareholder return. We'll not abandon or sacrifice value, by leveraging our present portfolio, we will generate the significant cash flow needed to achieve our ambitions for the coming years. For the future, our expertise will turn increasingly to new energies, becoming one of the top five renewable power producers in the world by the end of the decade, from there on to biofuels, hydrogen, synthetic fuels. There is enthusiastic support inside TotalEnergies for this profound transformation that we have embarked on. We are, by the way, rewarded with an environment today that is fast-moving and dynamic. With economies reopening, oil prices rebounding, notably in Asia and Europe, gas prices hitting record highs. Our oil and gas portfolio is capturing these upsides. The company is firing on all cylinders. The balance sheet is strong and the cash is flowing. We are committed to sharing the surplus of revenues above $60 per barrel with our shareholders. Considering the current high prices for oil and natural gas, we plan a $1.5 billion buyback for the fourth quarter of 2021. Our outlook for strong sustainable cash flow growth over the coming years supports future increases of the dividend. Our objective today for this presentation is not to revise profoundly our medium to long-term or medium-term outlook, but to give you more insights on its execution and to convince you that our transformation to a multi-energy company secures for TotalEnergies a lasting role as a leader in the rapidly evolving energy industry for the benefit of all our stakeholders. As you understood, sustainability is at the core of our strategy, of our projects, and our operations. We have decided within TotalEnergies to create a new ritual. Before, each meeting was starting with a safety moment. Now, each meeting in the morning is starting with a safety moment, but in the afternoon, it's starting with a sustainability moment. As we are in the afternoon here in Paris, you will have now the sustainability moment to launch this meeting. [Presentation] [Presentation] [Pres entation] I think it was a good example, combining, by the way, CO2, climate change, and biodiversity. These two key topics for our planet. Again, I'm happy to welcome you today. I am together with the seven other members of the executive committees. They are with me. You have, I don't know, from the right to the left, you have Nicolas Terraz, our new E&P President. You have Helle Kristoffersen. You know her well. She changed her position. Now she's President, Strategy & Sustainability. I don't introduce Jean-Pierre Sbraire, our CFO. We have Alexis Vovk, that you know already, President, Marketing & Services. Namita Shah, she has changed also her position. She's now President, OneTech. You will have the opportunity to listen to her and supervising also People and Social Engagement division. We have Bernard Pinatel, our President, Refining & Chemicals. The last one, but joined recently as well, the executive committee, Stéphane Michel, President for Gas, Renewables & Power. In this presentation, it's a presentation which will be a multi-voice one. You will have the opportunity to hear six of the eight members of the executive committees. Helle, you heard here yesterday, Jean-Pierre is not punished. This time, he has worked hard to prepare all that with his teams. He will, of course, participate the Q&A, but he will not describe itself as well, but you have the opportunity to listen to him quite regularly for the results. I will launch this presentation. Again, first slide, this one is combining security, safety, sorry, and sustainability. Because in fact, these two concepts you understand are going hand in hand. We want to elevate sustainability at the same level of importance in the company. Safety is a value. We consider that operational excellence, safety, sustainable development go hand in hand. On this slide, before to speak a little about safety, just to remind you what are the principle of actions that we are developing within the TotalEnergies as a sustainable company. Of course, the respect of human rights is a cornerstone of our code of conduct. We have zero tolerance against corruption and fraud in this company. The last principle of actions, which is quite important, is the rule of conduct in our engagement with society. Whatever the subject will be, is transparency. For this presentation, I think we will try to translate what it means transparency by discussing some hot topics that we are confronted sometimes.Safety, as I said, and this is, by the way, I never comment on this presentation. TotalEnergies is willing to become a multi-energy company, a broad energy company. We are not only, even if we are classified as an oil and gas company, we will benchmark ourselves. You will see that in two, three, four different slides, not only against our peers in oil and gas or major peers, but also against some of the largest utilities as we think that we want to enter into that field, and we will explain how and why we think we can develop some profitable business in the field of electricity, renewable electricity. On this slide of safety, you can see that, by the way, the records coming in terms of safety by major oil and gas companies is lower than the ones of utilities, quite much lower. TotalEnergies has embarked on a continuous journey of improvement. We have improved our total recordable injury rate by 20% the last three years. The other important information in my eyes on this slide is that there are no fatalities within the company for more than 400 days now over the past 12 months, which means that this target of no fatality is possible. I touch some wood. I think it will be many other days without any fatalities. I think it's important to underline it because the life of our people is our most precious asset. After that, let's see, as I said in my introduction, and this is, I think, the fundamental reason why we move from Total to TotalEnergies with these new colors and this new logo. Energy is reinventing itself because of climate change, because of technology, because we want to change the world system to decarbonize it, and so are we as well. I would say the plan, the program we propose to our shareholders, to our stakeholders, is fundamentally articulated about the three main axes, which is more energy. There is growing population. Populations need more energy. TotalEnergies as an energy producer wants to supply more energy, but less emissions, less carbon. That means that at the same time decarbonizing with energy. Because it's part of the journey to make a just transition, we need to put it in a framework of sustainability, so always more sustainable. I will now explain you the three key, I would say, messages around these three thematics. Before, just to tell you more concretely what it means, and I will not describe you the full menu, but it means that in fact, we are building a multi-energy company to benefit our stakeholders through developing in seven different energies. There are seven symbols. Oil, natural gas, renewable electricity, biomass, hydrogen. My colleagues will give you the detail of the menu. Nicolas, Bernard, and Alexis will come back on oil and the new energies that they could develop. Stéphane will come back on natural gas and as well hydrogen, biogas. I will come back myself on the renewable and electricity at the end of the presentation. I will not detail the strategy. We'll have all the details within these slides. Just to remind you that this strategy of being a major player in the energy transition has been supported by our shareholders at the last general assembly of shareholders by more than 92% through a resolution which was proposed by the board, which was the Ambition for Sustainability and Climate. I think the key importance. Thank you for this support. I think, of course, for us, it is a roadmap that we want now to execute. The more energy first can be described through this scale, these slides. We already shared with you its objectives. Again, today, we will more dig in the details, but I think it's important to repeat. Next decade, the target is to increase our production of energies by 30%, mainly driven by two pillars, LNG on one side and electricity on the other side. I know there are some debates about the role of the gas in the energy transition, but we have this strong conviction that gas has a key role in the energy transition. I would say that what is happening this year is even reinforcing my conviction. Stéphane will come back on it. We intend to grow this production of LNG by 30% in the next five years, double it in the next 10 years. Electricity from renewables is the other pillars. For the oil, in fact, our intent is to follow, in fact, I would say the evolution of oil markets. Oil production from TotalEnergies will peak during the decade and then begin to decline slowly going through the markets. That's, I would say, the key message of this slide. Again, our strategy is fundamentally a growth to sustainably grow and it's not at all to decrease. The second one is to the sales. On the sales side, at the same time, we'll have gas and electricity sales, which will continue to grow, going with our production, by the way. Together. On the liquid part, on the oil products there, we will, I would say, have a more proactive strategy. Which is to adapt, to anticipate on the market decrease for oil products, which will come. We are first, and you know it, quite exposed to Europe, and Europe is probably the primary market, primary continent, where energy transition will take place. ICE ban by 2035, et cetera. Also because within Total, and Bernard Pinatel and Alexis Vovk will remind you all that, we today sell more and we sell refine more than what we produce. What we intend to do is to realign our sales of oil products and refining capacities on our production of oil during the decade. That's true that when we speak about transformation, I think it's symbolized by the four figures which are on the right of the slides. At the end of the decades, our intent, our strategy is to fundamentally change the sales mix of TotalEnergies. Today is predominantly oil products. Tomorrow it will be 30% oil, 50% gas, 15% electricity and 5% biomass hydrogen. To execute this strategy, I think it's probably one of the most simple but most important slide of the presentation, we need of course to invest. This slide describes the capital investment strategy which will fund this energy transition for TotalEnergies. We'll invest for the next five years, $13 billion, $15 billion per year. It's a planning which is well supported by, I would say, a price of $50 per barrel. With which we are comfortable not only to maintain on the one part the assets that we have in hydrocarbons, but also to grow on both pillars that I described, renewable electricity and LNG. You can, just to have in mind, $13 billion, $15 billion as an average, 50% of it is dedicated to what we need to maintain, I would say, the assets and the production, mainly your assets. It's through upstream and downstream. The other 50% globally is for growth, growing by 30% of production as I described it. Half of this growth, so 25%, let's say $3 billion per year is for renewables and electricity. The other half is for LNG, hydrogen, biomass, et cetera. That's the picture and the way. I think when we think about, when people ask us, "Are you aligned towards your ambition to get to net zero?" I think this is the answer. We allocate a fourth of our investments to, I would say zero carbon energies, and we put another fourth on what we consider as key to make this transition possible, which is natural gas. The slide of his introduction we selected to put it here is about Iraq. Iraq, that is a project that we announced a few weeks ago, beginning of the month, is in fact the proof that this transformation is possible. That we can move from an oil company to a multi-energy company, and that there are some competitive advantages that we can leverage in order to put into action this concept for moving from an oil and gas company to a broad energy company. Iraq is at the core of a region where we have a clear, large footprint, number one among the IOCs, which is the Middle East. Of course, you could think that when we go to Iraq, we think to oil. In fact, what we've done in Iraq is to go to discuss there with the authorities about fundamentally their main issue, which is today to provide electricity to their citizens. It's a country plenty of resources and there is a lack of electricity. For any people who experience some days in Iraq, it's a reality for everybody. What we propose them is first to gather some gas, which today is flared, and which is a wasted energy in order to, I would say process it and to recover it and to feed some gas fire power plant, which are available. By the way, by doing that, we will eliminate 100 million tons of CO2 over the next emissions of next 25 years. First project gas to power. Power means also being able to develop solar, renewables. It's a very flat land, a lot of space in Iraq. Finding the grid, we identify it, 1 GW of solar energy, another way to produce electricity. Of course, it's also a matter and we looked to how can we produce more gas. We went to the Ratawi field, which is an oil field on which we can enhance the gas production and the oil production. Let's be clear. This hydrocarbon development fits perfectly well with our objectives as Nicolas will explain you, a very low level of emissions per barrel, 9 kg CO2 per barrel. Very low cost of hydrocarbons. That's the three pillars, and there is a fourth one, which is, as you know, in Iraq, it's an area which is under water stress. There is a lack of water, in particular for maintaining pressure in the fields of oil fields. We will build seawater intake. A large one, 5 million bbl water per day, which will be transferred into Basra company in order to bring some water to the country which it is looking for. All that makes, I would say, a clear, sustainable multi-energy model. I think it's a proof that we can use our strengths to deploy this model. Of course, you ask, what about the profitability of all that? I would like to say first that, of course, if we make this move, which represents a global investment of $10 billion. I know that there is a $27 billion, which has been reported by some agencies. It is a sum of CapEx and OpEx on 25 years. Keep in mind $10 billion. It's already quite a large stake. We have do it. Of course, it will not be done under the technical service contract. By the way, TotalEnergies did not really accept in 2008, 2010. We have been able, with the authorities, to develop a win-win framework through a, what they call a Development and Production Contract Round 5, DPC. I think that somewhere if you look to WoodMac say that it has a flavor of a PSC. It's a DPC with, I would say, a royalty, cost recovery, profit sharing, with the revenues coming from oil, gas, condensate, NGLs. It's a very, I would say, it's a contract with whom we are very comfortable to invest and, of course, which will be a win-win project, which means also for Iraq and for TotalEnergies. What we intend to do, by the way, another characteristics of the frameworks is that we will be paid in oil liftings for all these revenues, including for the electricity sales. We intend to keep 40% - 50% interest. We are on the way to identify and some partners, when we'll be ready, we'll come back to you. The planning for this project is to be able to sanction it before year-end fully. Now that we have the contract in place, we are working to go to the next steps. That was more energy. We have a nice example of broadening of scope of energies. Of course, the second aspect is less emissions. I'm coming back to what we have submitted to our shareholders, which is to get to net zero at a worldwide basis by 2050 together with society. Two ambitions there. The first one is to get to net zero on our operated activities, Scope 1 and 2, and the second one is to get to net zero for indirect emissions, the emission of our customers, so Scope 3. In front of these two ambitions by 2050, we put some clear objectives by 2030. Our commitment, I can say commitment, is to reach these objectives, and this is what we will work hard with the Executive Committee along the next years, the next 10 years. The first one is on the Scope 1 and 2, to reduce by 40% these emissions. The second one for Scope 3 is to have lower Scope 3 by 2030 than 2015. I remind you that we will increase our sales by 15%. All that will be possible because fundamentally, we shift the content of our sales and the carbon intensity of our sales and we reduce it by more than 20%. I will not enter into all the details of these slides because it's also for being able to discuss it during our future discussions with you. Just to let you know that this program of reducing Scope 1 and 2 is well on board by all teams. We have developed in the last years a strong, I would say, low carbon culture with our CO2 fighter squad. They are tracking CO2 all around the operations. Of course, we reduce, for instance, in methane, I will come back on it. There is a management of portfolio which could help as well to contribute to this reduction. Last but not least, for residual emissions only, because the priority is, of course, to avoid and to reduce. Once we have reduced, residual emissions, we can use carbon sinks. We are on the way to reach our target, and we will report to you year after year about it. Just a word about carbon sinks. It's a quite a heavy slide, but it's just to show you that there are two parts there. There are the carbon storage, I would say, developing carbon storage. We have in particular in the North Sea, we are partner of three projects, Northern Lights, Aramis, which has been announced recently in the Netherlands together with Shell and Dutch partners. We are also partner in the Northern Endurance Partnership in the U.K. as a heritage, I would say, of an initiative of the OGCI. We are working on these projects to develop, I would say, at least 5 million tons of CO2 per year of storage capacity in TotalEnergies share. The other aspects of our works, it's about nature-based solutions. I think you had the opportunity to listen to our colleague, Adrien Henry, last February. I will not be long on it. We are progressing. We gave you an example of Congo. There again, our objective is to get to have a sustainable basis of high standard carbon credits by 2050, at least 5 billion tons per year. Sustainable means that during the next 10 years, we will accumulate these carbon credits step after step, project after project, being sure that they are at high standards. Adrien Henry is very keen on it, in order then to be able to offset part of the emissions on a long-term vision. These activities, by the way, a comment, are now under the responsibility of Nicolas because we wanted that each business division of the company must have its share of the, I would say, the carbon journey and roadmap. Obviously, when we speak about carbon storage, E&P is well positioned and for nature-based solutions, maybe less obvious to you, but in fact, the reality, there is a lot of synergy because it's to leverage our worldwide presence in many countries like in sub-Saharan Africa or elsewhere in the planet, where we want not only to produce oil and gas reserve, but we have opportunities also to create some nature-based carbon sinks. Scope 3 now is the other part of the ambition of customers' indirect emissions. Of course, for that, we'll have to work hand in hand with customers. Just this scheme, explain you in fact the basics. The basics is that on one side, we continue to grow our energy production, our sales will grow 15%. In fact, the 400 million tons of CO2 emissions Scope 3 to 2015, if they were only, I would say hydrocarbons would be at something like 500 million tons. At the same time, because we are broadening the scope of our energies, we decarbonize our sales, but at least carbon intensity will lower by more than 20% on the decade. That results, that will be of, we will manage to have lower emissions in 2030 than 2015. Again, in fact, what we didn't put on this side is the fact that we are eliminating, so we are avoiding for the same amount of energy being sold to customers, we are avoiding 100 million tons of CO2, in fact. Which is, in fact, the message that we must keep in mind as well. To do that, I said it will be done with proactive actions with our customers. I think it's a strong message. It's not waiting for. We are in a position where we consider because energy transition, as I always repeat, is first fundamentally not only a matter of supply, a matter of demand. We'll manage this transition if we can change the demand for energies of our customers, their behaviors. Converting them to renewables, and for that it helps, by the way, by selling them corporate PPAs, we'll come back on it to give decarbonized energy to our customers. Also to convince them to substitute from oil products to other alternatives like we do. You know that we are committed not to sell any more fuel oil to produce electricity. Of course, there is a customer, I think for us, there is a key segment, which is transportation. Alexis Vovk will come back on that. For us, this is the part where we are selling most of our products and working hard. You've seen yesterday that we have announced a strategic alliance with Safran, with the aviation industry, with the shipping industry, the car manufacturing industry, is very important in order to be able to deliver to them the new energy they will require to decarbonize their own roadmap. A last word about Europe. I don't know why people think that our commitment ambition is only on Europe. No, it's not true. Not true at all. It's a worldwide ambition there again. For Europe, we consider that we are in a specific position. First, we are a European company. Europe has engaged in the Green Deal. Clearly, this continent will be at the forefront of the transition. We see that as a very huge opportunity for us because it obliges us to move quicker than elsewhere. In fact, our teams are more agile in investing in our continent, in our framework that we know better, by the way, in new energies. We support, let's be clear, TotalEnergies, we welcome the Fit for 55 package. We think that the commission is right to promote the generalization of carbon price, to promote the massive development of renewables, to promote strong infrastructure development required for charging points, hydrogen networks, and also, of course, to promote fuel mandates, low carbon renewable ones, if we want to accelerate the transport decarbonization. All these tools are there. We will work with them positively as an opportunities. It's why we have said to ourselves, because we want to contribute directly to the Green Deal and to this target Fit for 55. Between 2015 and 2030, we will reduce our emissions in Europe of 30%. It's an additional, I would say, contribution of Total to Europe. The last part of the program, so more energy, less emission, always more sustainable. It's probably new to you. I spoke a lot about sustainability. It's because, in fact, when we think with our board about what is fundamental vision of TotalEnergies, for us, not only about tackling the climate change, but also to embed that in what we call a more global approach, a sustainable approach, a just transition, I would say. That led us to develop, and we will do it in the company, as I said, through the sustainability moment, to develop a more comprehensive approach to sustainability. To, in particular, think, and this is what we deploy in the coming years, again, to elevate sustainability at the same level of safety in the company. To integrate the SDGs into our strategy, projects, operations. Of course, obviously, providing sustainable and affordable energy is just fundamental. We just commit this week to the UN for an energy compact. That part of this energy will be dedicated to emerging countries among our ambition. It's also not only the planet for energy, planet for environmental performance, where we need to take care of uses of scarce natural resource. It's also planet and people. I think when we think the transition, we must have these two key elements in mind, planet and people. People. Our colleagues, our employees, obviously, as a responsible employer and operator, but the people around us, the communities with whom we work as well. In fact, it's creating value for and sharing prosperity with our communities in our host region. All that is a program, which is what we call Committed to a Just Energy Transition. I think the debate that we can observe today with the hike of the energy price will put again the spotlights on this concept, which I think is just fundamental. We cannot change the energy system of the planet against the people. Even if it's major, it's absolutely fundamental for the planet, for survival of the planet, we need to put everybody on board and take account of everybody everywhere. When we go there from sustainability, of course, when we speak to financial investors, we speak about ESG. I must say that among the IOC peers, TotalEnergies is recognized as one of the leader. There are different classification on this slide. You can see that 4 times we are number one, and we are among the top three. There again, we want to progress. To progress, I said on safety that we have better record than utilities. On this one, the utilities, when we look to the results, are a little above us, which is good. It's a challenge. On this chart, we not only put the score of TotalEnergies, but the average scores of utilities. I see that as a way to continue to progress on these matters. This is for me the real benchmark for tomorrow to consider that we can be at the same level, recognized ESG at the same level in terms of ESG performance, that these peers. All that is going for transparency. We have decided that it's important that our investors or stakeholders, by the way, more largely, knows what happens within Total. It's a very large company. We report through different frameworks. There are a lot of them. Maybe one day some people will think to unify all that. It's not our issue. We don't wait for unification. We prefer to disclose the data so that people can evaluate our performance. For me, by the way, this reporting is also a way to progress internally. When you have new question to ask, people could say, "Okay, it's a burden to answer." The only way to look at it is first, why do we have the question? Second, can we do better on it? For example, we have just decided, we have some question marks about do you have a decent wage or a decent living wage? Can you ensure that within your whole company you have a decent living wage? The question came in some of this reporting. We just took the decision by the end of 2022, this will be the case in all the company. We will take care that everywhere in the company, all our employees will have what we call a decent living wage wherever they are. That's the type of things which help. Okay. Everything is not perfect. When you speak about sustainability, I'm very clear, we are TotalEnergies. We are involved in many operations. What I will do now maybe is quite original. I will speak about, and I will not enter into all the details, but we have decided to put on the table, because I think it's part of this idea of sustainable company and transparency, all the hot topics that we are facing. I would like to have less, but I have hot topics around the planet. That's the reality of a company. I think it will be good also to have all these presentations to support the discussion we'll have with our investors and stakeholders. The first one, of course, came in 2021, is the case of Myanmar. I will not give you all the detail. Let's be very clear that this is, of course, taken very seriously. We condemn, clearly, all the human rights abuse which could have taken place in Myanmar since the military coup. We have taken immediately all the decision we could take easily to stop, I would say, investing for the future in the country. We were facing a clear dilemma because we are producing gas. The dilemma was, can we deprive millions of people of electricity? Can we take the risk that some of our people there could be exposed to forced labor or to criminal charges if we don't pay taxes? Honestly, you can answer yes easily in an armchair in Paris. It's more complex on the ground. We took some decisions. They are maybe not shared, but we took some, I would say, brave decision, including the fact that we are depriving ourselves from any dividend cash distribution from the pipeline so that there is no cash coming from this pipeline to the national company of Myanmar. We also said that for the rest, we need to pay our taxes because we consider that respect of contract is just a fundamental ethics behavior. When we pay a taxation to the government, we'll pay the same amount to NGOs working in Myanmar. This will be fully transparent from third quarter results. We'll publish every quarter what we pay to government as taxes and what we'll pay as donation as well. That's what I can say. I will not be longer on it. Second topic is our project in Uganda. It's a major project, the Lake Albert Development Project. It's a major project because when you see the size of it, in particular, the significant in-country value to Uganda and Tanzania it will create. We should never forget that. We don't do that just for ourselves. Most of the value of such a project is going to the countries, not only for taxes, but also for jobs. More than 60,000 jobs will be created during the works. More than 3,000 jobs when we'll be in operations. Development skills. Attracting also other investments in the country. This project, as you know, is well on track. We signed fundamental agreements with both governments for the pipeline in April. The two parliaments are enacting the laws, transforming this agreement into, I would say, regulatory framework and fiscal frameworks, which will be done before year-end. We have given conditional awards of contract to all the contractors, so that we can execute once all this paperwork will be done. Our Chinese partner, CNOOC, is doing the same on Kingfisher, and we work hand in hand. Of course, we know that there are some challenges. It's an onshore project. Land acquisition is a challenge, and biodiversity is a challenge in such a nice environment. We took that, of course, very seriously. People have some doubts. I invite everybody to come and visit our operations. Of course, we are applying the ILO standards, IFC standards, when we speak about land acquisition, under supervision of third parties. We have published all the studies about it, taking on board all recommendations from NGOs. We have finalized the land acquisition for the upstream Tilenga facilities, and we are on the way to do it for the pipeline. On the biodiversity side, there again, first, let's avoid and reduce. The first strong decision we have taken at the executive committee and the board level is to minimize the footprint of the projects within the Murchison Falls National Park. Where the footprint of the license was 10% of the park, we have relinquished 90% of it, keeping a footprint less than 1% of the park. The second part is that we are working as well with some experts, and I thank the IUCN experts to work with us, by the way, on chimpanzees, and we have the intent also to work to reintroduce the black rhinoceros, black rhino in Uganda, and also to improve the development of the park resources. At the end, the commitment is to be net positive. That's a real action, I think that this project, Lake Albert Development Project, will be again a demonstration of the capacity to put sustainability at the heart of our projects. Biodiversity I just changed. I would just like to remind you that last year we took a certain number of commitments. We think seriously to that, this is a program. We have some areas of exclusion. We have some commitments to be net positive on special areas. We are reviewing not only the new projects but the existing sites. You can share that, it's a comprehensive approach, which is promoted within the company. Again, we understand perfectly that biodiversity is also a major threat for our planet, we want to take that into account in the way we work, which does not mean that we announce to make project. It means that we have to embed sustainability, biodiversity immediately when we begin a project and to look to all the challenges. About biodiversity, one of the hot topics of controversy we faced was about palm oil. That's true. We studied that very carefully. We managed to develop alternative feedstock from palm oil for our biorefinery. We announced a strong decision that from 2023, we will not use any more palm oil in any of the facilities of TotalEnergies. I'm happy to see that some of our companies involved in biofuels have also announced the same type of commitment by 2023. All that oblige to be innovative, but the teams of Bernard, and he will come back on it, have been in order again to find alternative feedstock. There is there a positive momentum to develop this type of biofuels. Our conviction is that we need to get out of the 1G and to look more to waste and residues for the future if we want to develop this business. Another case for biodiversity is the Arctic. It's gaining momentum. You know we are involved. Novatek is the operator in projects in Arctic. Arctic II in particular. We'll publish this week all, there again, principle of transparency. We'll publish all the studies we have done, the plans and program we are in place. I would like to say to everybody that in fact all that has been possible and we have clearly elevate the level of all these studies and programs, in particular thanks to the close cooperation with export credit agencies and lenders. All these financial institutions are willing also to be at the forefront of biodiversity. It's a close cooperation, and the fact that we can have around the table some Western financial institution is, in my view, very important because, again, it helps us to upgrade the level of commitment we take for such a project. I will not detail all the actions which are on the slide, but it's taken very seriously, by the way, because for Russians, contrary to what some people think, the Arctic is also a preserved area. They are very proud of it, and when they think to invest there, they are taking care of the biodiversity, including of the people and the communities who are living there. Another case when you speak about ESG, of course, is methane. Well, there are debates about methane. What I can tell you is that we took that within TotalEnergies as the top of our priority. We have already minimized, and I'm not sure we can measure less than that, but the methane intensity in our operating gas assets is less than 0.1%. We have reduced by 50% our emissions. Our plan is to reduce it again by 20% in the next five years. Our emissions are 64,000 tons of methane. You have some examples of projects on it and some actions that we can take. This is a matter which can be done. The last case I would like to introduce, because when we speak about TotalEnergies, we speak about the planet, as I said. I spoke about communities. The people are important. I said our employees are important. Of course, for me, diversity is just fundamental. It's a matter of collective intelligence. That's true that in our oil and gas company, traditionally, I would say, the share of the women within the management was not as high as it should have been within the company. There was an imbalance. I recognize it. Look the figures in 2014. We have progressed from, I would say, an average of 16% - 25%. We are not yet there because we have 35%, 1/3 of the execs in the company are women. I want to reach that level at least. The next target is 30% by 2030 to 2025. I think it's important. Speaking about people, it gave me the opportunity to leave the floor to Namita, not only because she's in charge of people and social engagement, also President of OneTech, and she will explain to you, because this transformation we want to do can be done only together with our people. Namita, floor is yours. Thank you, Patrick. Indeed, we cannot close out this first chapter of the presentation without talking about our people. Building a sustainable multi-energy company is an incredible opportunity for all the women and men who are working on our sites and our offices across the world. This transformation we will be doing with our people. What that means is that we will be putting in place a program which is going to enable a just transition for our employees. It begins, of course, with listening. Listening by as many different means possible to the hopes and the aspirations and the opportunities of our employees and what they see in a multi-energy company. Also listening to their doubts and ensuring that we provide the support that they need at every step of this transformation, at every level of the organization, whether they are managers or operational staff on the ground. It is going to be especially important that our employees are informed and that we have informed employees. It means that the employees must be able, in order to participate in a multi-energy company, what all these new energies mean, what it means to have projects that are taking into account the energy transition, what it means to be a sustainable company, and what our climate ambition is. It is via concrete projects and discussion and presentations and information at all levels, from peer to peer, from meeting, from talking and explaining energies which are not within the business unit of the place where our employees work today, that they will be able to develop the culture of a sustainable and a multi-energy company, and also to develop themselves, their careers within this transformation. We will be putting in place an enhanced learning program. Each employee will have the ability to gain knowledge in an energy in which they do not have a core competency today. Our objective is to be able to redeploy the engineering and the technical staff that we have today to accompany the growth of this sustainable multi-energy company. This has already started. It has started because on the 1st of September, we put in place an organization called OneTech, of which I am the president, where we pulled together over 3,300 engineers, researchers, and technicians from the different business units as you know them, from the Exploration & Production branch, from the Refining & Chemicals, from Marketing & Services, from Gas, Renewables & Power, under the OneTech umbrella. This OneTech organization is the heart, it's the engine of the transformation of the company. It is going to enable us to adapt to the new company industrial activities. It is going to help us help our employees better develop their competencies in this new context, and therefore, to retain them, and of course, to attract new talents. Combining people who come from so many different experiences and backgrounds and putting together our research and development teams with our industrial operations on the ground helps to both foster and accelerate innovation, which is going to be vital for our progress in some of the new energies that we are looking at. This will also give us the ability to mobilize our human resources, our technical resources, as we do with our financial resources, to mobilize these resources to work on the most strategic and the value-added topics that we need at every point in time. Last but not least, it is going to be able to accelerate our capacity to deliver the carbon footprint reduction solutions that we need to put in place to meet our climate ambition. Everything that I am saying to you is not a pipe dream. This slide is really to show to you that it is a reality, that the talents and the competencies that we have in our organization today are talents and competencies that we will be able to use to create the energy company, the multi-energy company that we want to put in place for tomorrow. Already, experts coming from the Exploration & Production projects in floating structures, in metocean data specialists, are working on developing and managing our new offshore wind projects. Our engineers from Refining & Chemicals on process and chemical processes are working on building an e-fuel roadmap. Our LNG experts in cryogenics are teaming up with our engineers from Refining & Chemicals to work on hydrogen and hydrogen options. Geologists and drillers who've been working in the exploration area are now looking at how to use their competencies to help us build and grow our carbon capture and storage businesses. All this is a reality. We have started. The teams are together. The teams understand what it means to be able to leverage their skills, to be able to build this multi-energy company. As you all know, last and not least, we do have a world-class expertise in project management, which we can now use to deploy across the development of the solar portfolio that we have built over these past years and our upcoming offshore wind portfolios as well. Talking about world-class expertise in project management, I will now hand the floor over to Nicolas. Let me now present to you how oil is contributing to our multi-energy company. I will start with a brief snapshot of the oil demand and supply. This was presented by Helle Kristoffersen yesterday. We see the liquid demand reach a peak in the decade. You see the chart here. We forecast the oil demand to continue growing to the mid of the decade before starting to decline. What is important is on the supply side, the conventional oil decline is approximately 4% per year. Now if we take into account all the brownfield developments and the existing facilities, so all these workovers, infill wells, tieback developments, the decline of the conventional oil capacity or production base can be reduced to 2% per year. Still, 2% per year is 2 million bbl per year of capacity, and is 10 million bbl per year after five years of reduction in capacity. Taking into account this decline, today, we estimate that 3 million-5 million bbl per day of new greenfield conventional capacity needs to be sanctioned by the end of 2022 to meet the 2025 demand. The range, 3 million-5 million bbl per day, is basically depending on the shale gas growth, which is quite dependent on the oil price assumption. 3 million-5 million bbl per day is a lot of capacity. When we compare it to the weekly average of new greenfield capacity sanctioned over the past five years, it was, since 2015, about 1.5 million bbl per day every year. What we see here is that meeting the liquids demand in the coming years requires quite a lot of investment. Turning to TotalEnergies' upstream production, Patrick has touched on this, what we expect is we expect growth in our upstream production of 3% per year between 2021 and 2026. In this growth, we see here first oil, which is the right part, we see our oil production growing to 2025, before reaching a peak and plateauing, this is in line with the demand situation. More fundamentally, the growth of our upstream production will be driven by growth in gas and particularly in LNG. We forecast the growth in our LNG production of 6% per year in the next five years. Stéphane will give more details in the presentation on this. This forecast of upstream production in 2026 includes Mozambique LNG production only in 2026. This relies on the assumption that the project activity will resume in 2022, so next year. If there was a further delay in Mozambique LNG project, the growth rate would be reduced by 0.5 point, so from 3% to 2.5% per year to 2026. In order to deliver this production on the right part of the upstream production curve, we are targeting specific investments which are in line with the company ambition. In line with the company ambition means low cost, low emission projects. Low cost, in practice, the company has defined precise criteria. Low cost means CapEx plus OpEx below $20 per barrel equivalent or an after-tax breakeven below $30 per barrel for all our new projects. That's low cost. Low emissions, in practice, it means that all the new projects are being screened or need to contribute to a reduction of the greenhouse gas emission intensity of our portfolio. All the new projects basically need to have an emission intensity below the average of the portfolio currently or at the time of the sanction. Here you see on the slide three projects which are illustrative of these investments generating strong cash flow for the company, but also in line with the ambition. Mero in Brazil, Lake Albert Development in Uganda, and Ratawi in Iraq. Just a few words on each of the three. Mero in Brazil is illustrative of these deepwater projects with very large resources, very high productivity. We see here that on Mero, we'll reach 600,000 barrels per day of production. Four FPSOs, the last one actually was sanctioned just a couple of months ago. First oil, pretty much 1 FPSO per year between 2022 and 2025. On you see CapEx plus OpEx in line with the criteria, greenhouse gas at a very good level, 15 kg of CO2 equivalent per BOE, compared to about 20 kg last year for our E&P portfolio. Now our Lake Albert development in Uganda, Patrick has talked about it. Again, onshore development, large resources, over 1 billion barrels to be developed. A project that's expected to start in 2025 with a production of 260 kbd. You see again, the CapEx and OpEx below $20 per barrel. The GHG emissions intensity of this project is very low. The reason why it's very low is because a lot of work has been done to include in the design of this Uganda project, a number of units that allow to get the greenhouse gas intensity at a very good level. I will just mention two. The first one is extraction of LPGs in the upstream part, to be able to use very lean gas as fuel gas. The second one is the solarization of the pipeline to supply part of the power requirements for the pumping station on the heat tracing. Iraq, Ratawi, again, Patrick talked about it. What we see here is a project with a very low technical cost, OpEx and CapEx below $10 per barrel, about half of CapEx, half of OpEx. Greenhouse gas emission at an excellent level, 9 kg per CO2 per barrel. In addition to the greenhouse gas emission that will be avoided by the valorization of the gas that is currently flared on other fields. What is common to all these projects is that they deliver very strong cash flows, between $800 million per year and $1 billion per year for each of them from their first oil, with a significant upside at high prices. Of course, these projects, what is also a common feature to them is that they will be implemented and they are implemented in a responsible manner. In a manner that takes into account the best environmental standards and also a lot of attention to the in-country value and the benefit to the local communities. High-grading our portfolio is of course, focusing on low-cost, low-emissions projects for our new investment, but it's also the management of the portfolio. You see on the map here, the 2020, 2021 divestment activity. If you count, you have 12 divestment projects over two years. It's about a project every two months, to make it simple. On those divestments, they are focusing in line with the strategy on assets with high technical cost, high emission intensity. You have the figures on the slide. On average, these divestments, they represent $29 per barrel of technical cost on close to 50 kg of CO2 equivalent per barrel for the divested assets. This divestment program generates $2 billion of proceeds, and contributes to improving the portfolio in terms of cost and emissions. One point that we are continuing to focus on is to maintain very competitive OpEx per barrel, targeting 5 OpEx per barrel for our entire portfolio in the next year, which is to maintain, in fact, the level where we are today. Let me now turn to cash. On what you see here on the chart, is cash flow from operations of the E&P segment over the next 5 years, 2022, 2026, on the net investment of E&P. The result is that we expect a free cash flow above $5 billion per year at $50 per barrel, with a significant oil price leverage, you see it on the chart. Also with the ability to protect this cash flow in case of low price, thanks to the flexibility on CapEx that the company has demonstrated several times, and lastly, in 2020. Just to give an illustration, in 2020, during the COVID pandemic, we went from 30 operated rigs to 20 operated rigs in just two months. In fact, we are rather in a phase where we are re-mobilizing some rigs to take advantage of the context. For those cash flows, a key lever is a short cycle project, which gives a lot of upside and also a lot of flexibility. The short cycle project is basically those investments that can be decided on where first oil will occur in less than two years after the investment decision. Today, we have 1 billion barrel of reserves as short cycle CapEx that can be sanctioned. Those projects, they represent very low technical cost, very low cost, $4 per barrel of CapEx on average. They are also low emissions, because they don't require the construction of new processing facility. They are well in line with the ambition, and they will contribute to the strong cash flow of E&P. I wanted to conclude by this, showing that E&P is a cash engine, and I will now hand over to Bernard for the downstream part of it. Thank you, Nicolas. Let's turn now to downstream. As Patrick explained earlier in this presentation, our oil product sales will be lower by 30% in 2030 compared to 2019, reflecting a lower market demand, notably in Europe. It is obvious we have to anticipate and to adapt. What does that mean? First, it mean that we have to adapt our integrated value chain, notably in Europe, where we have most of our refining capacity. As you see on the chart today, we sell more oil product than what we refine, and our refining capacity is larger than our oil production. With our sales getting lower, we will have to adapt, obviously, our refining capacity, so that by 2030, sales and refining capacity will match our oil production level. Adaptation means also that we have to work on our portfolio mix. We review our sales to arbitrate the lowest-margin ones and, Alexis will give you more details in a few minutes about that. It also means that we will promote our low-carbon sales, notably growing the biofuels, and I will come back to this in a couple of minutes. Adapting to a lower demand will obviously translate into reduction of our Scope 3 emissions, but that will not be at the expense of a net cash flow generation, as the adaptation will mainly target the highest breakeven points assets, and of course, as I explained, the low-margin oil product sales. What I would like to do now is maybe to give you a little bit more detail on how we will adapt our refining capacity. Over the past few years, you know it, the European demand has been eroding and this trend is going to accelerate with the Fit for 55 package. Of course, we expect the oil product demand to drop by 30% in the next decade in Europe. We have been constantly adapting our refining capacity, as you see. We managed to reduce this capacity by 700,000 bbl a day over the last 10 years. Our most recent moves have been the reconversion of Grandpuits into a zero crude platform in 2020, and the sale of our Lindsey Oil Refinery in 2021. We are doing a good job, as you know, as you see, and we will keep doing it. Adapting our footprint is a key challenge, but there is a second key challenge for downstream that we need to address, which is to redeploy, to size new growth opportunities because we are not in a declining mode. What I would like to do now is to illustrate this point in the next few slides. Let's start first with biofuels, which is a great business opportunity. Biofuels today emit less than 50% of CO2 compared to the fossil fuels. It's a readily available solution to decarbonize transportation, road transportation today, and aviation very soon. Therefore, biofuels benefit, of course, from very favorable regulatory support, and we expect this market to double in the next 10 years. In the biofuels market, we have identified a very attractive segment, the renewable diesel. It's an attractive one because it's a premium grade, commanding high margins, so a profitable one. We have entered into this market three years ago in 2019 with the conversion of La Mède into a biorefinery. The next step is going to be Grandpuits in 2024 with this new biorefinery aimed at producing biojet. Of course, we have more project in the pipe. Our target is by 2025 to produce 2 million-3 million tons of renewable diesel and biojet. We also see synthetic fuels as an attractive business opportunity. It was discussed yesterday during the TotalEnergies Outlook at length, I know. It's a great opportunity combining green hydrogen and CO2 to provide synthetic fuels is the next market for renewable fuels, and we intend to be active in this field as well. I was mentioning hydrogen. Hydrogen is, of course, a key opportunity for refiners because, as you know, refiners are large consumers of hydrogen. The so-called gray hydrogen made from natural gas. The issue there is that when you produce 1 ton of gray hydrogen, you emit 10 tons of CO2. Decarbonizing this gray hydrogen, of course, is critical for refiners. The European Green Deal creates a favorable framework to do it, and of course, we want to leverage it. Our target is to decarbonize the 300,000 tons of gray hydrogen we use in our refineries to have it clean by 2030, and that would represent a 3 million tons of CO2 reduction. As you see on the left-hand side, I'm not going to detail all of this, but we have projects. All our refineries in Europe have a project to move from gray to blue or green hydrogen. Last but not least, as we become a player in the field of blue and green hydrogen, we also intend to size the business opportunities linked to new hydrogen application created by the European Green Deal. I would like to move to the last business opportunity, which is a great one for downstream, petrochemicals. It's a growing market. You know it's growing by more than 3% a year. It relies on sounds basics, the demographics, the emerging middle class, mega trends around the energy efficiency, polymers being lightweight materials. They help reduce the CO2 emission of transportation. Of course, we see now more and more traction around the circular economy and the recycling, plastic recycling, which gives an additional business opportunity. As you see on the left-hand side, we have been investigating and investing in this market very significantly over the last few years, always relying on a very few key principle to secure profitable business cases. We leverage our integrated platforms. We leverage cheap feedstocks such as ethane or propane. Ethane in the case of our JV in the U.S. or propane in South Korea, where we import U.S. propane, or in Nigeria, or cheap gas in Saudi Arabia. For all this project, we also stick to a key principle, which is to keep the balance in terms of integration between monomers and polymers. We also see the dynamics around the circular economy as an attractive growth opportunity. You see on the chart our two most recent projects. The one in Grandpuits where we will have by 2023, our very first advanced recycling unit in France. Of course, our leading position in the field of biopolymer made out of sugar. We have made the first move in Thailand in 2018 with a joint venture with our partner Corbion. We are now moving to the next step with a new capacity. We double the capacity with a new unit in Grandpuits as well in France. Our target is to have 30% of recycled polymer by 2030. As you see on the chart, Petchem will bring a very significant cash contribution to the company with an initial cash contribution of close to $1.5 billion by 2026 when all this project will have started up. I'm going to stop here now. I would like to leave the floor to Alexis, who will tell you more now in the field of transportation and mobility. Thank you, Bernard. The transport sector represents approximately one quarter of worldwide CO2 emissions. Decarbonizing transport is key to fight climate change and meet our target of reducing Scope 3 emission of our customers worldwide. Each transport segment is very different and requires a variety of solutions, and I will briefly present them to you now. First, we are increasing biofuel sales. For our clients, using biofuels mean a decrease of their CO2 emissions without having to replace their vehicles. Our first commitment then is to make biofuels more available. One example of this is that we have become, for example, the leader in France with more than 800 stations offering E85, which is a gasoline with up to 85% of biocomponents. More generally, by 2025, in line with the growth of our renewable diesel production, our ambition is to sell 7 million ton-8 million ton of biofuels per year worldwide, which mean that we will actually double our sales compared to 2019. Second, we are working hard to ease the customer journey and the energy transition for those clients switching to electric vehicles by providing them with the infrastructure they need. For that, we aim to operate 150,000 charge point by 2025. This will be a mix of different type of installation, but it includes 500 stations or dedicated charging hubs with super-fast chargers. With these chargers located in urban areas and along main road corridors, we offer a solution for both long distance trips and for intensive urban users such as taxis or last mile delivery vehicles. For heavy-duty vehicles, we provide electric or hydrogen solution, in particular for captive fleets, and here we are partnering with truck manufacturers to develop them. We also propose gas mobility solutions with an infrastructure of 400 natural gas service station in Europe, in addition to the 500 we have in the U.S. through our stake in Clean Energy. Important to note that we'll increase the share of biomethane in these networks to further decrease the carbon intensity of gas for mobility. For the marine sector, we are developing our sales of marine LNG, meaning our customers can immediately reduce their greenhouse gases by up to 23% and at the same time improving air quality. We are extending our supply network to have a worldwide presence adapted to our client needs. After Rotterdam in 2020, Marseille by the end of this year, we will operate bunker vessel in Singapore next year. Major companies like CMA CGM or MSC have partnered with us. You should see us sell more than 1 million tons of bunker LNG by 2025. Regarding aviation, we will be producing and selling biojet primarily from our Grandpuits platform. Our ambition here is to produce and sell at least 200,000 tons of biojet per year from 2024 until before e-fuels come to maturity. Here, too, partnership like the one we have signed with Safran are key to these developments. This plan will contribute to decarbonizing the transport sector and accompanying our customers in their energy transition. They represent a commitment of $1.5 billion over the next 5 years. Through substitution, they will contribute to avoid 13 million tons of CO2 per year. Decarbonizing the energy mix of our customers will significantly contribute to meeting our objective of reducing Scope 3 emission in Europe by 30% in absolute term between 2015 and 2030. To go further, we will be selective concerning the sales of the remaining oil products. We have reviewed our portfolio, identifying sales with low margins, high CO2 emissions, and lower carbon fuel alternatives. With these criteria in mind, we have already made significant decisions. First, we will favor direct client relationship with tailor-made solution and aim to eliminate low margin sales to reseller, where our performance as a responsible energy company is not a strong competitive advantage. Second, in aviation, for example, we'll focus on high value airport locations while preserving a worldwide coverage. From 2025, we'll stop selling heavy fuel oil for power generation because alternative exists, such as natural gas, biofuels, or renewables, and we will accompany our customers towards these. Maybe as a reminder, we have already stopped selling high sulfur fuel oil for shipping for two years. You will see a decrease in our oil product sales, especially in Europe, but this will happen with minimum impact on our net for cash flows. Arbitration will be done on low margin sales, while CapEx will be directed to growth activities and new energies. Mobility is moving fast towards electricity, the company has positioned itself along its value chain with the production of batteries, and secondly, by developing an EV charging infrastructure. On batteries, one year ago, we announced the creation of ACC, a joint venture with Stellantis for the development of high performance battery modules. A year later, we've just announced that Mercedes-Benz is joining ACC as an equal partner, and that the 2030 capacity target will be raised from 48 GWh to 120 GWh. This is equivalent to 2.5 million electric vehicles per year, allowing ACC to reach 10% market share in Europe. In China, Saft partnered with Tianneng in 2019 in order to develop the production of lithium-ion batteries with a focus on two wheelers, increasing the footprint in the market, which should represent 40% of the global demand in 2025. As for charge points, we intend to operate 150,000 by 2025. Some will be obviously at our service station. When they are on the move, EV drivers have the same expectation as drivers of conventional vehicles, reliability, availability, and speed. The 500 site I mentioned earlier, equipped with fast and super fast chargers as time to charge will be a determining factor. They will also be at our B2B customer locations, but also on the streets through public concession. Here, there is a definite focus on major cities. Over the last 18 months, TotalEnergies have already secured 30,000 charge points through concession with emblematic cities. In Europe, we are now present in and around Amsterdam, as well as in Paris, London or Antwerp. In Asia, we have secured recently a strong position in Singapore. Though not a public concession, we have announced this morning the setting up of a JV with China Three Gorges to develop more than 11,000 fast charging points in Hubei. Along the value chain, the ability to offer 100% renewable electricity, along with our expertise in mobility, gives us a strong advantage to succeed as a major player in electric mobility. The Marketing & Services strategy is clearly to maximize value while we transition towards low carbon energies. It relies on four strong pillars. In the retail network, our assets and our leadership position in Western Europe and Africa are a strong base to develop true one-stop shops to generate substantial non-fuel revenues. Regardless of what type of vehicles they drive, drivers need services even more so for EV drivers who will have to stay a bit longer to recharge their car. By 2025, we predict retail non-fuel activities will represent more than 40% of our cash flow from operations in Europe compared to one-third today. In the B2B, we will capitalize on our asset of 1 million strong customer base. Indeed, our customers have also energy transition concern. By offering them multi-energy solutions and innovative mobility products, we are and will remain the partner of reference in their transition. Lubricants remains a strong pillar of our strategy, and will grow value through premium product in the automotive, including EV fluids, and also in the industry sector, where we target niche markets. As for the fourth pillar, I have developed it while delivering a strong performance. I will now hand over to Stéphane, who will develop our strategy on gas. After the oil part, I will lead you through the gas part, or the energy of the transition. As Helle Kristoffersen has shown yesterday, we are indeed convinced that gas has a major role to play in this transition, because it's twice less emissions that coal for power generation, and it's the most efficient way to manage and mitigate intermittency of renewable. It's an obvious choice for a fast-growing economy, like China, to address the challenge of more energy and less emission. In this context, it's not a surprise to see that the LNG market has grown at a 10% rate, so very fast in the last five years, from 250 million ton to 350 million ton in 2020. We are convinced that growth is going to continue to at least 5%-7% per year in the next five years. This growth is coming from Asia, notably China, where it's quite impressive. Despite the COVID in 2020, the consumption was higher than in 2019. If we look since the start of the year, the growth between 2019 and 2021 is an impressive 35%, and it's taking place both in residential and commercial power generation and industry. We are convinced that that trend will go on for the next 5-10 years. It's going to be followed by other country in Asia. In front of this demand, optionally you have additional supply coming from, notably the U.S. and Russia in the next five years. We see in the chart that those volume will find easily their place in the market. We are quite positive on the balance between supply and demand on the LNG market. In this context of a growing market, TotalEnergies wants to grow. First, we can base this growth on a very strong portfolio of assets, fully integrated along the value chain. An equity production of around 20 million tons, well diversified between Middle East, Russia, Asia, and the U.S. on one side. A fleet of 20 vessels chartered in the long term. 20 million tons of regasification in Europe, and some long-term sales, notably in Asia and Latin America. This strong portfolio allow us to size all the opportunities of arbitrage, and we see them currently in the market. We can either send our LNG to Europe or to Asia. We can optimize the freight, and we can as well integrate all those flow with our pipe presence in Europe, and our presence on the gas and electricity market. As usually say, Patrick, we want to build on our strengths, and LNG is a strength, and that's why we want to grow that business. As you can see, we want to do that by increasing our portfolio by 30% between 2020 and 2025 to reach 50 million ton. How to do that? On one side, by raising production. On the other side, by raising sales. On production, it was mentioned by Nicolas before. We have today a portfolio of a bit lower than 20 million ton of production. That production is going to grow, thanks to the project that have already been sanctioned. Obviously, Arctic LNG 2 in Russia, but as well Costa Azul, our Mexican project. The debottlenecking of the Train 7 in Nigeria, and obviously Mozambique. We are confident that production of our own portfolio will grow to roughly 23 million tons in 2025, and more with Mozambique coming onstream, as mentioned by Nicolas. A strong growth for the next five years, but as well, some resources that have already been identified, and on which we will be able to build our growth beyond 2026. Those reserves being either in Russia or in Mozambique. As well to mention our project with Papua LNG in Papua New Guinea. As well, for example, the debottlenecking of our plant with Sempra in the U.S., Cameron. A strong growth of our own production. On the sales part. Beyond our traditional contract with the usual buyers in Japan, in Korea, or in China, we want as well to broaden our base of customers and to diversify our outlet. We have worked a lot in the previous months to do that. First, in India, by the JV we have with Adani, where we are going to supply the JV with Adani to develop gas sales in India. Up to 3 million tons of LNG to fuel 20 or so city gas distribution and a network of CNG stations. In China, where we partner with Shenergy Group, the electricity and gas distribution company of the region of Shanghai, where we are going to supply LNG and as well support the development of LNG distribution by truck in the region. In Brazil, where with Compass Gás & Energia we are supporting the development of a new import terminal in São Paulo and support the development of sales. Definitely, we want to grow that business and to extend it both in terms of size and in terms of geography. Another aspect of our effort to develop LNG is what we do on bunkering, where we have now several customers. First one being CMA CGM, that we supply with bunker LNG, notably, in France, in Dunkirk and Marseille and in Rotterdam. We see that as a growing market on which we want to extend our presence internationally. To summarize, that should allow us to increase our sales from 38 million ton in 2020, above 40 million ton in 2021, to the 50 million ton I mentioned in 2025. With a part of our production, our integration along the value chain increasing over time. As you can see that the supply from third party will remain pretty much constant. In terms of cash, that should allow us to increase the cash flow generation by around 30% to reach those ± $4 billion level depending on the level of oil price taken. That increase is going to come obviously from new volume, new asset, and an improvement of the supply contract we have as well. That portfolio will be sensitive to gas price. We have shown on that chart the sensitivity of the cash flow to a $5 increase on both NBP and JKM. That sensitivity is coming from two sides. One, which is linked to our production assets, which obviously are sensitive to gas price. On the other side, the part coming from our trading portfolio where it's basically allow normally to capture the difference between the NBP JKM and the Henry Hub, assuming in that case, because it depends of our hedging policy, that all the curve move as a spot. Obviously, all that wouldn't be possible if we are not exemplary in terms of CO2 emission, and that's why we want as well to work on the decarbonization of the LNG chain. One, priority on methane emission reduction along the value chain. Two, on our LNG plant where we want to raise energy efficiency, where we want to develop project of sequestration of the native CO2, and it's going to take place because a project that we are currently studying in Russia, in Qatar, in the U.S. As well by increasing the electrification of those plants, where the electricity will be generated by renewable energy, both solar and wind. The last part of our actions is to renew our long-term fleet because we see that new vessels today are issuing 40% less CO2 than old vessels, we want to renew that fleet so as to improve its efficiency. All in all those actions should help us to reduce the full chain intensity by 20% by 2030. Beyond natural gas, we want as well to develop our sales of biogas. We have started that activity this year by the acquisition of Fonroche in France, and we want now to scale up that activity. In Europe, to reach 1.3 TWh of sales. That remains limited, but still. We want to scale up that activity in the U.S. with our JV, with Clean Energy, where we want to invest in renewable production to supply the network of 550 stations where Clean Energy, of which we are shareholder, is supplying bio-CNG and bio-LNG to trucks. In Europe, beyond France, to try to develop additional projects based on the expertise of France. Finally, and that will be my conclusion, a word on hydrogen. As you know, there is a lot of announcements, pilot projects, and interest for the various authorities on hydrogen. On that subject, our ambition is clearly to be a pioneer in mass production of clean hydrogen. With two ideas in mind. The first one, as mentioned by Bernard, is first to be able to cover our own demand on refining. We have project of green hydrogen production for our own consumption of hydrogen in Europe, where we will be providing for sure the green electron coming from wind and solar and effectively invest on some of those project. Beyond that, we are convinced that if hydrogen develop, you will have to produce massively hydrogen, and it will be done in country where this hydrogen can be competitive. We are looking at project of either blue hydrogen and ammonia, where you have very cost competitive gas and huge capacity of CO2 storage. One perfect example is clearly Russia, where we could be partnering with Novatek. That's one. The second aspect is green hydrogen, where you need to find countries where you can have a huge production of both solar and wind to ensure a good load factor of your electrolyzer. That's what we are as well, looking for, with the idea that green hydrogen will mean a lot of renewable energy. You see, obviously, the synergy of that part of our business for us that I leave the floor now to Patrick, as Patrick will present you our ambition in this domain. Okay. Thank you, Stéphane. I will speak about renewable and electricity, not because Stéphane is not able to do it, but just because we consider that this is the really new part of all our new business and the part where we really broaden and we build the sustainable company we want to build. It's important that I'm trying to share with you our ambition in it. The renewables, it's probably the part where you have most of the questions will come also. The idea is, as you know, to scale a profitable global business on renewables and electricity. First, it's a big market, huge market. I'm always smiling when people ask me, "But you have many competitors." In fact, the reality is that if really we are all serious about climate change, and we all know, and it's repeated in each report of the United Nations, massive investments in renewable is required. Everywhere. There is an anticipation in the Momentum scenario, at least an increase of 3,000 GW of capacity in the next decade of solar, onshore wind, offshore wind. Momentum does not reach, I remember you, 1.7 degrees, 2.2, 2.4, so it's more than that. When Total speak about 100 GW by the decade, coming from 10 GW, that means that we are targeting 3% of this increase, which of course is ambitious. We are serious about, we want to be in this renewable field as a major company, as we are today in oil and gas. First point. Second point, renewables is a reality now in the company. I would say three years ago, we had less than 1 GW. This year, we'll end by more than 10 GW, maybe next to 11 GW even. It's a reality. Many countries, it's no more only projections, figures, Excel files. We have many projects. We begin small one, large ones, as well. We begin to be confronted, like Namita said, to the execution of these large projects. Like in Qatar, we learn and we learn more and more because we have many of them. Also in offshore wind, we have a project in Scotland, one in Taiwan. It's a reality. In fact, the reality is not only on what we are building now and producing, but also on the portfolio. The portfolio we announced last year an objective of 35 GW by 2025. We have already a little more in our hand, but we stick to this project because I know that this is a main task for Stéphane and his teams to execute, to develop, to build this project. In renewables at the end, executing, building, you face also communities, and you have some stakeholders. That's the point. If we have the portfolio, it's largely de-risked. More than 65% of this portfolio is already covered by PPAs. Some projects will be developed partly with some merchant risk, by the way, not all of it. What we plan after having grown this year by at least 3 GW from next year, it will be a regular increase of building up 6 GW per year. That's the way we see the growing from 10 to 35, 3x, 4 x 6 GW. Again, this is in our hand up to us now to develop it. Beyond it, we speak about 100 GW. How do we intend? Some people say it's very ambitious. Again, yes, it's 3% of the increase of capacity worldwide which is being planned. In fact, we think that we have now, we have built the engine to develop 6 GW per year. If we continue, it's an additional 30 GW over the following five years. Then we will leverage some of our strengths. We have two strengths on which we want to lever, or three, if one. The first one is building on the TotalEnergies global footprint, I will come back on it, to address new markets for renewables and new countries. The second one is building on offshore wind. Namita mentioned some expertise. When we work today, this project have a longer time of development, it will come between 2025 and 2030. The third pillar will be to continue to be very selective on M&A. I remind everybody that this year we have invested $2 billion in Adani Green in India, and they are worth $ 5 billion today. If we are patient, smart and selective, we can find a nice way to create value through M&As. Again, not more building, more looking to developers rather than existing assets, obviously. If I'm coming back on these three pillars. First one, worldwide presence. We have launched an initiative. We are building, we are recruiting, in fact, a network of what we call renewable explorers. They will not look for, sorry, Nicolas, for oil and gas, this one, but we'll be locating the same offices. It's leveraging on our presence, of our knowledge of countries. We have already recruited 50% or 60% of them, locating people in different geographies. You see Africa, South America, Asia, where we have maybe less competition, but there is a potential for renewables. That is, I think, quite unique to do that compared to some of our competitors in the utility fields, which are more focused on less geographies, Atlantic basins. That's a way not only to develop, to grow, but also to grow profitably. What we have observed, like the last discussion in Iraq, is that when you come smart, you have the capacity, you are well-known by the authorities, they trust you, and you can leverage it to grow also in renewables and power in a profitable way. That's the first one. The second one, again, is offshore wind. That's true that we are late in this business. I must recognize it's a little strange, but you know that's history. Having said that, in the last 18 months, we already built a portfolio of 6 GW of projects in Europe, Asia, mainly. We are taken now seriously by many players. We begin to have some Tier 1 players who are coming to us, and that's good because we are willing. We think that offshore wind, considering the large CapEx involved, requires partnerships. Sharing risk is just important. We'll partner with, in Denmark, with Ørsted. In the U.S., on the East Coast, with EnBW. We are fine to be with partnerships to which will accelerate our growth. We have clearly there some competitive advantage, I would say, to bring to the market. Our floating technologies expertise, our capacity of managing large projects and the supply chain, and also the offshore logistics and, of course, our financial capacities. The third pillar to develop, and I think it's an activity which will grow, and I think it's one of the success of 2021, is to become more active on the corporate PPAs. Now that we have a large portfolio, it's much easier to us to leverage, again, our global footprint. We're going to our suppliers, our customers, by the way, as well, to sell them some renewable electricity or green electricity. We've done it first for ourselves between the renewable division of Stéphane and the Refining & Chemicals. With large PPAs, it obliges everybody in the company, including the trading arm, to think about it, to structure it. Now this model can be developed, and we have already announced some corporate PPAs with companies like Amazon, Microsoft, Merck, Air Liquide, Orange. By the way, it's a nice way even for our suppliers to tell them, "Okay, you supply us services, but now we'll supply to you electricity." It balances more the relationship. The target is to sell at least 20 TWh of this type of PPA, which will represent something like, I think, 10 GW, if we can do that. The key question then, growth. How do we grow? You have the answer. Leveraging of different strengths. The second question we have is why is it profitable? You tell us it's profitable. We have some doubts. To be clear, we tell you, and we stick to that we want to develop a portfolio of renewables with an objective or return on equity above 10%. The more we dig into, the more we are convinced we can do that. We are facing two different, I think, markets. We are facing what we call the deregulated markets. The U.S., for example, where there is a lot of competitions. Where the market is moving more to merchant markets, where it's true that the returns, even post farm downs, could be lower than 10%. We recognize that. It's also markets where you can leverage the integration, I think, more easily. That's why one of the mission that Stéphane Michel is developing today is growing his trading teams in Europe, in the U.S. There, there will be some imbalances, and you need to be able to tackle, to have, of course, some assets, to have some storage assets as well, and to aggregate different assets. There is some value to derive from integration for trading. It has to be added on the top of what the projects will return to us. It's also markets where you could leverage corporate PPA opportunities. Then you have the other markets, the ones that our renewable explorers will look for, which are what I call the regulated market. Where, in fact, it's fundamentally more a matter of finding the projects. Then you will have some PPA with counterpart. Of course, you have a risk on the counterpart, but you don't have to be fully integrated. This type of markets, if you are smart, you come as an early player, give you more than 15%, I would say. It's a mix at the end of our portfolio is above 10%, and we stick to this target, and this is what we have today in our hand. I remind you that our business model, and we also stick to it because we think it's a matter of risk management, is, of course, to identify the project, to develop the project. We put some debt on the project. Then when the project is developed, we farm down 50%. Not only it enhance the return on it, but more than that, it also de-risk partly the project. That's the business model we will develop. At the end, when we say we'll have developed and we'll have finance develop 100 GW of gross capacity, that we will do. In net production, we'll have the results of 50 GW in terms of net production in our figures. It's a little complex slide. We try to develop the strategy, what means integration, which prove that we evolve, by the way. It's also the fair thing. In fact, it show you the way we see us along the value chain. From producing electricity, trading aggregation, we could have added storage, by the way, to developing customer portfolio. I think when you look to Europe, clearly, we want to be along the full value chain, because it's a way that we think that in Europe, even if today renewables are developed in many countries through PPAs, it begins to be like in the Netherlands, like in Germany, more through merchant markets. You need to have the capacity to optimize these assets, and that's good to be along the full value chain, like, by the way, we've done in oil and gas. The U.S. is another deregulated market. We are new to it, so there we approach it mainly through the free elements. We'll see in the future if we need to develop on both part of the chain. In the other markets, the regulated ones, like I described, when you go to India, when you go to Iraq, you can maintain, you can concentrate on producing from renewables. You could use maybe your portfolio if you want to go together with some large global companies to sell them some corporate PPAs. This is the way we intend to develop and to integrate renewables and electricity, mainly on the regulated market with integration, not on the other ones. What does it give in term of figures? Just because all that are good words, you have the growth, you have the profitability index. On the next five years, we intend, in fact, to grow our production up to more than 50 TWh. This represent more or less the equivalent of 300,000 bbl per day, just to give you a magnitude. To do that, this will deliver, by the way, it's more important to you, cash flow from operation of around $2 billion by 2025, net operating income of $1.5 billion. A proportionate EBITDA, that means because all that will be partly in SMEs, of $ 3.5 billion. To give you the magnitude. We'll have invested in the period around $15 billion of net investments. With the leverage, it represent gross investments of around $35 billion. This means that by 2025, investing $3 billion, cash flow from operation $2 billion, there is still a deficit. You know when we invest in oil and gas in a new country, generally it takes 10 years before to see exploration, appraisal, development, and payback. What we target, and clearly in our model it works, is to be net cash positive by 2030, maybe a little before, but let's say by 2030, growing to 100 GW. I'm taking the combination of all what we said, and thank you to all of you, Nicolas, to Bernard, Alexis, Stéphane, Namita, to have described all the assets. I will make the sum up with one message today. We, in TotalEnergies, aiming clearly to combine the energy transition, which we think absolutely necessary to contribute and to participate to ensure the sustainability in the company and the shareholder return. I think we have demonstrated last year in 2020, in the worst possible crisis that we have known, that we were able to maintain the dividend and at the same time, I would say, to continue to invest in this renewable and power in a large way. We maintain the CapEx. This is what we intend to do for the future. Why are we able to do that despite the strong competition? Which is a question we have. This benchmark show you in terms of EBITDA generation, cash flow generation, and in terms of balance sheet, the gearing, what is TotalEnergies compared to major oil and gas companies, but also major utilities. What you can just see with the size of the bars, without digging into the details, is that clearly a company like TotalEnergies is a number three in terms of cash flow generation, so a strong cash machine, and is also amongst the two best in terms of low gearing. A very strong balance sheet. You can see that, by the way, most of the oil and gas companies are above on both segments than the utility. It gives me the conviction, strong conviction, that even if we are newcomer in this field, fundamentally, we are well-armed to be able to be the leading player among the leading players of the energy transition in the coming 10 years. We will invest, but we'll invest with discipline. It's not volume over value, let's be clear. We have also, from the last six years as CEO with the volatility we face, we think it's better to plan our CapEx, frankly, on something which is quite stable. We took $50 per barrel as a way to measure it, $13 billion, $15 billion. I described you the capital investment strategy, 50% in maintenance, 50% is growth. With $3 billion in renewables and electricity, we have enough to make this growth as we proposed you. This is what we employ. You can see the impact, by the way, of the capital investment strategy I described to you on the capital employed on the value segments of the company. Of course, TotalEnergies is not a small company. It's a huge one. We have $140 billion of capital employed. What is interesting in this chart is a trend. You can see that the trend is in line with our move. You know when we say that we transition, we transition. You see the red line, which is E&P outside of energy, is declining. You see the LNG continuing to grow. At the end, the renewable electricity, the green line, is almost, in five years, at the level of capital employed as the whole downstream of the company. We are, I think, putting the money according to the ambition that we have to become a sustainable company and coping with our ambition to drive to net zero. The discipline also is on OpEx. I must say that maybe it seems odd to you when the barrel is at $80 per barrel, again, it's a lesson learned. Last year, everybody was speaking about cost and savings, we should not forget. Even in February when we made the presentation, we were more on that mood. Things are changing quickly. The teams are mobilized. We will deliver the $1.6 billion. It's also true that today we hear about more inflation with logistics, et cetera. It's important because these savings are supported by some fundamental actions on the digital factory, the OneTech organization, high-grading the portfolio, which we didn't make too much noise during two years, but in fact, you have seen that asset by asset we have worked. Hardly we have worked because selling 12 assets is as much complex to sell, I would say, a big one, but it is done. This is, I would say, and I encourage the teams in TotalEnergies to continue to work on it because this is a fundamental part of our business. We need to be disciplined on the cost. CapEx, the cash flow. We confirm today with one year delay, I will be very honest, but we will be able to deliver the $5 billion underlying cash flow growth from 2021 to 2026. One-year delay is obviously linked to the delay on Mozambique. I will be even more transparent to you is that if Mozambique does not restart by 2022, and you know that we do not control all the situation, the security situation in Cabo Delgado, this would impact the 2026 target by $500 million. Which does not change the fundamental message there. In fact, that the growth is coming, like you can see, it's coming from renewables and power for $1.5 billion, from LNG, $1 billion to $1.5 billion depending on Mozambique. Also from the downstream. Between Alexis and Bernard explain you that they plan to go by $1 billion. We have some oil projects, Uganda plus Iraq, plus Mero, Brazil, which will compensate partly the natural decline to provide another $1 billion. All these projects, most of them are sanctioned. We need to execute all that, and of course, this underlying cash flow growth will support the future increase of dividend, as I said in July. Another message here, we are rising thanks to the quality of the portfolio and the works, by the way, which is done in terms of high-grading this portfolio, divesting some assets to upgrade the return on capital. We were mentioning in our previous presentation more than 10%. With the assets we have, we can reach more than 12% at $50 from 2025, despite the famous renewables which are supposed to decrease the profitability. It's a proof that there is a virtue in this model. Another message there, you see the impact of $10 per barrel, $3.2 billion, no change, we're capturing the upside. We are more and more exposed to, positively, I would say, to the gas spot prices. If NBP and JKM both of them increased by $1, this will represent an increase of cash flows from $600 million. If you align, by the way, $10 per barrel is more or less $1.5 per million BTU. That means $1 billion would come. This is also an important message that growing in energy with more of our, I would say, portfolio being exposed to this spot index, represent a potential upside as well in our portfolio. Having said all that, we go to what is important when I say combining energy transition, return of shareholders. This is a way of the cash flow allocation priorities, I would say. CapEx is a priority, within a discipline framework, $ 13 billion-$15 billion, not more. Renewables power will guarantee them, I would say, $3 billion per year. That's the first part, and this is okay to make this transition. The second is dividend. You know that we have supported it through the cycle. I just mentioned to you that definitely our aim is to deliver in coming years, some long-term cash flow growth, and that will support future increase for dividend. The balance sheet, we have been always keen to give a certain priority to maintain, of course, a grade A credit rating. Again, it's an advantage in the competition when we go to electricity compared to peers. We want to keep this advantage gearing at 32%. Last but not least, we announced end of July that we are willing to share surplus revenues with our shareholders above $60. Today I know that you have made some math, most of you. We said it may be $900 million $1 billion, $1.2 billion. What I announce to you, it will be $1.5 billion. Not because I changed the 30%, but just because the natural gas price are rocketing. So we have, obviously, some additional revenues from gas. As I need to give instruction to my CFO, I will not keep the moving target during week after week. The decision has been taken to give him a target to buy back $1.5 billion of shares for the last quarter. Then we'll see what will be the momentum of the hydrocarbon prices through next year. I would like to conclude this presentation, which has been very colorful, I can see. Like the colors of the logo. I hope you like the modernization of the slide by this slide. In fact, the TotalEnergies investment case, what we propose to you, I think on the left side, clearly, I think we have demonstrated in the last five, six years, through different up and downs in the hydrocarbon prices, we are quite resilient. We have a strong balance sheet with low cost of debt. We have a strong and reliable cash generation. We are supporting the dividend through the cycle. The resilience is demonstrated. We are also, and I would like to insist today, able to capture the upside of higher energy prices. We are a low-cost producer. We have a production growth in our portfolio. Again, we have an increased leverage to gas markets. That, I would say, the hydrocarbon part, which is fundamental because it's feeding, in fact, the cash flows, the engine to make this transformation possible. The other side, I think the business model, and we have described it to you, to build a sustainable business model. We are really engaged in this transformation with clear targets, already established portfolio, and we will deliver on renewable and electricity, recognized in this field as an ESG leader. We think, really, that we have some competitive advantage to prosper in the electricity world. I mentioned that to you again. In particular, our global footprint giving us access to new geographies where less competition, and also the management of large scale projects. This investment case, of course, supports attractive returns to shareholders. We have a high dividend yield, maybe a little high, but we will be patient to see the rating of the share. We have again a long-term underlying growth, which will support future dividend increase. We have a policy which is put in place in order to share surplus from hydrocarbon upsides through buybacks. That conclude my presentation. Before to go to the Q&A session, and thank you for your patience, again, we have been through many voices, in a dynamic way. I would like, therefore, to thank again all the people who contributed to this presentation under the leadership of Jean-Pierre. In particular, Ladislas, who is our president. I say a word to Ladislas because it's the end of his assignment. He came twice in this position. Thank you, Ladislas. He will be assigned our representative in Washington to reward him for his dedication to the company. Renaud Lions, because of COVID, maybe not of all of you know him, will take his seat. Renaud is already there for the last three, four months, he's learning a lot. Also to thank all the team who worked with them, both of them. I'm afraid I will forget one. Bertrand, Edouard, Frédéric, Benoit, and Olivier. Thank you for all that. I know it's tough to support all the executive committee to make such presentation. Thank you again for the quality of it. Now we will listen to your question for the Q&A. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We will now begin the question and answer session. As a reminder, if you wish to ask a question, please press star and one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. Please kindly mute any audio sources while asking a question. If you wish to cancel your request, please press the hash key. Once again, please press star one if you wish to ask a question. The first question comes from line of Michele Della Vigna from Goldman Sachs. Please ask your question. Perfect. Thank you very much for the very thorough and interesting presentation. I had two questions, if I may. The first one is on your CapEx guidance. You've reduced the top end of the guidance from $16 billion to $15 billion, while increasing the spend on renewables and the energy transition. That certainly is a strong sign of capital discipline. I was wondering if you could perhaps shed some light into some of the moving parts in that and where perhaps less capital will go into the coming years than what you were thinking one year ago. My second question is about cash return to shareholders. It's certainly very good news to see $1.5 billion of buyback in the fourth quarter. At this level of share price, it's certainly hugely accretive. I was wondering, how should we think about the framework for next year? The macro is uncertain, but seems to be going into a very good direction. You have effectively free cash flow breakeven at $50 per barrel, and you have huge exposure to gas prices, which are increasing substantially above your $5 per Mcf NBP price. Should we continue to think that longer term, you want to distribute about 40% of your cash flow to shareholders between dividends and buybacks, and you will think about the right balance between those two? Or how should we start thinking about next year for that? Thank you. What is good with you, Michele, is when you announce something, you want the future. No, I think first, on the first one, let's be clear. In fact, I've said everything in the presentation. When we were speaking $13, $16, the $16 billion, to be honest, you need $60 per barrel to support it when I'm looking to the financial model. Again, it's maybe a lesson of what we have experienced last year, but we prefer to plan our CapEx to be sustainable at $50 rather than $60. $13, maybe it's only $1 billion. Okay. It obliges us to think, by the way, if we want to be consistent with the ambition that we have announced, in particular, when we speak about the downstream, that means that we have made our CapEx consistent with, for example, when we say we'll reduce our oil product sales, that means that I need to invest less or to be more selective exactly in the way we approach the development of networks. That's one example. We will continue to invest in some networks, not necessarily in all the geographies as we were planning that one year ago. That's one example. It's some choices, which, at the end of the day, there is a consistency between the trajectory on the Scope 1, 2, and 3, and the CapEx for the hydrocarbons part. If we are spending more, we create an inconsistency. Financially, and we think ourselves, but again, let's be clear. The way we manage that, and I think it has been very well explained to you by Bernard and Alexis. We make choices which have a little minimizing the impact on the net cash flow because, in fact, these are also CapEx, which were allocated to assets when you look to the net generation of cash was not so big. What is more important, by the way, for you as a shareholder, is not only the amount of investment, but the net cash generated by this investment. That's the explanation. Again, we have made some few choices, but these choices are consistent with our trajectory. The second one, I think I said everything. You know that we told you that the dividend, and the yield of the dividend today is around 7%, quite high. We said, and we repeat today, that any increase will have to be supported by, I would say, some long-term sustainable cash flow growth. We'll have some next year. We'll see the way we will plan that. We'll come back to you beginning of next year on it. We also said in July that in terms of return of surplus, we use a 40% objective, up to 40%. The combination of all that is between 30% and 40% when you make the math. You will have no more insights to that. Again, what I can say to your customers, if you want to convince investors, that first TotalEnergies did never decrease this dividend during 30 years. On the top of it, as you said, because we, and I think we gave you some indications, we are more exposed to others than others to upsides from the gas sides. If we have more revenues, we'll return more to our shareholders. I think the signal through the $1.5 billion is in that direction, considering the upside on the gas price that we experienced this year. Thank you. The next question comes from line of Christyan Malek from JP Morgan. Please ask your- Hi, this is Christyan Malek. Thank you and congratulations on an extremely comprehensive outlook. Patrick, it's clear to see the strategy seems to be everything to everybody in your sale of energy to customers, but it does seem your upstream outlook and specifically oil seems to mirror your view on sort of peak oil demand through the decade. While clearly we're biased towards our own views in an oil super cycle, if that scenario were to play out through a much delayed peak, is there a danger that your cash return may become less competitive compared to those that have planned for an increased quantum of oil barrels to reflect a peak in oil demand post-2030, sort of more in line with OPEC's thinking today? My second question relates to plans to potentially harvest or carve out the renewables business. I noticed a number of comparisons to the utility sector, which I think is absolutely right. The reality is that the clean energy businesses sit within a large conglomerate. If the equity market decides whatever reason it's not willing to value a hybrid business model to reflect the rich evaluations of a low-carbon business, at what point would you consider carving out a small portion of that business, say, in the form of a listing? Would farm downs be a potential route to harvest value? Thank you. No, I think if you observe, Christyan, I think the way we approach this transition is also, I didn't plan the CapEx for 10 years. We planned the CapEx for five years. Let's be clear. Obviously, we will monitor that precisely. I think we have demonstrated, and again, look, the last projects. It's a global project in Iraq, we are able to move on electricity, gas, and oil. We did not say no to oil. We said, and I think we have a specific edge in some geographies, we are looking for low-cost oil. My teams in E&P does not have a mandate to stop looking for more oil. They have a mandate to look for oil which is low cost and low emissions. The planet can offer opportunities. Again, we give you a sort of trajectory. The reality is that we are quite pragmatic, and we'll see. We'll see at which pace this market will evolve. Helle, explain you different scenarios. I know that some, by the way, Nicolas show a slide, which was at the end, there was a spread against the landing point in 2050. We have to monitor that. We did never said that voluntarily, we decrease oil. I never said that. We said that we are pragmatic. We monitor it, and if we have good projects like the one we are finding in Iraq, we will develop it. That's clear. I'm not afraid by this aspect because again, it's a matter of being selective, but monitoring according to the way the demand will evolve. The second one, of course, is a traditional question. You are right to ask the question. We have to be patient. I think we have embarked in TotalEnergies. We know that we could be perceived as an energy conglomerate. I think, but you know, my answer to you is that you should buy the shares today. They are not so high. In 2025, if really there is no rerating, then a spin-off of 35 GW. When you see the valuation of renewables, I think my shareholders will be super happy. Buy the shares, keep them, trust us, and either the conglomerate will be rerated, which when I observe what happened to others, sometimes, it's a matter of Mr. Market, obviously, we'll have to take actions. Let's be clear, it's not a question mark today. Today, one of the advantages. In 2025, there was an important figure. We'll invest $3 billion. We have $2 billion of cash. The equation could work. Today, we invest 3, we have 0 cash or almost nothing, $300 million. The equal does the work. Why should I go to the market to spin off, to have access to raise money to the market, but I could just finance ourselves with quite a low cost. We are comfortable, and the options will be there on the table. Again, I hope in the meantime that this idea of the transition, and that players can do these different energies will be absorbed and agreed by the market. We'll see. One follow. If you were to flex CapEx higher in the context of stronger oil demand, would that be within the $ 13 billion-$15 billion envelope or would you consider raising it above $15 billion? Sorry to cut you up. No, because I don't think that you need to plan with $80 per barrel. It's a mistake each time we have done that. I've done it myself, to be honest. I've done it in 2017, 2018, where I remember we announced you, we have invested 2017, 2018. Then price went down. I think honestly, with the transition, energy transition is somewhere putting more volatility in these markets. Because we create interactions between the different energies, and it's quite complex to fully see the value chain. I'm not sure, but none of us would have bet three or six months ago, but the natural gas price would be today at $20 per million BTU. We need to be humble, and I think I prefer to learn to manage the company by, again, being disciplined on CapEx, returning shareholders with upsides, and managing the plan. No, we do not intend to suddenly increase the CapEx because we have more money. We'll see. Let's see. It's difficult. Again, in February, at the beginning of the year, we were more looking to $40 or $50 than $ 70, $80. I think we need to monitor that carefully rather than changing our mind every six months. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from line of Pauline Lecoursonnois from EOS at Federated Hermes. Please ask your ask your question. Thank you very much for this very helpful and informative investor day. Yesterday, during the presentation of your latest energy outlook model, you touched on key differences with the IEA Net Zero by 2050 scenario, such as more gas and a different oil trajectory. A limitation of climate change to 1.7 degrees. You mentioned the important role your own model plays in your investment decisions. I was curious to know if it will also result in a review of your existing emissions reduction targets. Also if this model is reflected in the assumptions and estimates used in your financial statements, for example, when estimating the lives used in calculating asset retirement obligations. Finally, regarding the oil-related investment, should we deduct that it will also be for oil that 50% will go to maintenance and 50% to new development? Thank you very much. No, I think you will have to. We'll come back to you. We didn't say 1.7 degree. We presented yesterday what we call the Rupture scenario. Stating that this one well below 2 degree was 1.7, 1.8, and we made another, an alternative, which is called Rupture+, and this is the one which makes 1.5 degree, which is the one to be compared to the IEA Net Zero. You have to look to all what we said. We never said 1.7. We said different scenarios, 2.2, 2.4, 1.7, 1.8, and 1.5. That's the first point. Second, the role of oil investment and review of strategy investment. No, but I mean, again, you know, and we said it yesterday, but there is, yes, we disagree. There is one point where we do not understand, and I would like to know, by the way, how the IEA managed to reduce the demand for oil in 2030 to 70 million bbl per day, because this is their trajectory. We do not see, and if somebody can explain me where it comes from, I would be very happy to listen to it and maybe it will influence our strategy. What would be the technologies of the change of demand patterns which could lead to reduce this demand for oil by 30% in 10 years? I don't see it. The technology we may all mention is shifting ICE to EVs. This is 2035, not before. In our portfolio, in our scenario, we see a decrease for oil demand by around 10%, but not by 30%. If 10%, that means that we need to continue to invest selectively, like I said, selectively in some oil projects. We'll continue to make selective investments, which will allow us to be on the safe way, because in fact, the safe being to be low cost and lower emissions. That's the way we look at it. The value used in retirement expense, I think we have exchanged with you several paid litrers, but maybe Jean-Pierre wants to say something about it. Yes. We have just the scenario after the drop in prices in mid-2020. We have an increasing price to the plateau between 2025 and 2030, and afterwards, declining $15 by 2040. That's fully coherent with the vision we have regarding the oil demands over the next decades. This value has been adjusted last year. We'll not adjust it every year. By the way, what we made in our statements, if I remember very correctly, we give the sensitivity of a change of this long-term oil price on the potential asset value. Yeah. You know it's quite minimum. You have all the data. I think, and by the way, I know that the French stock market authorities have- Reviewed, yes. Made their five-year annual review of our financial statements, in particular on all these assumptions. If I understand correctly, the letter I received, they seem to be fine with what we have done, 30 page of exchanges. I mean, we are ready also to explain you what we do. The last one, I am not sure to have understood the question, to be honest, on the 50/50 maintenance growth. Yes, it's because in your presentation today, you mentioned 50% in growth and 50% in maintenance. I wonder if it also applies to oil. No. This isn't so. No. I said globally, the $13 billion-$ 15 billion are split. Oil, there is no growth. If there is no growth, it's mainly maintenance. The schematic was clear. What we call maintenance is maintaining. It's a company which will not grow anymore. We would keep the main company as it is. No ambition to grow our energy production, our energy supplies. We need $ 7 billion-$8 billion, $ 7 billion to maintain it as a plateau. That was the left part of the cake that I show you. The other part, I said clearly, the 50% grow is all for renewable electricity, all for natural gas. If we call it a new development, does it make a difference? I cannot answer to a question which is today not the reality. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from line of Oswald Clint from Bernstein. Please ask your question. Thank you very much, everyone. Great new data today, certainly across the new seven, new and old businesses. The good thing of the last year or so is we can use, or at least we can use the data to start to work out the free cash flows by business line and really do long-term discounted cash flow modeling and really to get to the value of the company, the value of the shares. The interesting thing when I do that is, I seem to be getting a -5% decline in terms of a terminal growth rate that's embedded into your share price, just thinking about cash flow growth beyond 2030. I'm assuming people trust you for the next five, six, seven years because you've, I mean, Total have been very good in terms of guiding, in terms of numbers. It's clear that, beyond this plan today, which is well laid out, that the market's still worried about some collapse in your free cash flow beyond that period. I just wanted to get your thoughts on that comment or maybe how you would start about convincing us that suddenly things don't untangle post-2030, please. Then secondly, a lot of really good data this morning on the electricity sales growing three-fold by 2030. I guess my question is here is in terms of a risk. Lots of capital into generation. We're recycling the capital. We're adding new generation. Everybody is. I wanted to ask about transmission, and my concern is it just can't cope or follow the same pace, especially considering things like permitting, et cetera. I wanted to get a sense of how critical transmission access is for you to physically deliver your electricity. Thank you. Thank you for your comment, Oswald. Positive comments. As always, you ask a question where we do not Honestly, to describe to you the future post-2050, what I would say to the investors is, I don't know why they worry, because again, when you look to the way we manage our transition, yes, on one side we definitely grow our renewable and electricity business. On the other side, when you look to the hydrocarbon price or the hydrocarbon, we continue, I would say, to offer a trajectory, which is growing on the LNG side. Stéphane mentioned different projects which are feeding the growth until 2030. In fact, there is more to come beyond. We have some positions like Russia, Mozambique, where we can continue. Moving on, there will be more projects to come with our partners. This part, I think I can At a certain point, planning post-20, 2030 becomes to be a little more an Excel file. In terms of assets, we continue to look for assets to feed this growth. On the oil side, there again, I repeat that we said that we have a peak in the decade. At the end, we are landing more or less to the point where we are today, a little lower. We will continue to look for opportunities like the one in Brazil, like one in Iraq. You will see Total active in some oil opportunities to feed the future portfolio for oil and gas. It's a matter again, on oil, we put some selectivity, and so then we have to be smarter than before to be able to identify the opportunities. I'm comfortable and Iraq has demonstrated, and we might participate to Brazil auctions if it fits again with our profitability or cost per barrel and our emissions targets. Question on the transmission, maybe I would leave the floor to Stéphane on the transmission part. On the transmission part, it's a really valid question, and it's something that on each investment we are doing on renewable, we look closely at. The situation is really varying depending on the country where you invest. I would say that in Europe, globally, it's less of a concern. It can be in some region in the U.S. where you have development and where you definitely need to invest on the transmission yourself if you want that to happen. It's some region of the U.S., not all the region of the U.S. It's a key question. If I look at the Iraqi subject, where we are going to develop 1 GW, that's clearly something that we look at seriously. What I would say is that, with the growth we plan, I don't see that as a limiting factor for the time being over the next five to 10 years, apart from some very specific location. After, we will see. There is another way to answer the question, is that if you develop at the same time solar and wind, and if you increase, like we look at in every project, the battery capacity as well, that's a way as well to answer part of the problem. I think the question you asked, Oswald, just a general comment, is a valid question, but more globally for all of us. I know that some of our colleagues in the utility are advocating the fact that at a certain point, we will not be able to grow all the renewables at a scale that some, Fit for 55 is planning because we could face a real difficulty of transmission system. From this perspective, I would say it will be the same for all the competitors in Europe. It might be, I would say, a global issue. Is it an issue for us as TotalEnergies? It's something on which we need to take care. Again, it depends on geographies. I think it's very different. The fact that we are looking the way we want to develop and grow in this field, looking to a global footprint give us different opportunities. There is not one answer, but I know that the situation in India, for example, there are today some discussions about underground transmission lines, et cetera, which could again, but it will be the same for all competitors. I think to build the 3,000 GW extra capacity we need in the next 10 years, probably we will face obstacles after obstacle globally. TotalEnergies has no reason to be penalized from this point of view. Okay. Thank you. The next question comes from line of Lydia Rainforth from Barclays. Please ask your question. Thanks, good afternoon. I do like the colors. Two questions if I could, please. The first one on renewables and the returns there. It does look like the bottom end of that return range has fallen to 4% - 6%, I think from 5%- 6% before. Yet the cash flow numbers and the net income numbers are actually, if anything, slightly higher. I'm just wondering if you can talk us through that. The second part was on the carbon offsets, and the idea of, basically, if I look at it, Nature Based Solutions, you're spending $100 million a year. By 2030, you're expecting that to be, I think, more than 5 million tons per year. Equally, on the carbon capture side, it's again $100 million a year, but with 5 million tons of CO2 captured per year by 2030. I'm just surprised that those two amounts are pretty much exactly the same. Are you not seeing a difference in the pricing between CCS and the nature-based solutions side? Thanks. The second question. It's really separated. There is $100 million for NBS, and you have an amount, which today might under $100 million for CCS. It's $ 100 +$ 100. Two different topics. Knowing that, by the way, the objective is not the same. When we develop carbon storages, it might be for us, it might be for others, for some customers. We develop a capacity of carbon storage in Norway, in Aramis, in the U.K. Some of it will be used by Bernard maybe to take his CO2 out of his H2 production, and for decarbonizing our refineries. Some of it might be available as a business offered to our customers. We could imagine that when we say that we want to go hand in hand with customers, some of them, steel manufacturers, will ask us, "Okay, do you have some capacities?" It's why we do not integrate the 5 million tons of carbon storage in the way when we speak about Scope 1 and 2, we do not integrate that. It's something additional. It's another business. Again, part for us, part for others. The NBS, on the contrary, is clearly for us only. We will not share that. It's purely dedicated to offset Scope 1 and 2 emission. We do not intend to use these carbon credits, high standard carbon credits, for customers. This is where the people made a mix there with, I would say, voluntary carbon markets, which is another different topic. I hope I clarified this question. The first one, no, I think you remarked that we put an 8% on the regulated markets and we put also 15% on the other one. You know, and we said the average is above 10. There is no change in the other 10. Why do we have, I'm not sure we have much higher cash flow numbers. Cash flow numbers, again, today, I'm more certain about it with Stéphane Michel, because as I said during the presentation, the 35 GW of projects are, I would say, firmed up to 80% or 90% today. We know what we have put behind. In the meantime, we have invested in Adani Green. We have the figures. We know what we are able to deliver. We have the model. To be clear, honest, and frank with you, Lydia, I think these figures, if we have been so able to speak about EBITDA, net result, cash flow, is because we have a global confidence in the different projects and the model that the teams are proposing it, we have been able. Consider that what we proposed to you as cash flow numbers on renewables and electricity are correct. Thank you for the colors. Thank you. The next question comes from line of Alastair Syme from Citi. Please ask your question. Thank you, thank you for the presentation. Couple of questions. Slide 70. Apologies, what you said on the interpretation of 2025 and 2026. Is all the move in cash flow related to Mozambique? I thought you then said that Mozambique was only $500 million of cash flow in 2026. Apologies if I got that wrong. Secondly, was wondering why you are choosing to do partnerships in renewables. I know partnerships have been a big feature of the oil business for years as a de-risking tool. Why follow the same model in renewables where the risk profile is a bit different? I understand where they might come about, where you're sort of farming into projects. Many of your bids in, say, the U.K. and France have had the partners included at a grassroots level, including some private equity players. Just interested in perspective on that, please. Thank you. Okay. First question. No, I think, just to clarify. I just told you that the 2026 figures and bar that you have on slide 70 or 71, by the way, I think. 71. Includes Mozambique LNG startup, beginning of the year. Includes $500 million of cash flow from Mozambique LNG. The +5 includes this $ 500. If Mozambique LNG, and this suppose that we are able to remobilize people next year, 2020 to 2022, beginning next year. We will see. There are some positive evolutions on the ground, but it has to be consolidated. There is a war. What we will not do on Mozambique is remobilizing to remobilize. That is clear. If we are not able to remobilize beginning next year, then the delay on Mozambique LNG, this $500 million, could go to 2027. I wanted just to make a warning so that things are clear between us. Again, the conclusion, $ 4.5 billion or $ 5 billion does not change the profile of the cash flow growth profile. There may be a delay. That's the other point. The second question is related, I think, to offshore wind, if I understand, because this is where we put some partnerships. I think, yes and no it is true, because you know when you bid to acquire seabed rights in the U.K. or tomorrow in the U.S., that's not for free, I will tell you. This model where you first bid for seabed rights, then you will go to find the electricity price for PPAs, there is a risk. I think sharing this risk with another company, I'm comfortable. I prefer, honestly, I understand what you said, maybe it's better to farm down later. There is another reason, to be honest also with you. We are late in this business, in offshore wind, what we have observed, not true for floating offshore, because it's still early stage. In the fixed bottom competition, you have some players like Macquarie, I must recognize. It's why we have partnered with them. We made, by the way, an interesting partnership with Macquarie, who went together in the U.K. and Scotland, and they come because they were interested for our floating expertise to develop that in Korea with them. It was a win-win. We must recognize that it's also true that some players who have spent two, three, four years to accumulate data on some specific locations are well better positioned to bid, rather than when you come late and you don't have the same capacity. That's why we are looking for partners to be able to cope with the fact that we were late in this business on certain geographies. That's the reason why. Maybe Stéphane wants to add something on this one. No? No. In addition to what you say, Patrick, I think that, especially in offshore wind, that sea warming remain an industrial project with some risk on which it's good to be able to have partner as well to get the most experience to mitigate them. Patrick, can I come back to the first question? I still don't quite understand why the bar in 2026 seems to move up more than $500 million. Is there something else that's in there between the two years? Understand the question. No. Between 2025 and 2026, no, you have other projects coming in 2026. You don't have only Mozambique, in fact. In 2026, you have Ratawi. If you look to the presentation today, you have also a project in Angola, which is Block 20, 21. You have, in fact, there is an increase between 2025 and 2026, which is, yes, the delay of Mozambique from 2025 to 2026 compared to last year, but new projects which have been introduced in 2026. Last year, we're only looking to 2025, so you didn't have any data, which is in particular Iraq and again, a project in Angola that we have acquired, an offshore project, Block 20, 21. On which, by the way, we have made a positive appraisal this year. We'll move on. In fact, these are the reasons why you have an increase. Additional projects as well. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Biraj Borkhataria from RBC. Please ask your question. Hi, thanks for taking my question. A quick question on the upstream. You highlighted some of the short cycle optionality, and one of the slides said you reactivated 6 rigs or plan to reactivate 6 rigs. Could you talk about where you're increasing activity? Any details around the production impact or payback periods of those investments? I know you don't plan on $80 oil, but given you say a sort of $4 per BOE capital intensity of short cycle project, is there anything more you can do there? The second question, just a very quick clarification. Did you buy back any shares in Q3 at all? Thank you. A good question. I think I answered because I told you I gave instruction for Q4. That means there was nothing in Q3. No disciplines. By the way, I think Jean-Pierre cannot buy before we are entering into a shadow period. We cannot buy today. Nothing has been done in Q3. We keep all that for Q4. Nicolas, the countries where you want to reactivate your rigs, I suppose there is Angola, what else? Yes, we had Typically in Angola, we went back to 2 rigs. We went from 3 to 0 rigs and back to 2 rigs. Same in Nigeria. We have 2 rigs working. We just completed some infill drilling on the OML 130. A totally different example, for instance, Barnett, we are considering remobilizing a rig. Basically, pretty much in the locations where we have the short cycles available. No, just to complement that, Biraj, I think we are still under COVID in certain countries. We have also, yes, we can remobilize from a pure, I would say, economic analysis. We have also at the management level in mind that all teams in some geographies are still under, I would say, sanitary constraints. We are permanently monitoring that with the MDs of the subsidiary to ask them, are you sure you can really take into account on board additional rigs without jeopardizing the safety? I think it's why we monitor. Again, we are right. We have identified these short cycles. If we see the oil price being maintained, we will continue to activate that. It's a matter of remobilizing. Like I think Nicolas explained, it's easier to demobilize than to remobilize, like always in this type of case. We clearly think, so we give some signals to our teams that they can think today to remobilize, and they are doing it. It takes a little time in the COVID environment. Understood. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from line of Irene Himona from Societe Generale. Please ask your question. Good afternoon. I had two questions, please. Firstly, a question on the OneTech people organization. I realize it's early days yet, but can you perhaps talk a little bit about some of the obstacles, perhaps, to completely retraining what are very skilled personnel's area of expertise and to successfully changing those? Secondly, a question on two of the seven areas, hydrogen and biofuels. If you can share with us some of the risks in those areas, in particular, green hydrogen. How do you see the technical risks to scaling up and to making it cost competitive? On biofuels, any concerns you have perhaps on risks to feedstock availability needed to meet the regulated levels? Thank you. Okay. Namita. First one, OneTech. I think that Bernard can take the biofuel. As far as retraining professionals is concerned, one of the words that you used, Irene, was completely retraining, and I think that that's something that I wouldn't use the word completely retraining. I think we have a couple of things going on. We are in the process of identifying a number of skills that we know that can be used in other businesses, and that was the purpose a little bit of my third slide. In the trajectory that has been shown by my colleagues, we're not reducing our activities in oil and gas. There is still a significant amount of work for the colleagues who have those kinds of skills. As far as our new businesses are concerned, what we have also looked at is selectively recruiting where we know that we need either to go fast and we will not be able to reskill immediately or where we don't have those competencies at all. Our plan in terms of reskilling and upskilling is to use the time that we have in terms of the trajectory of the businesses to identify gradually what we need to do, and to develop that over the next five-year period, to make sure that we give the right opportunities for reskilling. I'd say the biggest obstacle today is really to show our employees that the skills that they have are actually, for a large part, quite easily transferable into a large part of our new businesses. The fact of keeping people together and keeping them informed and exposing them to new businesses gives them a great deal of confidence that they have the wherewithal to transfer their skills to some of our new businesses. I think honestly, behind OneTech, there is another idea, which is that as renewables and electricity business was growing, we had a choice either to create a new, I would say, manufacturing division within GRP or not to do that, but to propose to integrate, to use part of the competencies to grow it gradually, I would say. There are a lot of synergies in process, technologies and all these guys. It's easy to use them immediately without reskilling them. Of course, when it will come to geologists one day, we still need, we know we have some reservoirs to manage. We continue to explore. We need people. Having said that, it's also true, you probably know that we have proposed to some of our colleagues, we have made what we thought a voluntary redundancy plan, where 1,100 people have elected. It's clear that there are some parts of the company, like geology, where we don't think we'll recruit a lot because we prefer to adapt itself. Again, your question is right, but it's not so massive because this is the interest for me to preempt, to begin early stage so that we can adapt gradually and prepare the future, not to be in the war and suddenly to say we have a big problem. It's not the way, it's not in the DNA of TotalEnergies, I would say. To prefer to make it gradually and to anticipate and to put on board the people. Biofuels, obstacle to feedstock for biofuels. That's a good question, Bernard. There is, of course, more and more debate about the so-called first generation feedstock, which competes for the food application. The market clearly is moving more and more towards waste and residue, which are used cooking oil or animal fat. That's the type of resources everybody's looking for. There is a competition for that type of feedstock, it's clear. The way you mitigate the risk is, of course, to be as flexible as possible to be able to process as many types of waste and residues as possible. This is what we are in the process of doing, because we learn as we entered the market a couple of years ago. We also leverage our trading arm, who is able to source more and more alternative feedstock. It's true that there is a competition for waste and residues. As we said yesterday, if you remember, we see biofuels more as an intermediary step between oil and tomorrow, synthetic fuels. Synthetic fuels is more towards the new 2030. By the way, you saw that in Fit for 55 package, the European Commission has set a sub-mandate for e-fuels, 0.7% out of my head, starting in 2030. There will be, I would say, first step to close this gap that will be around biofuels and waste and residues, and then we will come to the e-fuels. Your question is good, Irene. I think there is a limitation somewhere, and that we'll see. The policymakers may be very, in particular, in contradiction in Europe between no 1G and increasing targets for biofuels because there is question of waste and residues. The 2G, as you know, the 2G technologies for the time being are quite immature, in fact. That's why maybe e-fuels. Hydrogen complexity, I think there is a lot of thing to say. The most complex part is that it's expensive. That's clear. Hydrogen is a matter of being able to combine, on one side, a very low-cost source of energy, electricity. It's a matter of optimizing your wind and solar production or your nuclear production when you are in France. Plus then you have the electrolyzer farm, I would say. Stéphane, do you have any hints that you want to say, some specific points on the technical risk? The question for me will be, if we want to scale down the cost, we need to find the customers which will be able to scale up the project in order to make mass production. Stéphane? No, as you mentioned, Patrick, the first thing is that you have to scale up the electrolyzer capacity, because today you are talking about tens of megawatts and a simple project as the one we plan on refining to supply green hydrogen for refining, you are talking 200 MW. That's one order of magnitude. If you really want to be at scale, you will need to multiply that by 10. First, a challenge on electrolyzer. Second, as you say, a challenge on integration between renewable on one side and electrolyzer on the other side. You have to work on the good fit because on one side you have something intermittent, and on the other side, you want your electrolyzer to produce 100% of the time. The last question will be, if you end up with land constraint, notably in Europe, that means that green hydrogen will have to come from abroad and be produced elsewhere. Then you have to work on the logistic cost and chain. That's a lot of challenge to be addressed to imagine a full hydrogen industry at scale. Thank you very much. Okay. Next question. Thank you. The next question comes through line of Martijn Rats from Morgan Stanley. Please ask your question. Yeah. Hi. Hello. Can I first just say that I feel like you've presented a pretty broad set of plans. You covered all the ground and given us a lot of complexity to digest. It's been pretty comprehensive. I wanted to ask you two things. First of all, it seems to me that expanding into the renewables to biofuels to hydrogen, everything you talked about, is mostly a matter of project management, perhaps less about technology and innovation. I still wanted to ask the question, to do all of the things that you talked about today, does TotalEnergies have all the technologies in-house or is there still a piece of innovation to be done and parts of the puzzle to be filled in from that perspective? Secondly, I wanted to ask somewhat of an old school question about the upstream, but I was wondering if you can give us an update on Suriname and the pace of development that we could expect there. Also, how Suriname fits into the plan that you presented today. Suriname, I think we are appraising. As you've. We have, honestly, to be transparent, I have to be because we have made 5 discoveries, I think. For the time being, the appraisal of the discovery is a little challenging. That means that in fact, as you know, we are finding a lot of hydrocarbons. We are looking to develop quickly a pool of oil and without too much gas, because we will not flare the gas, obviously. That does not fit at all. Flaring gas is not possible, I think neither for TotalEnergies nor for Apache. That means that if we have to tackle the gas, it makes development more complex because you have to find an outlet for gas. Suriname, Guyana are not big markets. At this stage, we continue. We still have a lot of things to drill. We have at least two or three very good exploration targets, and we continue to appraise in parallel. One rig is exploring, one rig is appraising. For the time being, the pool of oil that we are looking to launch, I would say a quick development is not identified, even if there are two important appraisal wells to come. Second, on the first one, which was about project. You're right. Of course, it's a lot of project management. Hydrogen, I don't see a lot. For me, a big massive hydrogen plant is not so different from a big LNG plant, in fact. Fundamentally, there are some pieces of innovation which we do not manage. Like Stéphane said, H2 tanker, I think there is a lot of things to be done if you want to look, because the temperature of liquefaction is much lower than LNG. You have clearly some innovation to be done. Project management is important. I just would like to clarify. We have a very clear plan on renewable solar and wind. We have open other chapters, biogas, biofuels. Biofuels, I think we see a strong synergy between converting the refining plants and growing this business. It's a way to adapt, to convert. Biogas is new to us, we have acquired some assets. We look at it, and we'll see. It does not mean that everything will go in the conglomerate at the same pace. I consider that we have a clear vision of what we want to do in, for example, renewable power. I'm not too clear today about the size of the business we will develop in biogas or tomorrow in hydrogen. Hydrogen today, we are clear, again, like we said, about greening or decarbonizing the refining hydrogen, but it's small quantities. On massive scale project, I think the idea we have is to identify one or two big large pilot projects, one blue hydrogen, one green hydrogen, in order to be involved and then to learn and then to see what are the obstacles. A lot of people are thinking to that a little theoretically. My view or my experience is that let's embark and let's find the conditions, and we have some ideas. Maybe we'll come back to you sooner than later. When we will have some, I would say, clear ideas on some projects with figures, we will come back to you to answer your questions. Don't consider we'll do everything. On hydrogen, obviously, we'll have to find some experts in running electrolyzers. It's not so complex to find. There are plenty of nice companies to deliver that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from line of Christopher Kuplent from Bank of America. Please ask your question. Thank you very much for the presentation and for taking my questions. I have three, and I promise they'll be quick. The first one, I just wonder, Patrick, whether you could talk about the dividend payout policy. You've rebranded the company, and yet your excess free cash flow is paid out linked to Brent. We all appreciate that Brent is still an important cash flow driver, but I wonder whether you thought there may be another payout ratio concept that you might include going forward to make it a bit more straightforward. Second question on the return on equity that you've highlighted has gone up, but I haven't noticed your cash flow outlook going up at the same time for 2025. Can you maybe explain to us what's happening to this denominator? Is your return on equity growing because of the numerator or because of denominator shrinking faster, thanks to your buybacks and higher expected payout levels? My third question, really just a confirmation. I know your CapEx budget is always including a net of inorganics. Do you think that will be a wash, or do you plan for these inorganics to always be positive even after disposal proceeds? Thank you. The last question, I have the answer. It's - 1, I think, no? We intend to sell a little more than what we divest, than what we acquire. There is a plus and minus. It's a little negative, so it's a wash in your language, I think. Again, it's part also of, I would say, the trajectory that we have on some assets as it was mentioned in the oil assets. Downstream, mainly. The second question, I'll leave it to Jean-Pierre. Are we going up? It's going to be in line with the growing net income, of course, because the denominator will remain more or less the same. You have the explanation. The dividend payout policy, I did not understand at all the question because I don't think we have never expressed a policy in terms of dividend linked to Brent. Since I am CEO, I'm even sure I never expressed it. I'm not sure. The only thing we have done for the first time is to express the buyback as a level, the amount of buyback, the sharing of surplus revenues beyond $60 a barrel. It's because we consider that this upside is more linked, for sure, to hydrocarbon business, where we have some upside rather than to the other businesses. I know where you want me to go with expressing shareholder return payout policy and percentage of, I don't know, if cash flows or results. We didn't, but it's not linked to Brent, so it's not the way we manage it. That's all what I can tell you. Okay. Thank you, Patrick. Jean-Pierre, just a quick confirmation. your net income expectations have gone up, but your cash flow expectations into 2025 have largely remained t he same compared to last year. Yeah? Cash conversion is going down from net income to cash flow. Increase in CFFO. Yeah. You have more or less the same trend regarding CFFO and net income. Chris, I suggest, Chris, that you will call Ladislas and his team, and they will answer more specifically to your question. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Lucas Herrmann from Exane. Please ask your question. Thanks very much. Patrick, thanks again for a very thorough presentation. A couple, if I might, on gas. Firstly, you've given us an indication of the sensitivity of the overall portfolio to changes in gas prices. You've used $5 and $6.5. If I look at the forward curve for either NBP or JKM today, and I appreciate it's a forward curve, but let's just say we use that, current price is around $18 or sort of $13 higher than the assumptions you make. If I apply that to your sensitivity, it would say that, cash flow next year would be broadly $7 billion higher than the numbers that you've guided us towards historic or towards in this presentation and before. Why is that calculation not going to work, leaving aside abstract comments? Secondly, just staying with gas, do you want to talk at all about markets, what you're seeing, particularly given the robust view you've got on LNG growth, which is, I would say, pretty hard to reconcile with prices standing where they are today. Just your thoughts on the gas market more globally, Patrick, and how you see things developing. Thanks very much. I don't understand your math because I think we gave a sensitivity around $250 million, $300 million per million BTU. If I'm correct, I'm sure. Times 13, it would be $3 billion, not $7 billion. I don't know where the $7 billion is coming from. By the way, it's a little more complex than that, Stéphane can explain you. In fact, when you manage a gas portfolio, you are hedging part of it, Stéphane, can you explain it, please? Yeah, as I mentioned in the sensitivity, you had two packages. You had the one that was linked to the production asset and which is increasing with the sensitivity mentioned and which will be linked to the price next year. Then you have the trading portfolio aspect, which is hedge forward. It's clear that if you want to see the sensitivity, that means that all the forward curve has to move in parallel with the spot price, which we see in the current market is not the case because the spot price is much higher than the forward curve. That's one. Then you will materialize that sensitivity when you are going to roll over your hedge. To be clear and to clarify for everybody, because part of the sensitivity is linked purely to the production, either for Norway, U.K., the fact that we have some pipe gas which is sold at index price. Obviously this production is following the curve. Okay? We have also part of a LNG portfolio, which is a minor part. It is something like 10%, 15% of our LNG sales, which are linked to this index. That represents half of the sensitivity. It is a $250 million mentioned, $ 300 million, $250 million this year and next year. It is increasing a little because as we are developing the LNG portfolio in the future, this part will increase. That is the dynamic. There is another part, which is the one which is mentioned by Stéphane, which is not only for linked an absolute value of the increase, it's more the relative value between Henry Hub, the Asia and Europe. That's a game on which because we have different positions, we in fact we are short Henry Hub and longer on the other one, we can make some optimization, if I understood correctly. That's why your math does not apply, you cannot just multiply like that because you have some time effect and some hedging effects. The second one, growth in the global market. Two comments. First, what I observe is that for the last seven years now in a row, we have more than 10% growth. Even last year, by the way, when the crisis was there, we had a growth. It was not 10%, but it was not far, by the way. 8%, I think. We had strong growth. I know that everybody tried to plan, even my economist and my market analyst, they told me, "Oh, it's 4%-5% for the future." This time we wrote 5%-7% because we are always behind, and I think it's on one of the issue. Of course, we have some key countries in front of us. One of them is obviously China. I was looking carefully, by the way, to the demand which has been announced by Sinopec, CNPC, the increase of Chinese demand for the next 20 years. They plan an average of 3.5% per year on 20 years. Domestic production for the time being does not grow a lot. You see that. Of course, there is a risk that this could be honestly damaged with high prices. As a strong LNG player, I'm afraid I'm not very happy with what is happening, because when you discuss, and we are investing in India, for example, in LNG. Obviously, you don't have a market in India for $15 or $20 LNG. That could even damage the confidence of people to invest for using LNG. I think to Pakistan. By the way, these are the first countries which reacted very quickly. Beyond China, we need to look to where the growth for LNG will come from. These are the countries. These countries, obviously, will require probably, and I can think that the discussion with customers in these countries might become more complex. Like, for example, the customers in the bunkering fuel. When people came to shift from fuel oil to LNG and suddenly you see the price going up, that could damage with, I would say, emerging demand. That's an element which we'll have to observe. By the way, I would like to make another comment, Lucas. If you looked carefully to the slides we were providing to you in 2018, 2019, we were announcing in all slides, you can look at it, all the market was above too much supply by 2025, and we were putting a slide each year where we are showing that maybe there will be too much in 2025, but not enough in 2022, 2023. There is no surprise to me in what is happening today, unfortunately. I mean, 2021 is one year earlier than expected by us because of the hike of the demand. I think it's easy, in fact, to look. 2025, you know, is no more 2025 because the COVID last year postponed some of the projects, so it's more 2026, 2027. The reality is that as we, and the more I observe the market, LNG is benefiting, and natural gas is one of the energy transition. At the end, even in Europe, look. We need to explain that. I'm looking to some comments in newspapers by policymakers. We are quite astonishing. They do not understand why the price in electricity in Europe is going up. It's just because when you have less wind and less renewables, you need to activate some, what we call pilotable- Manageable. Manageable source of electricity, which are gas-fired power plants. These ones, obviously, the market price will go to the marginal cost of producing electricity. Yes, it's true that today the electricity in Europe is driven by the gas-fired power plant, because we have to activate it and you have the gas price plus the CO2 price. It increase the cost of electricity. That point on energy growth. My view is that, yes, there is a robust growth, but let's be careful, it could be damaged if price remain high. Thank you, Patrick. Thank you. The next question comes from line of Bertrand Hodée from Kepler Cheuvreux. Please ask your question. Yes. Thank you for the very detailed presentation and some quite inspiring topic, especially on the just transition. I have two question, if I may. One on natural gas sensitivity, coming back on Lucas' question, and the second one on shareholder return. On natural gas sensitivity, so I clearly understand the upstream part, it's $ 250 million-$ 300 million. As for the JKM part or, I would say, your spot LNG exposure, in a way, we are unable to know your position of hedging in advance. My question is very simple. I have $7 next year in NBP and $ 7.- something in JKM or a bit more. If I were to rise by $10 MBtu next year assumption, ballpark is +$ 3 billion, okay? It's not +$ 6 billion, because we have no idea of your trading position, except if you have 100%, I would say, of your excess supply contracted that would be exposed to spot. That is my very good friend. The second question is, the buyback rules that you set for 2021 was, in my view, very clever. How should we understand 2022? I know you don't want to commit on dividends, and this I understand. Is that buyback rule of 40% of excess cash flow at $60, which is a comfortable environment for TotalEnergies, could be applied again in 2022? Thank you. The second question is easy. The answer is yes. I don't think the cash allocation table is not dated. We put the rule and we just said Q4 2021 is $1.5 billion. Second question, the answer is yes, we intend to continue, and if we face this type of environment, I think we think no more, but we share the surplus with our shareholders. I think they have been patient. It's part of the model, so I have no problem. Answer is that. On the dividend, I just told you that if cash flow is growing, dividend will be supported. That's all. It will be supported by cash flow growth, long-term cash flow growth. The dividend will not follow, let's be clear. It's not because you have $70 that suddenly the dividend will be high. What we will analyze, like we've done this year, what is the cash flow which is linked to $50-$60 environment, because we have higher growth, production, because we have new projects coming on stream. You have an increase of the underlying cash flow growth, and this one will be reflected in the dividend. I think we gave you many indications today, and then up to you to guess. Then up to the board, by the way, to decide. You know, in the same way that last year, the board of TotalEnergies did not overreact in the second quarter and third quarter. I think today it will not overreact, obviously, by announcing a new policy just because we look to the screen, we see $80 per barrel. I think the message is very clear. We are on a trajectory that we will continue to increase the sustainable long-term cash flow, and that will be translated in the growth of our dividend in future years. Buyback, you have the rule which has been proposed. Net gas sensitivity. If you have $7, you multiply $7 by 250 and you have the answer. You have $10. You want to have $10. Instead of $7, so difference of $3. $3 by 3 by 300, it makes more or less $1 billion. My question was- The question was? Should we be conservative enough to just apply your sensitivity given on NBP, which is very straightforward. It's based on your upstream gas production. As for the sensitivity on JKM that you've provided as well, this is more, I would say, a question mark, because we don't know your hedging position and your real spot or exposure, even if we know that your spot LNG exposure is growing. On paper, you should benefit from that. It's difficult to model in terms of timing. Take the surplus and guess that it's positive. Let me be clear. Today, we gave you everything. Again, from the assets, either the pipe gas in Europe plus the share of the LNG which is linked to index with sensitivity, take if you want 300. Some people will need 278 or no, just to figure it, nothing. Let's take 300, okay? You have it. Then you will have some extra revenues coming from this capacity to arbitrage. To obtain a figure for my traders, I can tell you, I will send you in Geneva, and you are better than me. What I can tell you, they prefer to. Again, it's clear that this type of environment, as Stéphane explained to you, is quite positive. I can tell you that you will see in the third quarter results already some positive impacts, not on the asset side, because the asset side is quite clear, and we gave you some hints. But on the trading side, I think that Gas, Renewables & Power results for Q3 will be above the historic records that we have observed before. I'm sure about it. It's just now a challenge for Stéphane and for the traders. Many thanks, Patrick. Many thanks. Thank you. The next question comes to line of Paul Cheng from Scotiabank. Please ask your question. Thank you. Good afternoon. Two quick question and then a request. The first question, Patrick, have you and the board ever consider using variable dividend instead of buyback as the alternative vehicle to distribute the excess cash, given over the past 12, 18 months in the U.S., a lot of investor has been warming up to the variable dividend. Want to see that, whether you guys think it may fit into Total's model. Secondly, you have indicate that by 2030, you're going to reduce your refining capacity to match the oil production. Do you have a percentage that how much of that extra capacity that you're going to reduce is going to be converted into biorefinery? What percentage is going to be shut down? What percentage is for divestment? The request. Given you're going to spend about $3 billion a year in the renewable electricity business, and you also give in your presentation a very clear financial objective by 2030, have the management considered to break out the renewable and electricity as a standalone segment to be report? By doing so, I think that will substantially increase the probability Total will be able to get credit for that operation, because that the people can actually see quarter in, quarter out, what is the result? Thank you. The last question, I understand it. I think every quarter, we disclose a lot of figures. At this stage, same management, I prefer to keep it as it is. I take the question. I'm not sure. We will not wait 2025 to make what you want. It's a matter of growing. I want that to be sizable enough and stable enough. Honestly, we are giving a lot of data quarter-over-quarter. People who want to evaluate the value of this portfolio have a lot of information. Today is premature. We keep that in mind. The first question, no. Honestly, all that is very fashionable on the other side of the Atlantic. Sometimes buyback, sometimes variable dividends. In Europe, we are a little late to think to that. No, honestly, we never consider that as a way. I don't see a big difference. Honestly, no, I see a difference. From a pure company point of view, with the level of the share today, buyback is more efficient. From our point of view, the share is quite cheap, it's better to make buyback today. The second question, we cannot enter into all these details. The model, which is to, how we said, to transform some refineries and biorefineries works well, as we answer to Irene, it's a matter of finding the feedstocks and the markets, I would say. No? Bernard? The model we have followed so far has been to convert, not to shut down, because it's part also of our social responsibility to reposition the assets we have towards new markets. It's more converting than shutting down. After, as we said, on the slide we showed on page 38, the figures were 2019, and in the meantime, we have also be active on the Grandpuits and Lindsey, which are an additional 12,000 bbl a day. We are moving into the right direction from that standpoint. It's more converting than just shutting down and with no repositioning for our people and the assets. All right. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from line of James Hubbard from Deutsche Bank. Please ask the question. Hi. Thank you. Just one question. That's easy. I listened in yesterday, of course. The Momentum scenario makes perfect sense to me, and it clearly drives your strategy. You can draw a line from the conclusions of that to today's presentation. In my view, it's probably right. It's probably, at this point in time, the most pragmatic view to take given the NDCs we have and the laws as they are around the world, especially Europe and the U.S. Things change. In case lawmakers do get their act together in the coming few years and enact regulations that cause something close to your Rupture scenario, or even, maybe not net zero 2050, maybe that's out of reach, but something between Rupture and net zero 2050. It seems to me the downsides for a large oil company talking about 2.4 degrees C and flat oil production for another nine years are significant. I'm not thinking about stranded assets. I'm thinking about from society and from investors. I'm wondering, to what extent, as you prepared this strategy, did you contemplate when it comes to oil production, at least, thinking about some scenario towards Rupture rather than Momentum, and hence talking about an explicit, targeted decline in oil production by the end of the decade rather than this flat scenario you've come up with? Thank you. First, the question will be, in case you have an acceleration to Rupture, again, at which pace? We are not Saudi Arabia. I would love to be, but we are not. It's a question, we don't have very long reserves in front of us. The average duration of the reserves of Total is 20 years. This is the answer. I have 20 years in front of me. I don't have 40 years. Even when we invest in projects, by 2040, it will decline easily. The second answer is that, again, we are very strict on the way we invest in oil is with low cost barrels. What it means is that what I'm sure is that you will continue to use oil. If your portfolio is positioned on low cost producer, I think there was an important figure, which is this $5 per barrel of OpEx, on which we are keen to maintain, and the way we invest less than $20 per barrel. That means that the portfolio of oil we have will remain, I would say, producible and not stranded. I think the strategy, the way we manage the oil investments is some people will tell us, "You don't invest enough. In case you have more demand, then you will not benefit of it." On the other case, if you have an acceleration of the lower demand, we could be stranded. My view is that we try, and that's the most complex part of the equation we have, to find the right balance between continuing to serve our customers and on the other side, preparing various options. What is true is that when we make some choices in the downstream to reduce the footprint and not to benefit from potentially some markets because we decide not to expand as we were planning before, then we lose some opportunities. In terms of value, it's not the same amount of money. I'm not afraid with the way we pilot the choice in the new investments, but Rupture would happen contrary to if not Momentum. We did not express a choice. We just wanted through the presentation to show. By the way, Momentum even to happen, everybody has to be sure that they will execute, and this is. I think our strategy on oil is resilient to both scenarios, again, because as long as we stay stringent on the way we select the oil projects. Okay. Could I ask a follow-up, please? Yes. Go. Move on. Yes, sorry. I guess putting it another way, if the market derates oil production to, say, three times forward earnings at some point in the next few years, would you consider what oil production you actually want in your mix in that scenario and maybe accelerate oil sales in that case? No. Okay, thank you. Thank you. The final question comes from line of Jason Gabelman from Cowen. Please ask your question. Yeah. Hey, thanks for all the materials today. It's very helpful. I wanted to ask one question on the E&P business and one on renewables. On E&P, if I go to, I think it's slide five or six, one of the first slides, it does look like production's moving modestly higher from slide six. It looks like production's moving modestly higher from 2019 to 2025. I would imagine the production that's coming online is higher margin because it's lower cost versus the legacy production that's facing natural decline. I was anticipating some of the cash flow growth from now to 2025 would be from that E&P business, but that doesn't seem to be the case, and I'm wondering if I'm misinterpreting something or if you're layering in some divestments or if something else is going on. The second question on the renewable power business. In February, you provided some detail on the trends in your PPA contracts. It showed pressure in those prices, as would be expected, just given all the investments, declining values in those PPAs. Can you just update us on where those PPA contracts have trended since then? If they're still moving lower, how do you reconcile that with the increase in cash flow guidance for that business, despite keeping the power generation outlook flat? Thanks. The PPA prices were declining because the costs are declining. What you have in our portfolio, you have historic PPAs because we inherited from Quadran and others when we acquired these companies from historic PPAs. At that time, the cost of the project was also much higher. The question is not absolute PPA price, it's the margin, the difference between the PPA price and your cost of the projects. From this perspective, these elements will be updated. I don't know if we do that every quarter or every year. We do it every quarter. I think to answer to your question, Jason, I think Bertrand and Ladislas and his team will send you the figures because it's updated regularly. We have nothing to hide. We think it's good for the market. Honestly, there is no inconsistency and the trend, we did not see an acceleration of the decrease of PPAs. You know today, in fact, the reality in the renewable market, you have an inflation. I will be interested to observe what will be the impact of the inflation on the future PPAs, at which level people will bid. It might go in the reverse way. Through E&P. As I said, among the $5 billion, I mentioned there was $1 billion coming from E&P. It's also true that I said, I answered to a question, that we are acquiring, we are divesting, part of it will come from E&P. It's clear. We will continue to high grade, I would say, or to be selective in the portfolio in line with the strategy. You have a natural decline from some oil fields. You will have also some divestments which will be done. At the end of the day, part of the increase is coming from E&P, around $1 billion. Part of the increase coming from new projects, yes, you are right, the $3 billion is erased because you have to fight to get around against natural decline. We have also plan in the way we think that we might divest some assets. Got it. Thanks. I understand this is the last question. Yes, it was. It was the final question for today. Thank you very much to all of you. Thank you for your attendance. It was a long session. I know that the presentation was quite exhaustive, but I think it was also the opportunity for us to continue to explain what TotalEnergies wants to become. I think I didn't have many questions on the sustainability part, but I'm sure it will feed a lot of the discussion we will have in the coming weeks with investors as we will go around. Thank you again for your attendance. Thank you for the quality of the questions. Again, thank you to all the team for having put all that together. Thank you to my colleagues of the Executive Committee for their presentation today. I hope to see all of you very soon. Thank you. Goodbye.