Good morning, everybody. Welcome to TotalEnergies Strategy and Outlook. We are delighted to get you today after two years in virtual. We have prepared a very exciting program. I mean, first of all, we have an app that you need to download and invite you to download on your mobile phone, where you will get all the information needed for the day, the program, the presentations, the table where you will be seated for lunch and dinner. Please download it. We have prepared an agenda for today, which we hope will be very exciting. We'll start with our traditional, I would say, strategy and outlook presentation by Patrick Pouyanné and Helle Kristoffersen. We will get first one, which it will be focused on our activities in the United States and developing our multi-energy model in the United States. We'll get the lunch. We'll go back 1:30 P.M. for a deep dive, second one on LNG, our portfolio integrated. We'll have a break. We have a new format for you, which are roundtables that we have organized. We have two executive committee members will animate those roundtables. We hope it will be very interactive for you. That's the program for the day. Without further ado, I invite Nicolas Terraz, President, Exploration & Production for a safety moment. Good morning. Safety is a value for TotalEnergies. For the management of the company, one way to demonstrate our commitment to safety is to go on our sites, on our production sites, on our project sites. There, we can interact with the frontline teams. We can discuss their activities, the risks associated with their activities, and we can carry the safety message. By going to sites, we also, by taking time to go to site, we also show to our teams that safety is important and safety is a value. This morning, I just want to share with you an illustration of this. This was in April 2022 for the World Day for Safety, where all the company senior management went to sites in various locations in U.K., in Denmark, in Congo, et cetera. We didn't go there alone. We went there with the management of our contractors. One aspect of our safety culture is that we work jointly with our contractors. Our contractor staff are particularly exposed. By going together with the management of our contractors, we carry a common message to our teams. What did we do on August 29? Well, we launched the deployment of our new golden rules, which are a set of very basic rules to prevent injuries at work. These rules were introduced initially in 2010. This year, we reviewed all our injuries of the past years to improve those rules, and we decided, in fact, to introduce 2 new rules, one on line of fire, on how avoiding being exposed on being in the line of fire, and the second one on hot works. To conclude, I just want to say that, of course, we need to remain humble. We still have injuries in the workplace. Safety is a daily concern and a daily commitment of the company. Thank you for your attention. Good morning, everyone. It's a real pleasure to be back here at the New York Stock Exchange after a two-year absence because of the COVID, and to meet all of you again in person for this day of presentation and the roundtables with all my colleagues of the executive committee which are here with me today. I know that some of you come as far away as the West Coast or even Europe. Thank you for all coming. Again, it's important at this point of the, I would say, history of the company that we have the opportunity to meet together. Yesterday we had our annual, macro energy outlook, which was presented to you by Helle. She will contribute also today to this strategy and outlook presentation with me. Coming back, I would say, on more the short term and medium term, the next five to ten years, I would say, of evolution of the market, which of course have an influence on strategy and outlook. Yesterday, it was our vision, down to 2050. It's quite timely, in fact, that we are presenting this strategy outlook now because our company, TotalEnergies, is entering, I would say, in an exciting new era, which is marked, of course, by increased returns, but fundamentally also by a new element, which is that our financial situation will have never been so strong. We are rich, and it's now within our reach to achieve zero gearing company or zero net debt to zero, which makes us obviously stronger, more resilient, which gives us a lot of flexibility to implement our transition strategy, to invest, to execute, to deliver it and we will come back on it. Also, of course, to I would say to be to have more flexibility to think of future. I know that you have some expectations from this presentation, and our objective is to answer to these expectations. The first expectation, of course, is what about Russia? What is the future of TotalEnergies without Russia? I told you at the general assembly for shareholders, the annual one in May, less Russia, more U.S. Less Russia, and let's be clear, there is no more any plans, no investments to invest in that country. We declared it. The choice that we have taken, the deliberate choice for this presentation, is to present you the outlook of TotalEnergies without Russia. All the figures are all without Russia because fundamentally we don't think of futures with Russia, but without Russia. That's the first answer, clear answer. My motto was less Russia, more U.S. This is maybe one of the reason why we are here. I will show, by the way, to recognize that in the last year, in fact, we've seen quite an increase of institutional shareholding coming from North America, from 35%- 42% by the end of the summer. Maybe here investors understand better our multi energy transition and for sure oil and gas. There is also a reason about when I say more U.S., not only our investors, also because the U.S., are for us a playing field, quite a good playing field of putting in action our strategy. Jean-Pierre, by the way, our CFO, after my presentation, will make you a zoom about our strategy in action in the U.S., With the two pillars, which are the LNG on one side and renewables in the other side. We have taken the last year, and again this year, some bold steps here in order to to develop our strategy because really we think that the U.S., are a land where fitting very well with both pillar of the strategy, energy and renewables. Russia, the question is there is no future with Russia in this presentation. The second question that you are asking, expectation is what about the LNG business of TotalEnergies without Russia? That's the second key questions. We'll address it. Obviously, you have seen some news coming, quite timely there again. I could add that it's less Russia, more U.S., more Qatar. You have the question, the answer is there, more Qatar. We have been, for many years, it's not only this year, it took us five years to reach that point. In fact many years, we have many of the executive committee members who spent their part of their life, by the way, in Qatar, myself, Nicolas, Stéphane. Qatar is very well known. It's probably one of the reason why establishing a strong relationship with, within this country, we have been successful. Out of the giant, 48 million-ton development, which Qatar is planning through, North Field, North Field East and North Field South, our stake will be the equivalent of 3.5 million tons, the largest stake among the majors, and we'll come back on it. Less Russia, but more Qatar. The third question, then not the least important for all of you, third expectation from all of you is what do I do with a pile of cash, you know? What is the return? What do I allocate their their cash, so cash allocation? Of course, it's a very important question, which we'll approach in a very different mode when we have a company which is going down to net zero debt, I would say. Of course, it gives more flexibility to think about it. I will present you the new framework of cash allocation that we have established. The board of directors has spent two meetings in the last 10 days, but in fact, we began to think about it since middle of the year when we realized what was the new framework in which TotalEnergies is moving. We'll deliver to you two clear messages. The first is a guidance of return through the cycles of 35%-40% of cash payout. The second one is that we implement that from 2022. Using a new instrument, and I will explain to you why we decided that, beyond the ordinary dividend, beyond the buyback, we introduce a special dividend which will be paid to our shareholders in December 2022 of EUR 1 per share. That's for my introduction, and then I will embark you on this presentation. Again, I'm not alone here today, I told you. By the way, you will have the opportunity to discuss and meet all my colleagues because we have organized the day this morning with a presentation. Jean-Pierre will speak about the U.S., and we'll take the Q&A after these two presentations. This afternoon, we'll have some zoom on LNG by Stéphane, but also some roundtables on mobility, on our projects, and OneTech organization and around as well our electricity business model, with my colleagues of the executive committee, and it will be the opportunity for you to discuss and speak directly with them around these roundtables. I welcome, by the way, there is one new face within the team, which was not there two years ago. It's Thierry, which is in front of me. Thierry became, in the middle of the COVID, the President for Marketing and Services. This afternoon, with Bernard, they will be led roundtable around mobility, so you will have also the opportunity to meet with them. We have organized a lunch, and you are seated because we wanted you to have also the opportunity to discuss with all my colleagues. Just a word about safety. Thank you, Nicolas, for your safety moment. I would say that on safety, the image today, the picture that I will describe is mixed. I have mixed feelings when I read the slide. Of course, we continue to. We have a continuous improvement program action plan, the one which was described to you by Nicolas about the golden rules. We translate that in this line, which is total recordable injury rate, which has been going down. Of course, at a level of 0.73%, it's becoming tough to go down, but we maintain. It is a continuous improvement and compared to where we were some years ago, even 10 years ago, I think we are among the top of the benchmark, so that's positive. Unfortunately, this picture is tarnished by three fatalities that we experienced this year, 2022. It's a terrible result for me. I cannot be happy. This is. I will be more positive about the presentation, but three fatalities is much too high. We suffered one last weekend. A road accident. A driver of a, I would say, a gasoline truck, which lost control of his truck and, on the French roads. Transportation was part of our issues 10 years ago. We did not suffer too many fatalities in transportation, but we have one. Two other fatalities. One in, I think it was in Mauritania, if I remember. No, Burkina Faso. Sorry, I know it was in Burkina Faso, where one worker was hit by an electrical arc. It was a scaffold which was going under a power line. It should never have gone under, but unfortunately, I would say it's a sort of technological accident, I would say, and, which should have been avoided if the rules were being pursued. We have reinforced the rules. Another one in Argentina, where a worker which was working in a quarry. In fact, there was a cliff fall, and he lost his life. That's back. This is more complex, this one, because it's back to the competence, of course, of our subcontractor and the supervision. But all that is high, too high. It tarnished our records and cannot be happy with it. After this, I will be more positive in the presentation, but I had to state it. Because the only way to progress in terms of safety is to face the reality and to speak up about the problems and to draw the lessons, and it's really down. Now after this introduction, I will leave the floor to Helle, which will come back on the energy markets, and then I will do the strategy. Thanks, Patrick. Good morning, everyone. It's a pleasure to see you all, I would say live and not just hear your voices online. Energy markets supported by the energy transition. Yes, indeed. Looking beyond the unprecedented short-term market disruptions, we are finding ourselves in an industry that has to invest in both the energies we're using today and in the energies that will become mainstream tomorrow, knowing that clean energy, it requires a lot of new infrastructure. So that does indeed provide a very supportive multi-energy outlook for companies like ourselves. As you know, the V-shaped recovery of 2021 resulted in multiple market tensions in terms of logistics, raw materials, spare parts, components, and so on. This happened well before the war in Ukraine. These tensions, of course, have only escalated since February 24th. We are now in a high inflation environment, due in particular to soaring energy prices. Energy security is on the top of the agenda, together with energy affordability. Central banks are trying to counter inflation with more restrictive monetary policies, and I'm sure that you have all followed the various announcements on that front. It's honestly a little hard to say what 2023 is going to look like, but you will hear from us that we offer a very solid framework for growth and for cash generation, and that we are well placed to benefit from the current environment and from the more secular market trends. Let's look at a couple of markets one by one, starting with oil. Oil markets are tight because investments continue to lag demand growth and because spare capacity remains extremely limited. To make a long story short, we're $100 billion behind the investment levels needed to balance markets. The message is pretty simple: We need more oil projects. This is all the more true as OPEC+, OPEC and Russia, and a handful of other countries continue to manage supply with a lot of discipline. And also U.S., share producers are focused on the same discipline. The oil product markets are tight as well because of the massive refining capacity reductions that have taken place, mostly in the U.S., and in Europe over the last years, and you can see that to the right of this chart. On top of that, the Atlantic Basin is short on distillate, which has yielded record margins in 2022. This short will now be amplified by the ban on Russian products, product imports that will be starting in February next year. Moving on to gas markets. Here, the big structural change is of course, that the EU is putting an end to its dependency on Russian piped gas, which means replacing some 35%-40% of its gas supplies, and which creates a massive call on LNG. In other words, LNG is becoming the cornerstone of energy security in Europe. What we've modeled here to the left is a scenario that assumes zero piped gas from Russia to Europe next year and onwards, and a 3% decline in European gas demand every year until 2027, because we're showing the markets until that year. Zero Russian piped gas and 3% decline in demand every year. This creates a need for 100 million tons of LNG, which is equal to 25% of the current LNG demand. Of course it's an absolute game changer. Europe is now competing with Asia to attract LNG, which drives up prices to unprecedented levels. We know that there will be demand destruction due to the lack of regas capacity in Europe short term or in Asia because of the high prices. As you can see to the right, we do expect markets to remain tight for several years. The reason for that is that it's simply impossible for supply to match this step up in demand overnight. Most of the new sizable LNG projects will only come on stream in the years 2026, 2027. Once supplies do pick up, the new price floor in Europe is going to be set by the U.S. LNG import cost. That means a new floor for TTF. One last important point. The European crisis clearly demonstrates the critical role of natural gas in the energy transition. When you don't have any gas or you don't have enough gas, what do you do? You burn coal or you revert to oil. This is partially what we're seeing in Europe right now or in other parts of the world, in Asia, because the LNG goes to Europe. That's bad for the environment and that's bad for sustainability. Just for memory, keep in mind that 99% of our LNG customers around the world, they do have a net zero ambition. The role of gas, we think, is heightened by the current crisis. LNG becomes a very, very attractive market for us. I'll finish with the power markets. Power is the fastest growing energy on a global scale, more than 5% in 2021. The market opportunity for solar and wind in particular is massive, notably in the EU and in the U.S. With these two regions capturing around 40% of our estimated growth in capacity between now and 2030, and this is what is shown to the left on this chart. Of course, there are other excellent markets out there, but we just wanted to flag the importance of the European and American markets. The accelerated penetration of intermittent renewables, so solar and wind, also triggers the need for flexible, dispatchable power solutions, a market where we feel that we are well positioned and you will hear more about that. In terms of capital budgets, now moving to the right, according to the IEA, the world is currently investing some $700 billion per year in renewable generation, and that's including hydro and in power networks. That number would need to increase to $1 billion-$1.5 billion per year starting next year. This is IEA analysis. For all of us to be on the trajectory matching the pledges of those countries that have committed to carbon neutrality. In other words, this is what we're showing on the chart, we need to multiply these clean power investments by 1.5%-2% when spending has only been growing 3% per annum in the recent years. You may question the feasibility of this uptick in clean power investments, but it does certainly create attractive market opportunities for companies like TotalEnergies that have decided to invest in clean power in addition to oil and gas. With that, Patrick, I hand it back over to you. Thank you. Thank you, Helle. So let's go into our outlook with a title, by the way, that you will notice as is reversed compared to the previous years. It's first growing shareholder returns while transitioning. This Russia is excluded of all the future figures. Just to make the link between Helle presentation and our strategy, I would say what of course is obvious to us is that, today, there is a balanced strategy between oil, LNG, and now electricity is quite well matching with the market trends that Helle have described. Over the last years, we developed in the oil business a strategy which is to refocus all our portfolio and to upgrade it on, I would say, a low-breakeven, low-emissions portfolio. Going down on the breakeven to under $25 per barrel. Of course, this we take the fruits, I would say, of this strategy in oil. We have, and I will come back to the future for that, but it's the first point. On the LNG, of course, we make an aggressive and big bet on that. The fact that it was the growing hydrocarbon, I would say, market for the future. It's of course quite heavy in terms of capital investments. At the end of the day, this large portfolio of LNG and integrated portfolio between the upstream, the midstream, the downstream with what is happening is of course. If I think one of the news from 2022 is that all the political leaders in this world are discovering the world LNG, you know. They don't know what it means. Now they know about it. They try to understand the market. It's more complex, but what they recognize is that it's just maybe needed for even for the transition. I think that's a strong message that we have today. Our company is very well-positioned, of course, and I will come back with it. Without Russia, it was with Russia, it will be without Russia, we'll come back on it. The last market, which of course I will share with you that for us it was quite a strong belief that this electricity, which is at the core of the transition. You know, if we want to make this energy transition, we need to develop heavily the electricity demand market, offer, supply, and demand by almost doubling. That means there will be some tensions on this market, including in terms of prices, because the way to grow is to introduce in the supply intermittent sources of energy. Which means that you create tensions, and from this tension you create, I would say, higher prices. I'm not surprised to see. I'm surprised about the very high levels that we observe in Europe, which is linked to the exacerbation of the war. I would say fundamentally, there is a trend where electricity prices should go higher. This is why, by the way, when we think of future in electricity, we don't think it as a secured revenue of a low profitability. We think it as a capacity to develop a portfolio and a business in the same way we have done it in the past in oil and gas, leveraging on balance sheet and benefiting from the volatility of the power markets. As I said, this math, of course, is translating into figures. For us, as I said in my introduction, we are entering a new era because this historic high cash generation of 2022 have, of course, an immediate impact on, again, the financial strength of the company. We have divided our net debt by more than two, down by the end of the first half 2022. Under $13 billion of net debt will be lower by end of the year. Some of you have planned that it should be, we should be at net zero, I would say by, in terms of debt, not in terms of climate, by middle of next year. I think of course it gives us a lot of flexibility. The result is not, as I can read in newspapers, coming from the sky. You know, it is we today benefit from much higher cash flows. I think the chart on the left for me is quite interesting because it demonstrates that TotalEnergies is a more profitable, a more efficient company than we were in the past. You can see that we have taken the cash flow, which was generating in the first half, multiply it by two. Identifying the European gas surplus. Putting aside, you can see at the same level of price of the barrel, we generate $15 billion more of cash flows than ten years ago when the price of the barrel were above $100 per barrel. It's a demonstration of the huge efficiency improvement we have led thanks to all the work of the teams and these, I would say, the core focus we had at rotating our portfolio on low breakeven. This is the chart in the middle because this explain, in fact, both the breakeven, lower breakeven from going down from $100 per barrel down to $25. The result of a discipline, in particular in terms of capital expenditure, but also the focus on the cost control and on the efficiency. That's of course open us some new perspectives for our future. That's why, of course, by the way, for this time, I don't make a French presentation, I make a U.S. one. I begin with the conclusion, and then we'll have the demonstration, which is maybe more efficient in terms of marketing. This is what I learned from some of you. I take your advice. I go to the conclusion because it was again the focus of all the board works in the last months and weeks. Okay, now we're having this balance sheet of do we think of cash allocation strategy for the future. In fact, it's. I made the remark, you know, we had a different order of allocation in the previous slides. During the COVID period in 2020, in fact, we gave the priority already to the dividend because we maintained the dividend and we reduced the CapEx. I said to the board, "You know, we've done it. It's the way we behave in this room. It's not the way which was written. Maybe we should realign what we say. By the way, it's much easier today because with a balance sheet which is so strong, we have the flexibility to put first the dividend, the ordinary dividend. What we want is a sustainable dividend through the cycles. That means that we, any increase of dividend shall be supported by an underlying cash flow growth. Of course, it's all but this, and you will see in the presentation that we have at least at $50 per barrel, $4 billion of underlying cash flow growth in the next five years. We'll have the support. This is comforted by of course a strong balance sheet and the share buybacks, which of course will be translated in some, I would say, dividend increase. With 2022, we had a guidance that we laid on the 5% increase of interim dividends. We did not move it, but because we are using another instrument that I will describe on this slide. The second part is the capital expenditures. I'm sure that some people will say they lose their discipline. We don't lose the discipline, just quite logical. We have been, I would say, such a strong balance sheet, but we come back, in fact, to the previous guidance we had in 2018, which was going up to $18 billion. For me, it's just the fact to have the opportunity to realign what we think is a sustainable level of CapEx between $14billion-$18 billion. The range is a little larger because it's true that we'll pilot this level according to the cycles, because we want. I think the best strategy in terms of CapEx is try to maintain it through the cycle. The balance sheet will offer us this opportunity. I will explain you how we intend to spend this $14 billion-$18 billion per year. The balance sheet is strong. A/A- credit ready for the cycles. That was already, I would say, the guidance. There is no way to change it. We don't give you any guidance of gearing. It would be strange today with a gearing which should go down next to 5% by the end of the year. If we are entering into a world of being net positive, in a treasury net positive, that would be fine. I'm happy with it, and give us the flexibility to capture counter-cyclical opportunities, if any, in the future. Then the surplus cash flow. Of course, there is a surplus cash flow, and the question was how do we share it with our shareholders? We also, by the way, our employees, but we do not forget, even if there is no announcement today, but there are some discussions and dialogues with them, and I want that to come from the social dialogue, not only from the top of the company. It's sharing the surplus. Of course, we have the buybacks. The question to the board, what do we do when we have very high prices? Do we pile up more buybacks or do we go to direct cash to our shareholders? The choice which have been done is that, as we tested some of you, there is, of course, an appetite for buyback, but also an appetite for cash, I would say. What we will combine is both instrument. Why? Because, and I think maybe it's the most important message, it's the first time I think write it on the slide within TotalEnergies, which is a guidance of payout for this cash payout for the cycle, 35%-40%. It's not one figure, it's a range. It's not a limit. Don't consider it's a limit at 40%. Could be go beyond. It's just to tell you that we are we will monitor the various instruments, dividends and surplus and sharing buybacks and special dividend to reach that. We will apply it as of 2022. As you probably noticed, after all the announcement until end of July, we are under 30%. Of course, we have to fill the gap, and the gap will be filled by this EUR 1 per share, special interim dividend. 2022 cash flow will be in the range of 35%-40%, but the will of the board. That's again, for me, a very important message in the way we think or the finance and the cash allocation of TotalEnergies for the future. Another reward to shareholders will be that in 2023, there will be a sort of special reward to shareholders as we intend to exit our Canadian oil sands. These assets, Surmont and Fort Hills are generating in 2022 more than $1.5 billion of cash flow. It's quite a good situation. We think it's the right time to try to get the value out of it. We are not the best shareholder of these assets because as we have a climate strategy, we don't want to invest in these assets. We declared that in 2019. We make some write-off. But these assets are there. They generate us. After having looked to various solutions, we think that a spin-off, because we have that in our hands, it's up to us to execute it does not depend from others, is a solution. We'll create a spin co to put cement and fertilis, plus the midstream and trading-related activities. We intend to list this Canadian company on the Toronto Stock Exchange to retain a minority shareholding to smooth the transition and then to leave it moving as an independent company. We will work to that. Our objective is to be able to submit such a spin-off to the vote of the next annual shareholders meeting in May 2023. Our shareholders will get shares from this company, which is quite a good value. That's another point. The company itself. Without Russia, without Canada somewhat. Again, that message is the one we delivered to you last September. There is no fundamental change, except that the figures you show in terms of Joule are lower because we excluded the Joule from Russia. The Joule company is around three pillars, I would say. Let's say four activities, but three pillars. One is oil. On oil, we reiterate that we want to maintain this oil engine because this is the cash of the transformation. That's for the production. Over the decade, more or less stable. It will increase, but let's say 1.3million-1.35 million barrels of oil today. We have some condensate as well coming from the gas, but let's say it's more or less stable. But you know, on the oil, on the energy sales, we have a more aggressive strategy because we want to anticipate a lower demand and to realign our oil sales to our production sales. Our downstream is larger than our upstream. That's the program for the decade. We are already engaged. We said minus 30% on the oil sales, in fact, between 2019 and 2030. We have the gas, where again, growing LNG is at the core of our growth for the future. Will remain. We want to develop it. You can see that the gas sales are in fact becoming larger than the oil sales over the decade. You have the, I would say, the energies of the transitions, which are either electrons or molecules. For the electrons, electricity, we are on the path, I will come back on it, to go up to 130 TW hour per year. On the molecules, I will explain you, we have some focus areas, sustainable aviation fuels, some biogas and carbon capture and storage. That's, I would say, the menu. We need to finance it. Of course, to this growth, which by the way I come back, is, you will notice that the ambition is to continue to grow. It's more energy. It's 4% per year of growth, that we target, through this strategy. In terms of capital investments, the allocation of capital investments in the range $14 billion-$18 billion, as we increase the range, will be around 45% to maintain all the oil business. That means, production, but also don't forget the refining and, our marketing oil business, which we'll go through this, we maintain. That's 45%. 20% for greenfield oil project and exploration. Exploration is around $500 million in our planning. We have of course 20%-25% on LNG and gas. In gas, we introduced by the way the petrochemical which is fundamental to develop on gas. It's energy which is there where we dedicate a big nice share of our capital investments. For the new energies, it will be a third between, I would say, electricity and renewables and the new molecules. In fact, in this 33%, as it's written on the right, we have also decided that we need to, we have the necessity to meet our objectives in terms of emissions and lowering down of Scope 1 and 2 to increase what I called, we call the carbon reduction program. Which is a mix of energy efficiency, of carbon capture, of methane also, we have some commitments. We think that we have to invest around $1 billion per year in this carbon reduction program. It's higher than what we were planning before, but it's an opportunity to meet quicker with our commitments. I will come back on it. On the energy transition businesses, in particular, electricity renewables, we'll spend in 2022 more than $4 billion per year. You have there the global capital investment strategy to support our transformation for the future. Of course, another challenge we'll face is inflation, and we need to keep the discipline on the costs through an efficiency. First, there is no change in our criteria. It's very fundamental on the hydrocarbon projects, oil and gas projects. You know, we are sanctioning them on the basis of $50 per barrel, $100 per ton. We don't change this assumption. By the way, it's written in our climate resolution on our Say on Climate that we submit to our shareholders, which have been approved at almost 90% last year. I think it's a discipline. Thanks to that discipline that we managed to lower our breakeven. But today we get some quite high cash flows. I mentioned the additional $15 billion of cash generated at the same price environment. That's thanks. We'll keep the discipline to focus on low cost projects, less than $20 per barrel or $30 per barrel. Maybe it will be more challenging because we might have some cost inflation in the industry, but it's fundamental. For me, it was a main lesson of the year 2007, 2014. We need to keep the discipline in the way we sanction new projects. We have, of course, an advantage of the operating expenditures targeting less than $5 per barrel. Nicolas, with me, it's even more challenging. To be honest, if we exit the Canadian Oil Sands asset from the company, we take a small advantage there. That will give some margin for Nicolas' team and Namita's teams to reach, to meet the objective. It's really keeping this discipline on tight cost control. We have a new challenge, which is for our energy costs. Because we are benefiting of course, as we are an energy company from this high environment. But for Bernard Pinatel, when we see some high margin of in refining in Europe. In fact, people speak about, I don't know, $100 per ton. Today, with the gas prices and all that, half of it could disappear in energy costs, in fact. That's something which people have to. I'm exaggerating a little, but it's $30-$40 per ton just going in that. We need to work on that. First our colleagues have taken actions. They don't wait. They have shifted more than 50% of natural gas consumption of European refineries today has shifted to LPGs, which are priced more on the oil, as an oil products rather than gas. That's the first action. We think it's also an opportunity for us to put a strong emphasis on energy efficiency, energy savings. We have decided, as we have again this additional cash to allocate $1 billion to launch a worldwide program of dedicating $1 billion for the next two years on launching several projects in order to save energy. It's a way to control our energy costs. It's also a way to accelerate our emission reduction. I think it's a good investment for positioning the company on the, again, on the trajectory and even accelerating on the trajectory we are targeting in terms of combining hydrocarbons and climate change. Again, I show you the conclusion, I mention it, and I will make the demonstration. In fact, in the last perspectives, when we look to our medium-term plan, five-year plan, what we can see, again, 2021, and this chart is including Russia, 2027 is without Russia. We have a cash increase, cash flow increase of around $4 billion in a quite moderate environment in terms of assumption. $50 per barrel, $8 per million BTU for European gas. We have it at $3 in that scheme. Which would go increase if we just shift $60 and $10 per million BTU, this additional cash would be $7.5 billion. We have quite an upside, quite a long, strong upside to the oil and gas price. This, I would say underlying cash flow, which is coming by the way, not only, and you will see from. Coming from all the segments, including from electricity. There is $1.5 billion coming from electricity and renewables because, of course, this more we invest, cash will come out of this segment. It's coming from oil, from LNG, from the downstream, and from electricity and renewables. This additional cash flow growth, underlying one, will support the sustainable dividend growth for the coming years. Our plan is more energy, more cash, but less emissions. On this chart is just a summary of all our roadmap for the next 10 years in terms of emissions. There is no change compared, so no announcement today. In fact, we have decided that as we make a sustainable and climate report every in March of each year, it will become an annual one. We'll make, by the way, an annual presentation around this report like we've done last year, updating the strategy. This chart will be updated by the beginning of next year. In fact, we just signaled the three targets that we might update. One is Scope 1 and 2 net emissions, because as I just told you that we are launching an accelerated energy efficiency program, we should see the results. We will work on it before year-end, and in order to review this 2025 target. There is a certain logic there. Then, the two other targets for 2025 are at the request of some shareholders. Remember, before the annual shareholder meeting, we had a board committee that will fill all the gaps, including in 2025, what could be the targets for the Scope 3 worldwide oil and Scope 3 worldwide emissions. Honestly, for the last one, I think you have a good chance to find yourself what will be written in the box. Because again, on Scope 3, our last comment, are strongly committed to the Scope 3 intensity. I don't want to limit the growth of the company because the Scope 3 absolute value, which is linked, even if we work hard with our customers, the company objective is to provide more energy to the world, which requires more energy and will not be limited because of the Scope 3 absolute value. The Scope 3 intensity, yes. Scope 3 absolute value is for me more related to yes, on oil, we have a strategy to decline the sales because we anticipate lower demand. On the gas, we have a growth strategy, and we'll assume it. Now I've given you the conclusion, so I'm supposed to make the demonstration. To be honest, I'm not sure. I'm a little, year after year, I'm older, so I will not make the full presentation because my colleagues will help me through their zoom and through their roundtable this afternoon. I just have few slides. I will not make all the detailed comment, and you will have the opportunity to come into, to dig into the some, most of these topics this afternoon and on this one. First, gas and LNG, because I know that is one of your expectations. How do we leverage? Leveraging is quite easy. The gas price today is high, but we develop these integrated LNG positions. But I mentioned to you again, Helle told you it's quite what is happening. It's a real shock of demand on this market. You know, the slide, it's a 400 million ton market where we have 10% of this market, by the way, which have a shock of demand of almost 25%, 50million-100 million tons coming from Europe. Of course, of the high LNG prices, we will destroy some demand. That's clear. And we see some countries shifting from that. But it's, We also know that it's a business where to invest in new capacities, it takes five years, you know. All Qatar announcements will come on stream by 2027, 2028, not before. In the new U.S. plants, same pattern. We have five years, I would say, where we'll have quite a stress. Of course, it depends on the duration of this war, but whatever will happen, Europe will never come back to 150 BCM imported from Russia. I mean, there is no way. This demand is there. That's given us, with our integrated position among the top three companies in the world, quite an interesting advantage. In 2022, we'll sell more than 40 million tons, excluding Russia again. I think that's proof that the activity is strong. I remind you that we were last year the first U.S. LNG exporter. Of course, the spread between the NBP, even if NBP is higher, and the European gas price, is so high that there is a benefit there. By the way, our European position is not only on regas capacity, where we are holder of the largest capacity, 18 million tons, in Europe of LNG regas capacity, which have been filled by Stéphane and his teams almost 90% or quite. It was, I would say, reliability is quite an asset today. All these regas capacities, we intend to grow them by bringing two FSRUs, one in France, another one in Germany, on which we work to try to speed up these projects. Not so easy because of various regulations, but we take. I also remind you that, among the major companies, we maintain a strong production, a strong position in the North Sea as a gas producer, in particular in Norway and in U.K. The Maersk Oil acquisition contributed to that. We have a position which is more or less stable, I would say around 200,000 barrels a day of cargo gas production in U.K., then Norway, Denmark, which will increase with the Tyra development. Of course, this give us as well a nice position to benefit from Europe's new gas demand to fill the gap with the Russian gas. We have some projects. We have a project, by the way, in the U.K., like the Quad Nine, on which we work again, because at $8 per million BTU, even if price is much higher today, and it's quite profitable. On LNG, on this chart, what we want the message is, when we look today, Russia represent more or less in terms of equity, 5 million tons. We will be able, between today and 2027, to replace all Russia. There's even a little growth. 2027 is a year where we have some project which will just continue to ramp up, like Cameron, like PNG, like many others. When we look to the full ramp up of the portfolio we have and where we have added again North Field East and North Field South, which will come between 2027, 2028, 2029, we have increase of production is 40%. That's, I think the answer. I already mentioned in previous presentation that we have a large portfolio of LNG opportunities, so we are working on them. Cameron phase two in the U.S., Jean-Pierre will come back, is accelerated with our partners, and we'll sanction it in 2023. Papua LNG, we are also launch the FEED upstream and we'll target a sanction next year. Mozambique, I will come back on it. Of course, security is today improving, but yet to have to improve before we can restart the project. The project is there, and we are working to see how we can relaunch it. Qatar, it's not only a question of growth, it's a question of profitability. Obviously, for me, it's more important. First, I would say that these are quite efficient projects in term of cost. Upstream plus the LNG plant, the CapEx for North Field East is around $900 per ton, $29 billion for 32 million tons. So you can make the calculation. LNG pressure stream is quite efficient. Also these new projects is at 22 kg per CO2 per barrel, which is much lower than the traditional 30/35, I would say, in the LNG business. So that's very important. So it's fitting well with, I would say, a framework for approving new hydrocarbon projects. We are in line with all of this. In terms of economics, it's quite attractive. First, these two projects represent the production under the life of projects around 1.3 billion barrels of production. It's 30 years, I think, so it's quite long. There is a very low acquisition bonus. I cannot give the detail, but that is quite low. Then, there is a cash generation which will be around $1 billion per year, with a sensitivity which is given to you for both projects. That's again, contributing profitably to our expansion of our LNG business. I mentioned to you that it represents a share of 3.5 million tons per year, which will of course go into the hands of the teams of Stéphane to get the most out of the marketing of these 3.5 million tons per year directly by TotalEnergies. At the end, again, Stéphane will come back on the detail of the various projects and the way we create value. From 2021 to 2025, in the next five years, the increase of the cash coming from LNG will be $1 billion per year, without Russia. Oil is, of course, as I said, maintaining oil, but we can leverage in this type of environment all the strategy we delivered. Just to remind you, I think it's good to show that this strategy is really why we have made more cash. You know, on the Maersk Oil acquisition, we invested $7.5 billion in some good quality assets including Johan Sverdrup, Wergeland in Algeria, Jack in the Gulf of Mexico. After five years in the meantime, we have already recouped $9 billion, more than what we invested. So, you can do the math and calculate the return of this type of counter-cyclical acquisition. It works very well, and it's even accelerating. I would say the same with Brazil. Last year, by the end of December, we decided to acquire some shares in both fields of Sepia and Atapu. We're a little surprised not to have more competition because, in fact, the business represents something like, I think, $2.5 billion-$3 billion. This year, 2022, beginning only in May, we'll get $700 million of these assets. I mean, getting back in seven months 25% of the purchase price. In Brazil, in fact, we have built since, I would say, the last 10 years a position. We reached this year 100,000 barrels per day. It will be 200,000 barrels per day because these assets have the growth. Mero development, but also two new FPSOs on Atapu and Sepia. One of them should be sanctioned very quickly, if not both of them, in fact. You can see that, in terms of organic net cash flow, it's a country which becomes contributive to our business. Even at $50 per barrel, it represents around $1 billion per year in terms of organic net cash flow, and at $80 per barrel, it reaches $2 billion. That's a position which has been built on oil. Again, it's deepwater, it's a field of knowledge. It's also low cost and low emissions project. Efficient project because very large resource base which is being developed in this deepwater environment. We have, of course, we come back with short cycles. I remember that in 2019 we are mentioning 2018 among the $18 billion was some short cycle projects. With the COVID, we arbitrated them because it was not the right time. We have, this year we have relaunched some of them. We have sanctioned many of them in Angola, for example, CLOV Phase two and three, Begonia, and short-cycle projects have been sanctioned this year. By the way, you can see on the chart in the middle that in Angola, thanks to all these works on Block XVII, we maintain a production of around 400,000 barrels per day, going down to 350,000, but it's quite an activity. All this is being done with a CapEx of less than $4 per barrel because it's mainly fundamentally infill wells or additional subsea development, but linked to existing infrastructure. You know, it's brownfields. There is a lot of value creation in this deepwater environment when you are able to add, to develop additional reserves on the existing platforms or FPSOs. We have in our portfolio around 1.5 billion barrels of reserves, which could be 30 short cycle projects have been identified. Most of them are oil, in fact. That, of course, is one of the sources of the acceleration of CapEx. I would say we'll dedicate some CapEx, of course, to this short cycle. It's the right time to do it. It's good. They are flexible, so we can stop and start. When I said we'll pilot the CapEx level between $14 billion and $18 billion in terms of long cycle, this is exactly the type of activity that we can arbitrate. The only point is that, of course, they have to be short, including in terms of rig commitments. We have also some new oil projects in the portfolio. We have sanctioned in 2022, beginning of the year, the Uganda project, and we are working to deliver it by 2025, progressing. It's quite a big project for us, of course, considering the stake that we have in the project. It will contribute to maintain oil production, because if we want to maintain the oil production, since we have a natural decline in oil around 4%-5%, we need to invest in new greenfields. What Helle said at the macro level is valid for TotalEnergies. There is no miracle, you know. That's part. We have another new projects because we have made some positive appraisal. On Cameia and Golfinho in Angola, it's a new hub with a new FPSO, Block 20/21, not as big as the other, 70,000 barrels per day, but profitable. The intent is to sanction that very soon, beginning 2023. We are working with the authorities and could deliver $500 million of cash flow as well. Last but not least, you know, we had some success. Maybe we are leaner in our exploration plan, around $500 million, but we are maybe also more efficient. We have these Suriname discoveries. I will answer to some question on it if you have any. We are working on appraising to launch our first development. We have also in Namibia, it's only one well. I know there is a lot of excitement around this discovery, but I'm like, I like to see the appraisal coming in order to be able to speak about it, but it seems to be quite a very large discovery, or giant one even. In oil, again, maintaining the production. We exclude Russia. You have the figures for Russia on this chart, but you know them because we report on Russia independently. We have a small increase and a $1 billion, I would say, underlying cash flow, which will feed us as the increase of our dividend in the future. Oil is also a matter of downstream, and because this is also in refining in particular, but also we have in European petrochemicals in NAFTA and for marketing and services. Of course, here, very easy to be, as you know, in refining, except biorefining, but I will come back on it. Biofuels, there is no growth appetite from our company. But Bernard and his teams are working on to increase the utilization rate. 2022, from this perspective, is improving above 80%. It's key. Energy efficiency, and we have some modernization in Donges going on. Petrochemicals, we have started our new U.S., ethane cracker in Port Arthur, so it will get its. It's also a good asset to benefit from this environment. I will come back on our investments in low carbon products because also it's an area, refining and chemicals, where we implement on one side, delivering to most of our assets, and on the other side, transitioning to new products because they are growing markets. In particular, the sustainable aviation fuel, where we have already some plants and some production, but we intend to retarget 1.5 million tons per year, which could represent 10% of the market by the end of the decade, and also on circular polymers. Marketing & Services is also facing its own transition. As I said, we intend to realign our sales to our production, so around 1.3 millio-1.4 million barrels of oil per day. Which means that, in order to maintain the value, we are working to develop, in particular in our retail stations and non-petroleum revenues. We are targeting to increase them to represent more than 50%. That's one of the key focus for the marketing activities. We have also, of course, investing in new mobility, in particular in E-mobility. Thierry will be there with Bernard this afternoon to answer to all your questions about it. The question there is, of course, to find the right business models, the right. Because there are different markets which are the most profitable ones, on which we monitor our positioning. It's not only a matter for me of number of charging points, because I could put plenty of charging points in the street of some cities without having very low revenues. So be careful about the number of charging points. I think the question is what are the key markets, in particular, high charging points in strategic areas where we need to develop the concept to be able to get some profitability out of these investments. Again, that's an area of development. Globally speaking, we expect over the next five years to generate $300 million out of these new businesses on marketing and services. I mentioned when I was speaking about Bernard’s business, the new molecules that we require for energy transition, which I would say the molecule business is, of course, a natural continuity from our oil and gas business. We have biomass, and we have, of course, other type of molecules. I describe what we want to do on the biofuel, which is to focus fundamentally on the system addition efficiency. Why? Because we think that in the long term, a liquid fuel will be required for these planes, even if there are other ideas, and it’s the best valorization probably for this market. The key point is to have access to waste and residues. I would say the bottleneck there is the supply. It's not the outlet. It's the supply. Which means, by the way, that this market is a good market, because if you have less supply than demand, I feel that it's good for the economics, you know. We have made an announcement this beginning of the week in France, in Europe, I would say, because it's with a German company, to secure waste and residues for feeding our Grandpuits project. We see some integration. There is no way. If we don't secure that, there is such a competition that it could become a bottleneck to meet our ambition in terms of growing this business. We have an innovative, I would say, scheme where we become shareholder of their waste and residue business, the Esterwan, Esterfat, and they become shareholder of our projects. It's a way to integrate, but I think it's a way to grow in that business, and we might replicate in the future of this type of business scheme. We are, may I say, quite satisfied to have been able to secure with a strong player, this feedstock. A word about biogas. It's another source of biomass. Biogas, what is interesting is that there again, we see quite a good demand, strong demand. A lot of, I would say, transportation businesses, either road transportation, trucks, or marine transportation, container shipping, which went to gas, which shifted from oil to gas, are willing to green their gas, so they are asking for bioLNG or bioCNG. There again, the supply of biomethane is not very, it's not so high. You have a strong push. There are some customers from these transportation businesses which are ready to pay for having, I would say a biofuel in their biogas, in the ways their goods are transported. This one we'll intend to also develop. We have a position in France. Now we're developing activity in the U.S. We are looking to more in Europe because there is a strong push. I will say on both sides of the Atlantic, the new schemes are supporting the development of these businesses. Hydrogen and e-fuel, that's for the longer term, but we have taking this year on hydrogen another step in order to position ourselves on one large project in India on green hydrogen. We'll develop it through phases. It has great ambition, but we need to find the markets. We might have a market in India on green urea because the Indian government is subsidizing urea, so it's a way to import urea, so it's a way for them to have domestic production. We look if we can, this platform could be used as well to export green products like methanol or ammonia, green ammonia, to exporting markets. We are progressing as well on the decarbonization of our refineries. We have just been selected at the European level for projects in La Mède to decarbonize and make green hydrogen for the full platform, by the way. It will be quite a large project. 120 MW, which will require some subsidies, which have been confirmed to us last week by the French government. That's beyond hydrogen, it's E-fuels, on which we begin to invest in some, I would say, more pilot projects. Clearly, we will need this type in the future of liquid fuels if we want to make this transition. Globally, what we invest, we will invest, as I said, let's say 5%-10% of our CapEx in these new molecules. We are monitoring that, and we expect a generation of cash flow of, in five years of $0.5 billion-$1 billion coming from SAF, coming from biogas, fundamentally. Last part of this, I would say, overall trajectory, because when we develop hydrocarbons and we want to also contribute to decarbonization of our customers, it's carbon capture and storage. Of course, we are two pillars of this developments of CCS. One is to reduce the emissions of our own assets, I would say, existing assets. We work today in Australia. We have been awarded a license together with our colleagues. We are working on Cameron LNG as well on carbon sequestration projects. We have our own refineries on which I work like Normandy. Of course, when we look to greenfield projects like in Papua New Guinea, we want from day one to integrate this technology in order to manage the capture of the emissions on the upstream side, in fact, on this one. But we also are already considering, and not only considering, we have now teams to develop some services to transport and store CO2. Our key target is the North Sea. We are partner of the Northern Lights projects, which is a good, I would say, way to learn and to even to develop the markets, to interact with customers. We also intend to develop our own projects, in particular, in the Netherlands, it's Aramis, and in Denmark, it's the Bifrost projects. We are also, because we think the U.S., by the way, the last Biden law is given quite a strong support to develop CCS in the U.S., we will consider to develop this business as well here. $300 million per year investment. Last pillar of the strategy is electricity and renewables. There again, there will be this afternoon, I would say a roundtable with Helle Kristoffersen and Stéphane Michel. Just the first message. We don't think to what we want to do only as renewables. Of course, we are growing our production arm in renewables, but we want, in fact, we consider that the way to get some added value is not to have, I would say, a protected or secured return on renewables. It is in fact to have an integrated business and to be able to take some merchant risk like we do in oil and gas. You know, when we develop LNG in the past, at the beginning of the history of LNG, we were building a plant only when we had long-term contracts, secure contracts. Now, today, we launch some projects with not all the contracts being secured because we know that we have the capacity to get value and to face the market from trading, storage. Of course, our balance sheet from this perspective is quite an advantage. This is a way to think about that. The objective, as I said before, is 100 TWh production by 2030. We will need to develop some storage, which is 5 GW. We also need to have some flexible power plants in our portfolio. I mean, gas-fired power plants, in order to manage this intermittency for the customers, because the customers at the end, they want power, they want firm power. That's a business, and we think of electricity. By the way, we'll organize the company so that, with Stéphane, we'll have on one side, somebody in charge of renewables to produce a little like E&P, in fact, for oil and gas. On the other side, an electricity president, some person in charge on making this integration, in particular on the deregulated markets, Europe and the U.S., for us. How do we make value out of renewables? I think we have built a portfolio of 35 GW, which is worth around $35 billion by 2025. It's a big asset. I will come back on it. We've done it through, I would say, two pillars. One, of course, is to try to be selective on some M&A activity. I would say you have some three key transactions which we have negotiated. One was Adani Green Energy. We paid $2 billion in 2021. It's worth today $10 billion. Clearway, we've negotiated an innovative transaction with GIP, where we combine cash payments and using some half of our shares in SunPower to finance it, which gives a multiple, an aggregated multiple of 9x EBITDA. It's Clearway was among the top five renewable developer, and with a company which is listed, CWEN. It's a good position. We think it's attractive for our shareholders. I remind you that we will exercise next year the option, the call option we have on Total Eren, where we own 30%. We require the 70% at multiples we were negotiating in 2016 before the hike of the renewables companies, I would say. Last but not least, we have ourselves our own platforms. We have teams to develop projects in particular in solar and offshore wind. Total Eren will be fully integrated into TotalEnergies, so will become an operated company by TotalEnergies. Adani and Clearway will remain non-operated. It's linked to the next slide. We are just to understand now the model. I know some people ask us, what do you do with all your portfolio of renewables? Now the vision is clear. For us, it's exactly the way we think to that. Again, let's take upstream for oil and gas as a comparison. We have some operated assets. The objective is to have, I would say, 50/50 between operation and non-operated. By 2025. Out of the 35% growth in solar capacity, 40% will be operated, 60% non-operated. The operated part will continue to grow. 2022 will deliver the growth of 6 GW that we have announced beginning of the year. So we have yet to deliver 19 GW. We've seen that next year the 6 GW are already under construction. But I would say, in fact, the portfolio is larger than 35 GW. My team were pushing me to increase the figure, but I want them to deliver 35 GW, already big. As some of analysts begin to look to this portfolio, it's a portfolio which is worth by that time, considering the EBITDA, which will be a proportionate EBITDA, not far from $3 billion, something that more than $35 billion of value, which is embedded within TotalEnergies. You can see also, on this slide, the spread, the split between technologies. By 2025, the offshore wind is still small because it takes time to deliver. It's more 2030 where the technology will grow, so it's solar and wind. You can see the spread about the various geographies. I would say half of the portfolio is developed USA and Europe in unregulated markets, you know, ACD, which are two big markets because the support by, I would say, not only government, but sort of customers is strong. We can again develop our 30% merchant business key model that we have in mind. Half of it will be in other geographies, India representing 20%-25%, and the rest of the world. That's more regulated markets. That means that, again, at the end, this is what is of interest for us. It's to develop an electricity and renewables business. By the end of the decade, we gave you the indication of 2025. Production will be 50 TWh. The increase of cash flow coming from this business between today and 2027 is around $1.5 billion of cash flow. The return, global return on equity of more than 10%. You could ask all the questions on this question of profitability on electricity and renewables to Stéphane and Helle. It's the end of my presentation. Just to come back on the business case of TotalEnergies, this slide was presented to you, I think, in February or March. We just adapted, in fact, the increasingly attractive and sustainable return to shareholders because I think that's the key message that we delivered to you today. 35%-40% payoff for the cycles. Cash flow growth will support dividend increase over the next five years, comforted by the balances and share buybacks. We have a strong financial situation which allow us to accelerate the capital investment strategy to deliver additional cash flows in the future. The business model is built on the pillar, which is fundamental on hydrocarbons of remaining a low cost producer, a break-even at $25 per barrel, continuing to grow in LNG and we have the portfolio to fit that growth, as I show you, without Russia once again. In developing these electricity and renewable arms of this new energies business, where we have some competitive advantages. One of them being we are able to manage complexity in such a. It's our DNA, I would say, of these projects. They are not so simple. The larger we go into these projects, the larger they are, the more project management capacity they need, technology they need, and we have that. It's our DNA. We feel comfortable by growing quickly in that business. Again, on the electricity value chain, the key will be to manage this business as we've done on oil and gas, accepting and not only accepting, taking the opportunity of the volatile market to improve the returns and not remaining in a secure profitability business. That's for my presentation. Now I will leave the floor to Jean-Pierre. We had 1 hour 15 minutes. It's perfectly on time, Renaud. Jean-Pierre will give you the U.S. strategy in action in the U.S., and then we'll take your questions. Thank you. It was obvious being with you tonight or today in New York that we have to present how we develop our multi-energy strategy in the U.S. As Patrick already mentioned, I think that the U.S. is a perfect illustration of our strategy in action. What is the presence of TotalEnergies in the U.S.? You see here the different activities with the different pillars and activities. The first one, LNG. For obvious reason, given the vast natural gas resources in the U.S., the U.S. is positioned to play a dominant role in the coming years in the future growth in the LNG industry. With that in mind, we began building our LNG business here in the U.S. about 10 years ago, mainly through counter-cyclical acquisitions such as the LNG assets and the Toshiba off-take. We built on this position through our partnership with Sempra at Cameron and Energía Costa Azul. I will come back later on that. Today, TotalEnergies is a leading off-taker and exporter of U.S. LNG. By integrating this leading position into our global LNG portfolio, we have a competitive advantage in the U.S. to Europe trades. Second pillar, energy and renewables. Over the last 18 months, successive acquisitions and successful bids enabled TotalEnergies to take major positions in solar, wind, both onshore and offshore, and storage. TotalEnergies is well positioned to be in the top five renewable power developer in the U.S., with 25 GW of gross power generation by 2030. That means that the U.S. will significantly contribute to the company objective of having 100 GW of power generation by 2030. Our position here benefited significantly from our recent investment in Clearway Energy, as Patrick already mentioned, which has accelerated our growth trajectory and provided us with a more integrated position in the U.S. It is a balanced portfolio between operated and non-operated assets, and an integrated portfolio combining power generation, storage, and trading. Last but not least, our focused oil portfolio, which generated strong cash flows. In the Gulf of Mexico, we have two projects, Anchor and Ballymore, and in the downstream, we are further developing our Port Arthur platform towards high value petrochemicals with a new ethane cracker and integrations on polymers. LNG and renewables are the core of our multi-energy growth strategy. The U.S. has provided us with ample opportunities in both markets to demonstrate our ability to execute and deliver on this strategy. We will continue leveraging on LNG and renewable world to rebalance our global portfolio towards the U.S., this country becoming a major pool of activities for the company in the coming years. First, focus on LNG. This is a graphic illustration of the different milestones in building LNG portfolio in the U.S. Our strategy to develop a strong position as U.S. LNG exporter predates, in fact, the current situation in Europe by more than a decade. In recent years, TotalEnergies has become the leading exporters of U.S. LNG, with more than 10 million tons of long-term U.S. supply, most of which has been exported to Europe in recent times, contributing to the continent's security of energy supply. The most significant step was the 2018 counter-cyclical acquisitions of the Engie LNG assets, which led to our entry in the three first trains of Cameron LNG projects. I would say the icing on the cake was being paid to take over Toshiba long-term offtake from Freeport in 2019. Having succeeded in building this position, we are benefiting from the unique leverage that it provides. With 100 index supply, with less than $3.5 per MMBtu liquefaction costs, combined with our fleets of LNG carriers and leading position in European regas capacities, we have been able to profitably leverage this position through our global trading network to supply LNG in Europe at competitive price. In the future, we develop a partnership with Sempra with two new projects, but I will come back later on. Thanks to this project, so Cameron LNG and ECA. From our leading position of more than 10 million tons of long-term U.S. supply today, we plan to grow further to 13 million tons by 2025. It's a good transition to my next slide, zooming on our partnership with Sempra. Total entered the Cameron LNG project operated by Sempra through the acquisition of Engie upstream LNG business in 2018. Phase one of the Cameron LNG project includes three trains, as you know. Each train having a 4.5 million tons per annum of capacity. We have a stake of 18.6% in this project, and it represents more or less 2.2 million tons of equity production and an offtake from these three first trains of Cameron of around 5 million tons per year. We are developing two additional projects with Sempra with the same equity stake, 16.6%. The first one is in Baja California. It's the Energía Costa Azul project, ECA project, with a capacity of 3.3 million tons per annum based on pre-existing regas terminal and with the supply from the Permian assets. First LNG is expected in 2025. It will add 0.5 million tons of equity production with an offtake of 1.7 million tons, 50% of the volumes. The second project is increasing capacity in Cameron LNG trains. This expansion in fact includes the development of a fourth train and the debottlenecking of existing trains one, two, and three with an increase of 5% in terms of capacity. Under the terms of the HOA, TotalEnergies will off-take its equity stake of the new train four, and 25% of the projected bottleneck capacity. It will represent an added equity production of 1.1 million tons and off-take of 1.2 million tons. All in all, the development of ECA and expansion of Cameron LNG will contribute to our LNG growth from 10 million tons at present time to 13 million tons in the coming years, as already mentioned. Turning now to power. We have accelerated our growth in the U.S., in this strategic business over the past two years with an integrated portfolio combining renewable, storage, and trading activities. You have here on the slide the different acquisition, the different transactions made since 2021. In large scale solar energy, our portfolio include more or less 8 GW acquired from SunChase Power in 2021, from Core Solar in 2022, plus different projects in partnership with Akuo Energy. In solar distribution generation, TotalEnergies acquired in the first quarter of 2022, the industrial and commercial solar activities of SunPower, with the objective to develop more or less 100 million W per year of additional capacity. In offshore wind energy, we have secured two leases very recently for a global capacity of 4 GW. I will come back on that. The recent transaction with Clearway complements this portfolio with 7.7 GW in operation and a portfolio at advanced stage of 15 GW. That means that by 2025, we are concentrated mainly in solar with 8 GW of installed renewable power generation and a mix between operated and non-operated assets. With the portfolio we have in our hands, our ambition is to grow the U.S. portfolio to more than 25 GW by 2030. That means that the U.S. will account more or less 25% of the company's global target that Patrick mentioned before of 100 GW by 2030. Zooming now on the 25% acquisition of Clearway Energy Group. The transaction was closed in fact two weeks ago, and expands and diversifies, in fact, our presence in the U.S. renewable energy and storage markets. With this transaction, TotalEnergies is establishing a major position and is acquiring critical size in the U.S. TotalEnergies becomes the fifth-largest renewable power developer in the U.S., with a broader presence in more states, more wind assets in the mix, and more skilled people on the job. Clearway Energy Group develops renewable projects and owns 42% of a listed sub-subsidiary, CWEN, into which projects are dropped when they reach commercial operations. The beauty of this transaction is that we're able to generate this opportunity through direct discussions and agreements with GIP. Looking at the numbers, the transaction is clearly a compelling and value-creating deal. We pay $1.6 billion in cash, and we transfer to GIP 50% of stake in SunPower. That mean that GIP will become a shareholder of SunPower at 25%. That means that in fact, we used our ownership in SunPower to pay partially the transaction, valuating SunPower at more than 30x the EBITDA. Globally, given the multiple we pay for the CWEN shares, the transaction is valued 9x EBITDA net for the two listed companies. The return on equity is above the 10% hurdle rate that we have set to ourselves for renewable activities. This is a strong partnership benefiting all parties, both TotalEnergies and GIP. As part of this partnership, TotalEnergies will contribute to enhance Clearway's growth projects prospects by providing CWEN in the U.S., with access to its power trading capacities. Clearway will become for us a privileged vehicle for our own project farm downs. With more projects in the pipeline, the partnership will benefit from access to TotalEnergies' large customer base of corporate PPA. At the same time, we are building long-term position in offshore wind. We have already secured long-term lease through two tenders for a global capacity of 4 GW. The first one through the New York Bight tenders. It's a very long-term lease. It's a 50-year lease located not very far from here. And with the square miles we have in our hands, we will accommodate a generation capacity of 3 GW, enough in fact to provide power to about 1 million homes. The project is expected to come online by 2028. The second tender was the North Carolina one. It's a 30-year lease located 20 nautical miles from the coast, able to generate a capacity of more than 1 GW and the project is expected to come online by 2030. To be clear, we do not intend to keep 100% of these assets in our portfolio. To manage the global exposure and to execute our business model, we plan to farm down in the near future part of these projects. In addition, we are pursuing future opportunities through acquisitions. It's the case in California, Oregon, or in the Gulf of Mexico. We are preparing the upcoming auctions. Oil. Our multi-energy strategy includes, of course, oil and gas, and for the time being, of course, it's the main cash flow generator, funding shareholder returns and our future investments in new energies. In the upstream, our focus here in the U.S. Is in the Gulf of Mexico. We have two producing assets, two producing fields, Tahiti and Jack. We have two projects under development with Chevron, Anchor and Ballymore. We anticipate a strong growth from our Gulf of Mexico assets. You will see that the production is the red part in the graph. The production in the Gulf of Mexico is supposed to remain stable between now and 2024. After that, with the startup of the two fields, Ballymore and Anchor, the production is supposed to triple and to reach something like 775,000 barrels per day by 2026. The projected 2026 cash flow from our Gulf of Mexico assets is $0.9 billion at $50 per barrel, but $1.4 billion at $80 per barrel. That means that this assets are able to leverage to benefit from the upside and have a strong price sensitivity. Onshore, near Dallas, TotalEnergies is an operator in the Barnett Shale gas play with a net production of about 60,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day. The Barnett produced low-cost gas that provides the hedging, in fact, for our upstream side of our LNG business. We're running one-two rigs over the period 2022-2026 on the field should stabilize the production at the current level, around 0.5 BCF per day 100%. Very important as well, it's a low-cost gas asset, and we anticipate to reduce methane intensity to less than 0.1% in the coming years. The downstream. Our downstream business in the U.S., is centered around Port Arthur, one of our six refining and petrochemicals integrated platforms worldwide. At its core, it's a fully owned high conversion, 240,000 barrels per day refinery with a coker unit, enabling to process heavy crudes and transform into useful fuels integrated with a 1 million ton per year mixed feed cracker co-owned with BASF. It is also integrated with our propylene splitter in Mont Belvieu and three polymer sites located in Texas or in Louisiana. Thanks to these developments, to this deep conversion and integration, the platform is well positioned to capture the current favorable environment. It generated around $400 million in the first semester 2022. The second pillar is the new ethane cracker and PE projects. Our growth ambition has been directed at high value of petrochemicals, as I already mentioned. We are starting up through our JV 50/50 with Borealis, a new full ethane-based cracker with a production capacity of 1 million tons per year of ethylene in Port Arthur. As well as a new polyethylene unit in Bayport of a capacity of 600,000 tons per year that will complement the existing 400,000 tons per year units and ensure a full monomer-polymer integration. The cracker fully runs on ethane, capturing maximum upsides as oil price goes up, and cash flow is anticipated to double with Brent at $80 per barrel versus $50 per barrel. The last pillar, the Port Arthur refinery and cracker has not only integrated with Bayport polyethylene sites, but also with our polypropylene splitter in Mont Belvieu and other polymer production sites. Laporte, a 1.2 million tons per year polypropylene production site, is the largest one in the U.S. In Carville, Louisiana, an integrated styrene-polystyrene plant with a polystyrene production capacity of 600,000 tons per year. Integration, as well as very high utilization rates, enable TotalEnergies to leverage unfavorable environments and capture high polymer margins, generating more than $500 million FFO in 2021. We expect more or less the same performance in 2022. Our U.S., activities benefit from strong leverage to the higher price environments. The first half 2022, I think, is the perfect illustration of that leverage. You have here the comparison between the cash flow generated in 2021, close to $2.4 billion-$2.5 billion, and our annualized first half 2022, and you see that the cash flow increased by more than $1 billion, benefiting in particular from both oil price increase on E&P and very strong refining margin in the first half. As I already mentioned, in the future, the startup of the ethane cracker will bring additional leverage to oil prices. My last slide, just to summarize our strategy here in the U.S., to grow our multi-energy model. First, a message. TotalEnergies is number one U.S LNG exporter, and we keep growing this activity. We will be a top five renewable power player in the U.S., with more than 25 GW capacity by 2030. We are also growing in oil with oil production tripling to 75,000 barrels per day in 2026, and an additional 1 million ton ethylene production capacity with the ethane cracker startup. The underlying cash flow will increase by $1 billion from 2021 to 2026 at constant environment, mainly driven by E&P projects and incoming contribution from renewables. Capital allocation is expected to be in the range of $2 billion per year over that period, which is consistent with expanding our activities here. 12% of the company's capital employed is here in the U.S., having grown significantly over the last couple of years as a result of the acquisitions, the developments that I've already highlighted during this presentation. Last but not least, the U.S., represents an increasing part of our institutional shareholders, 40% end of June. That means an increase by almost 3% compared to end of last year. We feel that in many ways, U.S. investors understand and appreciate our strategy. We hope so. To conclude, I will say that the U.S. offers TotalEnergies everything it needs in terms of markets and resources to grow the company here and to develop its multi-energy model. The country will become a major pool of activity for the future, and as Patrick already mentioned, for sure it will be more U.S. the company in the coming years. It will. Thank you. I think it's time now for the Q&A. Thank you. Thank you, Jean-Pierre, for the presentation. Microphone here. Microphone. Please check the mic. The mic, yeah. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Jean-Pierre, for the presentation. I think now the floor is yours to answer your questions. Renaud will organize this Q&A. Yes. Michele, you are the first one. Do you have a mic? Ah. Can we bring a mic to our guests? We need to bring mics for the people too. Please. Can you bring mic to this guy, gentleman? Thank you. Thank you very much. Michele Della Vigna from Goldman Sachs. I wanted to come back to the shareholder returns, and I think it's very welcome today to see a further increase in shareholder returns. I wanted to understand a little bit better some of the thinking behind the special dividend, especially at a time when, at least on our estimates, the market is severely undervaluing the value of what the TotalEnergies business has created. I was wondering why go down the special dividend route and not a buyback that could take advantage of this valuation dislocation around the shares? Thinking about a macro environment next year which could be less benign than this year, especially if the global recession gets worse, I was wondering how you think about the special distribution? If you had to scale it down, would you start with scaling down the special dividend or perhaps the buyback? Like, what would be your priorities, and how would your thinking go around it in a more difficult macro environment? Then last question, I promise, on the shareholder distribution. On the dividend side, you've got a discrepancy in currency between a dividend that is declared in euros and the business which is clearly dollar-based. I was wondering if that was something that perhaps you would want to address in the future to make sure that you had better currency consistency between your cash flow and and your cash returns. That was the last part of my question. Thank you, Patrick. Okay. The last question first. We studied it. It's not possible. We are a French company, and in fact, all our accounts have to be done in euro. In fact, we have some technicalities. In particular, we are obliged to declare the dividend in March, to organize a general assembly in May. You have two months. Exchange rates could move in between. It's technically difficult to declare because the dividend will have to be only, always declared in euro. Even if we monitor in dollar, at the end we have to convert in euro. We have a problem of risk of exchange rate, which is difficult to tackle. The only way would be to convince the French legislators to allow a French company to have accounts in dollar, then to declare the dividend in dollar, which is a low when you are in the U.K., which is a low when you are in the Netherlands. It's not low in the French law. You know, our nationalism in France, so I'm afraid. I, we reviewed it again, and it's technically too complex, and in fact, so to monitor that. Having said that, we took that into account that, I would say part of the answer why we're selecting the special dividend is also to cover the point that this year when we announced a growth of 5% in euro, for our U.S. shareholders, it's a decrease of 10%. Of course we had a problem. Initially, we wanted a special dividend to cover that difference or an increase of dividend. In the discussion came to us about how do we monitor the various instruments. That link to the second question, maybe I've not been clear enough, but the way it's written in the slide is important. The buyback comes before the special dividend. We put special dividend only in case of very high prices, which we face today. Buyback is obviously the first instrument to act because for the company, no buyback shares, you diminish the burden of dividend and you support your the share value, I would say. It's obvious to us. That's why we put this caveat. It's because we are in a specific situation where we have very high prices, so we say very high returns, and cash flows, but we consider the special dividend. To come back to your question, you will first the dividend, then the buyback, and then potentially the special dividend. It's clear in the way it's established in the mindset of the board. The first question, that was a debate, you know, but you know the French people are French people. No, in fact, honestly, we know that we had to increase. We want the fundamental discussion was about what is the cash payout we are willing to deliver to our shareholders. We knew that we were, since the beginning of the year, lagging around 30%, but it was compared. I think we know it's very important to the valuation of the company. By the way, it's quite clear when you look to our peers, the higher the cash payout is, the better is the valuation. There is a direct relationship. I know it's your job to be an analyst, but we don't have to be. It's not so, It's very clear. We want that discussion 35%-40% for me is the important message. It's the range that we target. That's the key message today and through the cycle. We are comfortable even at $50 per barrel to be able to deliver 35%-40% of cash flow, which has not been the reality of the history of the company. I mean, I know that when we analyze that, we are more under 30%. We make a step change in the way we look to that. That's the key point. That was what is the way to do it. To be frank, we're a little afraid about seeing taxation on buybacks in Europe. By the way, it has been introduced in a law in the U.S., maybe 1%, but you know, crossing the Atlantic, you never know. By the way, when we discussed also with some investors, we see some appetite, direct appetite for cash. It was a debate, to be clear. There is a trade-off which has been selected to maintain to make a global amount of almost $9.5 billion-$10 billion spread between the two instruments. Buybacks come first, to be clear, in our mind. By the way, when we regard, I can share with you another information is that, since 2015, we use shares to pay some dividend then to acquire Maersk Oil. We issued 400 million shares. We have already bought back 250 million shares. By the end of next year, at $8 billion, we'll have bought back all the shares issued during the period. Dilution will be. This is also for me an objective in order to have a clean sheet as soon as possible. Thank you, Patrick. Lydia. Thank you, and good morning. Two questions, if I could. On the CapEx side and the investment part, that $14 billion-$18 billion, how much of it is organic versus inorganic? Related to that, on the cash flow increase, the difference between that cumulatively over five years is best part of $20 billion. In terms of the uplift in cash flow of $4 billion, is that based on the $14 billion CapEx? Or should we expect it with CapEx being higher, cash flow should also move higher? I'll probably leave it there. In fact, the figure is almost the same in organic and inorganic because in our plan we put, we acquire asset, but we divest asset as well. That's true, but when I see in electricity and renewables, we're required to continue to make inorganic acquisition like we've done. That's clear. Next year, Total Eren will be a new source of investments, you know. But at the same time, we continue to manage the portfolio because we still have some assets. And by the way, in this type of environment, it's important to continue to manage the portfolio in the way we've done it. I would say the organic figure is more or less the same. Consider maybe there is $1 billion of net between acquisition and divestments, just to give you a figure, to give you an idea. This is the way to do it. That's the way to create value. Thank you. The cash flow side, when we make this type of plan, is fundamentally coming from the organic. I mean, when we say we generate $4 billion of extra cash at $50 per barrel, it's coming from the existing portfolio. There is nothing but the results of some acquisitions. It's neutralized, I would say. Except Total Eren, which is identified. Christian. Hi, good morning, and thank you for an excellent presentation. It's good to see you looking to grow energy in such a holistic way. Two questions. The first on slide seven. Massive underinvestment in oil. The world needs more oil, yet you're pivoting, you know, a third of your portfolio towards renewables. I just want to understand why the rush in getting involved in renewables when it's very clear that there's huge amounts of cash flow to make in what is still a very profitable fuel? You could accelerate cash flows as a result, and you know, TotalEnergies has been one of the best in exploring and producing oil for many, many years. That links to the second question, which is there a risk that shale version 2.0 is effectively what renewables is, where you have all the money from God to invest in renewables? Everyone's doing it. We see massive inflation and your profitability targets, like the industry, just get pushed out as growth becomes the priority. I just want to understand how have you mitigated that risk, particularly in the context of inflation and an inability to control that as we've seen in the past through growth industries? Thank you. Okay. First, again, we invest in oil. We have a natural decline of 4% per year in oil. To maintain the production, it means that we need to invest in oil, and I think I described to you different projects, oil projects. By the way, in my view, when I mention countercyclical opportunities, it's not the right time for hydrocarbons, but I don't exclude TotalEnergies to acquire, like we've done in Brazil, some hydrocarbon assets. To be clear, it's not only renewables, not at all. You know, last year we had capacity to acquire these assets in Brazil, we capture them, okay? It's a balanced strategy. It's not only renewable. Forget that. Don't look at it like that. It's the fact that we have a strategy where we think that all these three energies, oil, and gas, and electricity, will need investments. That's true, but our capacity to select the right opportunities in oil and gas are probably better because we have a longer history. I would say I recognize that and I'm proud of it, and we have built on it. Having said that, on oil, when you decide to keep your discipline on, we sanction at $50 per barrel, and we want the emissions lower. It's not the same world that we had in the past, you know? I have some playing fields like Canada, like others, but which we don't want to invest. You know, like Venezuela, all over. It's trying to continue to have the discipline to focus on the playing field where we can find these assets, but we'll continue to do that. By the way, it's not fully true that we did not allocate part of the CapEx to that because, of course, short cycle projects, which will represent $1 billion per year, it's oil. No, it's not, it's not renewable. It's asks the whole question. At the end, if you take the high range, which is not the case, but this year it's $12 billion, which is dedicated to oil and gas out of $16 billion. That's true that compared to before, it's less. It's a choice. It's a choice because the second question, again, your question, you speak renewable. It's not only a question of renewables, it's a question of electricity value chain. A lot of the value is first, I think, let me be clear. In renewables, if you compete with others, you lose money. Okay. I said that, I declared it. This is why when you look to the main transaction we've done, it was direct negotiation, trying to establish relationship to find a way to create the value. The clear way, I will tell you, it would have been put on auction by GIP. I think we would have escaped. By the way, I spend my time to say to my colleagues, "Stop losing your time to go to this," because we face some competitions coming from financial institutions who are clearly not ready to pay NPV 4, NPV 5. That's important to find a way to create the value. What I think is that we have one advantage in that world of electricity, the utilities or is our balance sheet. Providing we are able to build, obviously, the different element of the value chain, including we need some gas-fired power plant, we need some storage. Of course, we have a trading arm. We have to think of that as a merchant part of the business is interesting. Exactly what we've done in oil and gas. It's not the same approach by looking to a secure low return portfolio. You know, it's not what we think. But we need to have a producing asset. If we don't have a producing asset, there is no way to grow the business. That's the way we think. It's a choice. I think it's a longer-term choice. Again, like Brazil, it takes maybe 10 years to establish a profitable position. At the end, we generate a position. You have to consider that we'll find a way to create that position. When we say to you it's 10, more than 10% ROE, this is what we have in our plans. This is the way we select the assets. Again, I know that the reputation of this renewable business is not very high in terms of profitability, but the way we select our portfolio is to fit with our agenda. Okay? That's my question. My answer, I hope. It's a good question, by the way. I'm not surprised by the question. Okay. It's also true that if we want honestly to keep the discipline on oil, we need to continue to be. Because it's not true that we'll be at $100 per barrel forever, you know? Don't repeat the same mistake that we've done in the past. That's also part of our agenda. Martin? Martin, go ahead. Where is the mic, please? There. Yeah. Hi. Hello. I only have one question. Quite a lot of what we do is just sort of interpreting the signals that you're sort of sending out and trying to read between the lines a little bit. An interesting one is the objective to have zero balance sheet gearing. The traditional interpretation of that is somewhat defensive, as in it feels a bit like battening down the hatches against the first and tough time, we better pay down the debt while we can. I'm sort of just trying to understand. I just wanna make sure that I understand the objective to have zero gearing. Is it sort of you think we're really entering a tough period and it's better to remove the debt from the balance sheet? Is this more of a, well, we can pay down the debt and there'll probably be some opportunities, but really the debt capacity of Total remains unchanged in the long run. Can you sort of put the target to have zero debt in a bit of context? Even to have positive treasury, I said. It's not a question of defense, it's the reality of what is happening today. I think it's given a huge opportunity, flexibility to the way to think to the future. You know, it's because we know there will be volatile environment, you know. Again, I would have been in such situation in 2020 when COVID came, we would have not hesitate to continue to develop the product strategy where price was flat. The lesson is that there is volatility. Today we benefit from very high cash environment. Having a company. Again, it's, I think it's a full message for me. It's changing a lot the way we think the future of the company and the flexibility we give, in particular in both investments and return to our shareholders. Again, we know that even if tomorrow price will go down to $50 or I don't know which crisis, a huge financial crisis on the market, which is possible, you know, we'll have in a strong situation, but we could use the balance sheet to go through the storm, which was not really the case in 2015 when we are at quite a pile of debt and at 30% of gearing. I think that's for me, it's not a question of defensive, it's a way to be even more offensive on both sides, return to shareholders and investments. It's something that we did not anticipate. It's why we use the word new era, because we don't think in a holistic approach of the The way we think of TotalEnergies is the same way as before. I think some of my peers, U.S., peers, were in that situation in 2015. I think they were much more comfortable for them to deploy the strategy when we are at 30%. That's a lesson. Let's benefit first from, I would say, these additional surplus cash flows to de-leverage the company, and I think by the way. That's the first point. That's it. You can see that defensive. I see that more as a capacity to be offensive through the cycles. Because in a company, in an energy company, we invest in the long term. What is always difficult to manage is the volatility in our investments policy. You know, you dream to be able to go through all volatility in your return to shareholders. I think we suffer to have a sort of volatility. You know, I remember in this room in 2019, we announced an increase of dividend for 5%-6% per year, by the way. Then the COVID came and we scrapped. We maintained the dividend for sure with an effort, but we scrapped what we announced, you know? That I think is not very good, even including for investors. I prefer to be maybe to have this position, to have a sort of message through the cycle which should be better, because this is an industry where we need to also to be able to. We know that we face volatility and that the investors have seen these companies being able to spend a lot when not to deliver what they return, they announce. This is for me a unique opportunity to enter in a more stable framework. That's what we want to do. To face, because I'm sure that we had the Covid, then we had the Russia, then we don't know what we'll have next year, inflation, macro, environment, we'll face crisis. The company is much stronger. We have a low balance sheet. For me, it's maybe defensive, but defensive to be more offensive, in fact, and to maintain the strategy, to develop the strategy and the returns. Okay, Oswald? There, please. Just Oswald. Thank you very much. First, the first question just on renewables again, 10% return on equity. I just wanted to see if you could tease out an investment like India, Adani, $2 billion in them. I noted recently one of the credit rating agencies was saying Adani, you know, was deeply over-leveraged. So I just wanna think, you know, how do you convince people that if you pull out that project, that's a 10% return on equity project. Could you walk through the steps of securing that? Who are the customers on the other side of that that really secures that project, please? Then secondly, just on LNG. I know we're talking about ex-Russia today, but we still have Yamal to think about. I think you pointed to being more or less unhedged in 2023, but how should we think about you placing those cargoes over this five-year strategic window that you're talking about today, please? On the second question, again, you know the position is, as long as Europe does not sanction the Russian gas, we have no way to escape from this contract. We execute the contract. What we've done in this presentation is excluding all the cash which could come because we think that, things could change. Because as soon as Europe would sanction the Russian gas, we stop all this contract. You know, we have the contractual clause, so that's my point. Again, I think, what I observe is that this war, unfortunately, could last. We are entering into something which is more and more complex. On this aspect, we are, or I would say we are monitoring that according to the European regulations and sanctions, and we will obey to that. If we don't have the volumes. That's life, you know, and we'll lose it. That's a lost opportunity. I would say there is no way for us not to obey to all these sanctions. At the same time, as long as there is no sanction, we have no way as well to exit this contract because it's a huge liability. On the first question, Adani, I think maybe we should explain to you the Adani Green model. You know, Adani has a Adani Green because it's Adani and Adani Green, where we are investors. There are some contracts with some Indian CFDs, I would say, and Stefan could answer to that question more extensively. I think, honestly, there is a way to do it, which, by the way, we have begun to do, is just to. I'm not sure we'll keep the 20% for long. You know, if you manage to monetize part of your equity, but we invested at 2% and you value 10%, it's a matter of monitoring that. So it's a source of potential cash. It's not growth, it's not a question of volume for me, it's a question of developing the value. I mean, that, of course, we take care of the position of Adani Green, as a company. I think the balance sheet for me is safe. Maybe Stéphane wants to elaborate on the Well, I think maybe the best would be I take the point, but to give you more information about the portfolio which exists. It's a real existing portfolio. You know, it's not a pile of debt or developing projects which have some revenues which are, I would say, secured. It's in rupiah. You take the rupiah risk. Like always in electricity, you take the local exchange risk. I'm not uncomfortable. Is the valuation of IDR 10 billion for 20% the right valuation? That I'm a bit more prudent, but I'm observing that. It's back to something more fundamental. You know, what the markets are valuing a lot, this type of renewable company. The Indian market, by the way, more than others, but including Adani. That means that, as I said, today it's difficult for us to make any transaction unless we have some specific access to that. I mean, it's, I'm not convinced that the valuation will remain so high for long, but between 2% and 10%, you have some room, you know. By the way, I think that if we would like to make some transaction of some of these shares, we'll accept a lower price. Okay? The 10% on this one, I think it's a question of liquidity of the investment. Okay? Because what is true in your model, again, is that as there is a lot of debt, you don't have much dividend, you know. To ensure you, it's part of our model, and we intend to dedicate part of the holding to ensuring the re turn. Other questions? Bertrand Hodée. Hi, Bertrand Hodée, Kepler Cheuvreux. One question on the shareholder distribution and the dividend, again. I appreciated you move now dividend as number one priority in your financial framework. Why haven't you raised a step up given the dollar strength, knowing that your cash flow is in dollar? Also why haven't you committed under, I would say, an oil price scenario to a dividend increase 4% or 5% over the next coming years? I haven't seen any numbers. You hinted some growth. I think that keeps you conference call, but I didn't see any. Because last time we committed to a special figure, we lost 5% because it could be perceived as too low. We are committed to distribute 35%-40% of our cash flow. We have a cash flow growth which is giving more. 5% represent $400 million, more or less. Why should I limit you today to 5%? We just give you a lot of information. I think it's more important for me and for the board to have a conviction to deliver 35%-40% of cash flow payout. You know, we are French mathematicians, I know. Last time we done it, 5% per year, the reaction of the stock market was not so good because some people think, "Why do they allocate only 40% of the cash increase to that?" You know, it's because we are in a world where the volatility of the market, they are entering at a high price, so maybe it will be higher than that. That's the reason why. I prefer to deliver to you that we'll target the 35%-40% of cash flow payouts, which is again in the history of the company, a strong commitment to the markets. Rather than beginning to deliver, it will be through that. Let's give some flexibility between the various instruments. We put dividend first, like you remarked. It's a strong message, I think. That's the reason. Very simple. Many thanks for. What's the point? Amy there. Hi, good morning. It's Amy Wong from Credit Suisse. Thanks for the deep dive on your U.S. operations. Let me switch it over to that a little bit. Just wanted to get your thoughts on the recent Inflation Reduction Act and what that does for your renewables, low carbon business in the U.S. Then the second part of that is you've got, you said, I think you mentioned about 12% of your capital employed is in the U.S., so what's your appetite to raise that exposure in this country? Thanks. Normally, we have a policy which is not to have more than 10% in one country because of the geopolitical risks. Maybe there is a risk to invest in the U.S. You have a litigation risk in the U.S., you know. It's not a geopolitical risk, it's more a litigation risk. Again, no, we have some appetite. We, on LNG and on renewables, we can do it. Renewables, to be honest, we have already in two years made quite a big step. Now I think it's time to deliver all that, you know. I will be very transparent with you. We have the opportunity. We identified very quickly the U.S. as a strong market, reinforced by the Biden Act, by the way, because you have some. It's quite efficient what you do in the U.S., you know. It's simple and clear. It's through fiscal incentive. You can calculate easily. What you do is not so complex, but sometimes in Europe with CFDs and complex mechanisms, where the states could come back on their commitment. Of course, Biden Act has given some perspective on it, so I think it's given. But in the U.S., if you want to develop this renewable and electricity business, of course, you have to face merchant to invest in storage and to be along the chain. Otherwise, you could be trapped in something not enough. If you are only limited to renewables, it will not be enough. Maybe the next step for us will be to reinforce in the U.S., I would say, the other, speak about flexible power, et cetera, in order to establish this value chain. LNG, we can do more. We are looking for more opportunities, to be clear. Because you have, and linked to LNG, there is a question mark for us about gas production. Because if you control your gas costs, it's better than if you buy and regas, you know. There is room to do more. I think you have a huge resource base at quite a low cost. We are comfortable with that. That's the U.S., are well located. You arbitrage between Europe and Asia. We are looking to if we have opportunities to go beyond Cameron, we'll do it. It's a question to find the right one, knowing that we don't want to be purely an offtaker. We like to establish the integrated position. We want to be equity holder of the plants. We don't want to leave some money to infrastructure funds which with quite high returns. That's the position. We are looking to that. I said it's more Qatar and more U.S., when I answer to LNG, you know? Thank you. Lucas? Thanks very much, Renaud. It's Lucas Herrmann at Exane BNP Paribas. Two, if I might, Patrick. The first is broadly windfall taxes, just how you've incorporated them in, you know, the cash flow outlook. I mean, conceptually, there's nothing there by 2027, but then it's government, it's windfall taxes, so, you know, who knows. The second was just going back to Russia. Firstly, just to be clear and to understand the cash flows that you expect to derive from trading the offtake from Novatek or from Yamal is excluded from these numbers. But secondly, in the real world, that cash flow is, you know, is still there. So how should we think about, you know, the excess that you are generating? I mean, that is. I guess the question that ties with that is how much of the cash are you receiving? Do you still expect to be able to receive cash from Novatek, be it via dividend, from Yamal, be it via trading LNG? I think the latter is obvious, but the other two, just some guidance as we strip everything else down. That's not easy to receive some cash. That's why we are prudent as well in our expectations, you know. There are less, the financial circuits between Russia and the rest of the world are becoming complex for Western companies. So to be transparent, yes, we have received something this year, but I see some complexity month after month. I'm not convinced we will continue to have any flows of Russia in the coming months to come, you know. You know, in Russia, we have been proactive, and we don't just wait. We have divesting, we have said that we progressively will exit our business. We have done it on Kharyaga, we have done it on Termokarstovoye, so it takes time. Our positioning allow us to find a way to make this transaction. again, it's why I'm very comfortable not to plan anything with Russia, because I'm not convinced that if any of the cash flow that we managed to get at the beginning of the year will continue. Windfall. Windfall. What is included in all that is the windfall from the U.K., because we consider it will be maintained, in fact. Just because you know, we know that even the U.K., they lower the taxation when prices are low, they increase when prices are high. It's quite impressive what we'll pay this year, because of high, the gas price is so high that of course, the sensitivity that I gave last July at $500 million was. $15 per million BTU. $14 million per million BTU, but if the price is higher, we'll pay more, obviously, you know. It's quite proportionate. That's something. You know, you have this big debate about, in particular in Europe, about windfall taxes. You can see that I'm fighting against the idea that they want to tax refining business. We lost some money, so I'm trying to. We have some support from some government. We have these European initiatives, which by the way, for us, would represent something today around, let's say EUR 1 billion on this year. It seems to be because the legal basis of this European initiative is quite narrow. You know, it's. Really, they are using an article of the treaty to make contributions, not a taxation, without the unanimity of the country, which is, they would not get a unanimity probably. Only to answer to crisis, which means that it should not be permanent one. It's a difficult debate, to be honest, because we of course explain to everybody, but then to European policymakers that if they tax more today, when the day we make money, why do they want us to invest tomorrow? We will remember that. I was very clear of the French National Assembly. Having said that's a debate not only in France, in many countries today. They are all looking for money to finance their rebates or capping of electricity, gas price, you know, subsidizing fossil fuels, despite what we explained to the world that it's not a good way to work, but we do it ourselves, and they like to finance that. Remember also that all these governments have spent a huge amount of money during the COVID period. Not for us, because we refuse any support from any governments, but they want to recover some cash. There is a temptation. We have to fight against that. Something reasonable has to be the outcome. We prefer clearly a European framework than something which would be country by country, because it's, I think it's better. There's probably. I think the debate is there. It's a political debate and you see, we have made some, on our side, some initiatives. For example, to make some rebates at the gasoline price. It's a huge success in France. At least the popularity of TotalEnergies is going up. I can tell you it's a huge communication investment. It will last only two months. It has a cost. But I think it's also maybe a way to politically say, "Okay, look, for the customer point of view, citizens, they see part of these super profits, which are far from them." It's difficult to avoid the debate and to be. Again, the main answer is to explain them that any taxation will influence the way we allocate our capital. That's the main answer. By the way, part of the answer, to come back to Christian's question, I think a good answer for all energy companies politically is also to invest in new energies. I think it's also part of the answer. I think it's a way to protect, I would say. If I forbid, that's the positive answer to them. It's what I tell them. "Okay, look, we have this cash, but today we continue to invest more and more." By the way, when I'm looking to the, I would say, French companies, for example, European companies, with $4 billion today this year, we are quite a large investor in this field. It's also the best positive one. Doing that, we can protect, I would say, the cash flows coming from the. Trying to avoid these type of taxations. That's a positive answer from them. I prefer to keep in the company part of this value than going to grow the taxes, you know, boost state budgets. Thank you, Biraj. Yeah. Justin. Hi, it's Biraj Borkhataria, RBC. Two questions. The first one's on your LNG business. You know, as you're looking to expand, I was wondering if you could talk about some of the behavior you're seeing from the buyers, because there seems to be a bit of a contradiction, particularly European buyers, on their willingness to sign kind of long-term contracts. Asian buyers tend to be more price sensitive historically. Any commentary on or color on that would be helpful. The second one is just going back to the capital structure. You know, you're pointing to zero financial debt, but you also have hybrids in the capital structure. I'm wondering if you're thinking about higher for longer commodity prices or at least for a couple of years. Is. Are they still required in your capital structure at this point? Thank you. Our rates are 2.4%. Cheap equity. Cheap equity. Why do you want me to, when interest rates are going up, to have this cheap source of Capital. Capital? I'm not sure to fully understand why I should do that now. It's cheaper to do rather than expensive debt in our view. Back to my answer. On the buyers, yes, it's true, but you know, fundamentally, our belief, my belief is that, and I think strongly believe, we will need gas for long in this planet. You know, maybe it's difficult to say. Energy and all that. Even Europe, you know, there is no way to make a reliable electricity power system without combining renewables and gas-fired power plant. You can make nuclear. Otherwise, you make coal. It's coal. But you need to have some, I would say, flexible power plants. It's just a fact. I know people are saying we would like to get rid of it, but it will take long time before to do that. I think we should. You know, I know that very. When discussing with the governments, of course there is politically something strange that they want to say, "No, we'll exit fossil fuel." But the reality of the planet is today when they announce, they are so afraid to announce to customers that they could have some limitations in their electricity or gas supply. But they are ready to pay any price today. I think this is where a company like TotalEnergies must have a longer view. My long view is that these LNG markets is therefore continuing to develop on the long term because it's connecting the markets. One of the points which might be difficult is not Europe, but it might become. Of course, in Europe, one of the demand factor which could disappear in Europe in the long term is the industries. You know, I'm afraid to see the impact of these high gas prices, high energy prices on the. It's not my business, but in industries in Europe. I think we'll saw- we will see some disruption because you had. It's difficult. I mean, I don't know if it's politically correct, but let's not forget. Clearly the Russian gas was a source of competitiveness at low cost in Europe for many industries. Not for us, but for many industries. This source disappeared. I think these manufacturing business might relocate their business. By the way, also in the U.S., it's we see some trend. That's part of the question about the assumption of 3% per year of decrease of gas demand is maybe low at this price. If you take 5%, could go quicker. The other point on this one is that, yes, you're right, the emerging country Asian countries are much more price-sensitive to price. That's something which, for me, is more complex to maneuver, which is in this business, we might see some demand destruction also in Asia because of these gas buyers losing trust in the fact that gas is well fitted for their economies. You know, I'm thinking to India, where clearly for them, paying more than $5-$7 per million BTU is too high. The economy does not support it today. We have something to be careful, which is of course, in the LNG business, it's becoming a seller business today. I mean, so I see some trends to, you know, the famous 10% of Brent, 10%, 11%, 12%. I'm beginning to hear 13% coming back to 14%. All that, maybe it's good on the short term, not sure it's good for the long term. We have to be careful not to estrange some customers. By the way, a percentage of Brent today is better than a link to a JKM or I don't know which gas index. I think by the way, the lesson for buyers should be to mix Brent and gas index, not to be only related to one, hopefully. By the way, it's a lesson for Europe as well. In the past, we have some Norwegian gas contracts which were linked to oil. We decided to move all of them to a spot index to TTF. Today, Europe is paying the price, and they want to cap the Norwegian gas price, which is another strange mechanism. That's another strange mechanism. Again, I think the gas demand in Europe, if there is an issue, would be more coming from the manufacturing base for Europe, where you could see some destruction rather than some policy makers. Again, there is still some coal in Europe which has to be shifted to something as a natural shift is to gas. When these regas terminals will be built in Germany, of course, maybe there will be too many capacities, but they will use them. Not only to make hydrogen in the long term, you know, gas will come. Q uestion on that side. Henry? Yes, thank you. Thank you for the detailed presentation. I've two follow-ups, please. First one, again, on the financial frameworks and your comments earlier about the capacity to be offensive with a stronger balance sheet. I think, Patrick, during the presentation, you said that 40%, that's something that you could maybe go above at some point. How should we think about that with maybe the balance sheet going into net cash, then you'd be looking to return more to shareholders, how do you balance that versus CapEx, likely soft ceiling on the shareholder returns and more of a hard ceiling on CapEx. Then secondly, following up on LNG, you mentioned earlier that you're interested in adding capacity in the U.S. Is that just in the U.S., or will you be looking to add to your portfolio also outside the U.S. on top of what you've already done in Qatar? No. First question, please. We announced 35%-40%. Okay? Immediately, why don't we move on? Okay, it's permanent, so let's stick to what we announced today, which I think for me is a good step forward to our shareholders. First time the company is committing in writing to that level. Again, I didn't want you to take it where we monitor between both and to take the 40% as a limit. It's why my comment is not a limit. It's just a range that we target. You know, we don't know exactly what will be the cash flows. We have to monitor that. That's the spirit of it. I just want it, don't take that as a limit. There is no limit. It's just that let's deliver the 35%-40%. It's already better than what we've done in the past. It's a positive message. Again, if I am in a world of $100 per barrel for many years, high gas price, your question will be valid. Let's look. You know, the price of a barrel begins to decline. We may be entering into recession next year. It's a high possibility. You could have a financial market crisis. What I'm paid to do, but a linear future is far from what we observe in terms of many years, you know, and that this world is going from one crisis to another crisis. It's not because. I'm happy to look to what is the situation today. Let's see step by step, and if we have to, can do more, we'll not object to that. The second question was about LNG. You know, what are the large players in LNG, who owns LNG today? It's Qatar. You exclude Russia, you have Qatar, Australia, U.S. Then we have our portfolio with PNG, with Mozambique, on which we can work. If there are opportunities today, it's more in the U.S. than elsewhere, I think. There are more projects being developed here. So the question is to find the, I would say. It's a question of cost as well for me, because, you know, we begin to see some increase in the CapEx, including here, because you have a sort of overheating of the downstream business. Not only because LNG is linked to refining, biorefining, it's the same type of contractors. You have some overheating, so let's find the right opportunity. From this perspective, I would say that brownfield projects are better than greenfield, because when you have to pay the whole infrastructure, it's obviously more expensive. I have some question online as well. If you have any ideas, I'm ready to give it to me, because we can be proactive on LNG. I'm ready to take your ideas. We have a question now. Yes. Thanks. Ryan Todd at Piper Sandler. Maybe a question on the renewables business. If we look, you know, versus the guidance from a year ago, the CapEx over the multi-year plan on an annual basis is maybe a little about $2 billion a year higher. The gigawatt of capacity added, certainly at least on the electricity side, and the EBITDA targets are effectively unchanged. As we think about the incremental spend versus where we were a year ago, is that predominantly cost inflation that we're seeing? Is it a different mix in where the spend is going? Or is it timing of when, you know, kind of the capacity and the EBITDA generation come on stream? And then maybe one follow-up. You seem fairly comfortable with at least some level of merchant exposure going forward. Can you maybe talk a little bit about your appetite for merchant exposure on the power side and the role of the power trading business? I mean, it's certainly profitable as we see in the LNG business, in a time like today, it's hard for us to forecast, certainly. I guess appetite for, you know, merchant business and trading within that as we think about kind of the certainty around that cash flow stream going forward. Thanks. I'm trying to guess your $2 billion because honestly it's not linked to inflation. It's more linked to activity, potential activity. I'm not sure to understand where you come up with your $2 billion. It's because you take the maximum multiplied by 33%, but in the 33% you don't have any renewables and electricity. Last year where the guidance was given up 25% out of 16%, only on renewables and electricity. In fact, you have more or less $1 billion there. You don't have $2 billion. Because as I said, we have also allocating part of this 33%, you have the carbon reduction program, the energy efficiency, and you have the new molecules on which we make some additional, I would say, investments in biofuels, sustainable aviation fuel or biogas. Maybe we, if we had given today the, I mean, I think we'd have kept 25% in renewable electricity and 5%-10% in new molecules and other carbon reduction programs, if we would have given you the split between both. We decided to aggregate them in a sort of third. For me, it's not linked to inflation. Merchant, in fact, the idea is to more or less, what we've done by the way historically in LNG, is to keep in the unregulated markets, because it doesn't work in regulated markets. In unregulated markets, to keep 30% more or less of the portfolio being merchant. We begin to apply that to some of our portfolio. For example, in the U.K., our first offshore wind farm, Seagreen, Scotland, we did it deciding not to apply for CFD, which were at a very low level. We applied for CFD to a high level because we didn't want to lose some value, and we are comfortable to manage part of this merchant exposure. Of course, might face some difficulties, but you know, when you commit at a CFD today in Europe or something, let's say EUR 50 per MWh on average, look to where is the market. It's fundamentally what do you think is the perspective of this power market in the U.S., or in Europe on the longer term? Knowing that we have to invest heavily in these markets and that intermittency will create some problem of supply and, you know, less wind, not enough solar, less hydro, all this. It's becoming a business where volatility is probably, I mean, on a pace which is quicker than on the oil and gas, but which could offer some opportunities. I would also say that when we invest in offshore wind, to come back on your CapEx, offshore wind is more CapEx intensive than the rest of the renewables. When you want to develop, and that's by the way a strategic question where we are not so clear what is the real amount of offshore wind portfolio we want to have. Because all that is, it's like E&P, you know. It's you explore, you invest money, and the cycle on offshore wind is more eight-10 years than three-five years like onshore solar or onshore wind. Of course, the exposure in terms of CapEx is higher. That's also part of the. By the way, like Jean-Pierre said in an answer in his comments on the U.S., we will make JVs with others. We will not keep this license 100% because the exposure will be too high. I prefer in this business, like in E&P to have 50% of two projects when 100% of one project, you know, in terms of running the risk is much better. Even three times 33% is a lot better for us than 100% or 2x 50%. That's also an approach to implement. Yeah. Yeah, go ahead. Hi. Thanks. It's Peter Low from Redburn. Just a couple of questions on some of the guidance you put out today. The $4 billion increase in underlying cash flow you're guiding to by 2027, does that exclude any contribution from oil sands? I'm just trying to understand if it will be higher and closer to the $5 billion you talked about last year without that spin-off. The second question was just on the $1 billion you're spending a year, or increased investment I should say, in carbon footprint reduction programs. To what extent is that investment just offsetting higher energy and carbon prices? Or will there actually be operating cost efficiencies and potential revenues from things like CCS and nature-based solutions that arise from that investment too? Yes, this is excluding oil sands. We consider that oil sands, as we announced, we want to make the spin-off. It's excluding. Last year it was sold, but it's not here. You have also Russia out. In fact, when you add Canada plus Russia out, the $4 billion compared to the $5 billion is quite, is not unfavorable in fact, I think. Again, we take assumption $50 European gas price, which today could be considered as low. That's clear. Second question. No, fundamentally, at this horizon, there is not much revenues. There is mainly, it's an investment which is. You know, when we invest in energy efficiency, when we. At $100 per ton of CO2, taxation, I mean, in ETS in Europe, you save some money at a certain point. All that is as a return. The point is it's obviously the energy cost being higher, we have a benefit on one side, which is on our business side. It's good to control the costs. CCS revenues at this level, at this horizon, no. I mean, CCS revenues for me are, it's a time we will invest in some projects, but they will come beyond 2030. I'm not expecting revenues at this point. Okay. It's important if we can manage our costs, including our CO2 taxation. Remember that we use $100 per ton, by the way, in the European market. It's that level today. Yeah. Irene? Yeah, she's there. No? Thank you. Irene Himona, Société Générale. I had a couple of questions specific to Europe, if I may. Obviously there is an energy emergency. There is massive intervention, subsidies, windfall taxes, a lot of short-term actions. Is this situation perhaps impacting at all TotalEnergies' appetite to grow or not renewables in Europe? How do you see the European renewables opportunity? The second question, can you give us a broad number, just a ballpark number, for the cost to the company this year of the combined windfall taxes, EU solidarity tax, cost for French discounts, et cetera? Thank you. It's a good question because, I mean, we want to understand where they want to land. It's true that the European governments seem in this consternation. I mean, I'm a little afraid that the short-term panic could lead them to take actions which could be detrimental to the global framework, which is not the case in the U.S., by the way. Yeah, appetite for renewables in Europe is also limited. In fact, I mean, it's limited by the fact that it's more costly to develop there because all the projects are smaller, I would say, except offshore wind, where you can see some size. The others are smaller. There is a lot of competition. It's smaller, so it's less efficient, I would say, than in other parts of the world, I would say. When I say it's unregulated market, I would like to be sure that the electric power European market will remain unregulated. I don't know what they. I think they don't know themselves, to be honest. There is a lot of. That's part of it. It's a very sensible question, I would say. We have to monitor that. On the second one, the sum. Again, the sum, the U.K., will depend on the gas price. Let's say it's more probably at the end, if we are more at $30 per million BTU at 15%. Could be a billion. $1 billion, yes. It could be $1 billion. But again, the revenues are higher than the taxation, so we keep part for us. No, but I mean, it's a question of the difference between how much do we get, how much we pay. Could be $1 billion. The European taxation, as it is framed today, we evaluate that around $1 billion. It's a contribution. It's Germany, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, France, six countries. Our voluntary contribution will be around $500 million, more or less. It's becoming a lot of money. As I declared to National Assembly of France, if there is a taxation, the voluntary contribution might be stopped. Yeah. To choose. Other questions? Yeah. Yes, go ahead. Yeah. Thank you. Paul Cheng, Scotiabank. Two questions. Patrick, can you talk about the inflation pressure you see in your system outside the U.S.? Have you seen any major pressure point? Secondly, in the sustainable aviation field, you are talking about focusing on the feedstock and ways we see. Just curious that what kind of technology are you guys is targeting? Are you using the HEFA or that you're trying to use FT or the other technology? What kind of ways that we are talking about, and how you going to be able to acquire that? Thank you. Bernard will answer to the technology. I think the first one, but Bernard can take, you have the real answer specifically. On the first question, which one? Inflation pressure. Inflation pressure. Yeah, we've seen we begin to see. Well, again, we see it, of course, in all these renewables. It is clear. You have a lack of supply chain. I mean, the urgency is to develop alternative supply chains to the Chinese supply chain. Otherwise, we'll be trapped. That's clear. Again, one way to tackle the inflation, and we implementing that, is to massify the way we purchase solar cells. Today, what we are doing at a global level is we have many projects around the world that we use our purchasing power, I would say, to go to the market by making some long-term massive purchasing of solar cells in order to diminish the cost. That's a way to do it. For the time being, we didn't see too many inflations in the oil and gas business, but I suspect it would come because the history will repeat again. Remember in 2005 when the price beginning to come, we were up. The costs were much lower than today and then, of course, the contractors begin to say, "Oh, we want a share of the cake," you know? And not only the states want to have windfall taxes, but ourselves, we would like to have better things. It depends on the segments, you know. There have been some consolidation, so we might face. In particular, there is a competition which frightens me a little between offshore wind and offshore oil and gas. The same contractors today are working for both segments. The idea is that they lose a lot of money in offshore wind, so they begin to be cautious. That might, in particular on some heavy lifting capacities or if elsewhere we could face some inflation. Yeah. I observe that some of our nice friends in the drilling services announce that they want to increase their price by 10%-15%. It's something that we'll face for sure. That's why we need to act and to deliver a message of discipline. That's also sometimes, you know, I can tell you that we are not obliged to accept all the inflations. We faced with Nicolas a question of ordering the steel for pipeline, EACOP pipeline. People explain us that we had to accept 40% increase or more. We say, "No. Let's wait. We are not in a hurry, and, you know, without delaying the project, we can more cope with it. Let's organize a better competition. Let's open the scope of suppliers, not only one or two." I understand that we are in proceed to have. It was probably a tough but wise decision because the price of steel is decreasing. I think there is also a lesson for me, which was, it's a lesson taken from the year 2010, 2015, where we were so rushing to volumes that we are ready to accept any cost to make the project, you know. At the end, we had these white elephants that we had in the portfolio in 2015. I can name the project in our portfolio where, of course, after that it was a burden. The rush to volume, it's for me, the key things to avoid. It's true for renewables. It's true for upstream. It's true. I know this one, so I'm a little prudent about increasing oil, to come back to Christian's question, which is a perfectly sensible question. I know that we'll face again inflation, and we have to be careful not to rush again on volume. I'm more comfortable today to say I will maintain my production and manage the costs rather than beginning to say, we have to do it. You know, we have this Block 20/21 project in Angola. People begin to tell me I will have to accept your $20 threshold is too tough, or your $30. Yes, but if we lift the rules of discipline, it's a whole mindset and spirit. We are not driven by volume, and that's, I think, the key lesson we should keep in mind from the year 2010, 2015. Otherwise, there is no way we will. This inflation will come, we'll accept it. The more we accept, the more we create a vicious circle. That's, I think, for me, the duty of the top of the company, myself and my colleagues. I know it's tough because our colleagues, they all want to push a project. They are paid for that. If we don't respect the budget we consider are right, we have to say, "Let's wait." The barrel will not disappear. Again. I think we should not underestimate as well that in this business, TotalEnergies is one of the company who have a purchasing power. We can also, because they like to have orders from us. We are reliable customer for them, and so we should not underestimate that and be ready to open door. Diversification of the supply chain is clearly something on which we need to work. I'm in. I know and you look at, you know, when we are embarking this battery business, I begin to see some of these, all these raw materials. Copper is becoming something where I begin to hear from customers that they might face a problem of delivering copper, cable copper for electric cables. It seems that they begin to see a shortage of it. I don't know if it's true or maybe they invent the shortage to make the price increase. We'll have to become more expert on all these raw materials to be able to challenge them, by the way. It's true that we are increasing our dependency on all these minerals today. Other questions? Yes. To answer the question on the technology. Yeah. For sustainable aviation fuel. That's HEFA, which is the most cost-competitive technology. The two others you mentioned, alcohol to jet, there is a factor of 1.5%-2% more expensive. The gasification, Fischer-Tropsch is by a factor of 3%. By far, this is the most competitive one we are going after. HEFA, yeah. This is what we invest. Another question. Can still take few questions if you want. You were raising your arm. Just behind Bernard, mister. No? You raised your arm. You have an answer? It's done? Good. Yes. We have a question at the back. Hello. I'll ask about Suriname because I think you told us to. I was trying to avoid the question. Well, all right. I read it wrong. Is there a scenario where it's commercialized and developed as a natural gas asset or so you're. No. Only exploring. No. Honestly, there is no gas markets. Okay. If you find it, to give me the idea. Fair enough. No, honestly, it's. No. No, I don't see it. There is no domestic demand. If you want to go to Trinidad, you have to cross the narrow Venezuelan waters. Look to the map. You could avoid it. No, I think it has to be developed as oil and recycling gas. That's the base scheme on which we work. The question is to find a oil pool which allows to develop an efficient oil projects. It's more today, to be honest with you, it's more a question of, we are drilling, we made a lot of the discoveries, but we have a problem of productivity of the seismic. The appraisal wells never fitting with our expectations, which is strange. It's the first time. There is a lot of hydrocarbons, but Productivity is important if we want to develop a field, you know. We need to be able to commit some CapEx. That's part of the reservoir engineering, which is difficult today. There are some wells going on, and the objective is to be able to have a project by middle of the year. Sorry, maybe one more because I was short. You had a quarter result earlier this year where your power margins went down because of price controls, but your overall segment results in the gas and power segment were up. That is good because it demonstrates the value of integration, but it's also good for consumers because you could absorb price controls, whereas an IPP would probably go bankrupt if they had their margins. Compressed in half. The question is that benefit recognized, you know, by any policy makers? Do you anticipate, you know, European policy or broader global policy kind of recognizing and making more room for an integrated model because you've sort of had a proof point earlier in the year? Stéphane, you have an answer? They recognize anything today? Please, a mic. A mic there, please. I mean, I'm not. Yeah. I think that there is a recognition that you need to have big player to ensure security of supply to the end consumer. That, going through the crisis, many players have disappeared. I wouldn't be too surprised to see some rules put forward by regulators saying you need to have X balance sheet to be able to do that. Going forward, you should see less competition on the downstream part. No, that's true. No? That's clear. It's coming. I fully agree. No, it's a good point. I think, yes, the integration is giving. The big difference between us and some of the IPPs are more as well the size of our balance sheet. You know, we are able to absorb this type of shock. You know, today, the European markets of gas and power are facing problem of liquidity because you have huge margin calls. Of course, we in this business have some ways to manage all that, but others do not have. That's also part of it. The integration is clearly providing some security. Yeah, having said that, they always make a difference. I'm surprised, strangely, but these policy makers are making difference between gas and electricity. You know, they try to separate. There is a real difficulty, to be honest, for them to understand that all that is interconnected. They want to disconnect as if because electricity is a local energy, and gas are world market, you know, so continental markets. In fact, it's really interconnected. You cannot manage one without the other, so this way our positioning is probably better. Agree. Yeah. Hey. Jason Gabelman from Cowen. Two questions, one on the power growth. In this environment, do you see any challenges to growing, just given the volatility in power prices and inflation on the cost side? Does it make it more difficult to kind of agree to PPAs and get projects off the ground? And then the other question, just maybe, an easy one to answer on cash flow growth. $4 billion a year is what you outlined. If I add up all the numbers from the segments, I get to something closer to $5 billion, maybe above $5 billion. So I don't know if you built in some conservatism in there or if there's some offset. I know you mentioned the UK windfall tax, which maybe is not explicitly in any of the segments. Any help there as well? Thanks. Yeah. The second one is quite easy. Yes, we are a little conservative sometimes. But at the same time, I'm pragmatic. I know that it's five years, and I think I prefer. No, and by the way, it's a little conservative. But as there is no mathematical formula, despite your neighbor question, between the cash flow growth and the dividend growth, consider we have growth, you know? It's not a mathematical formula. But again, we know that all that it will. It's never again, it's not a roadmap. And again, I would have surprised you, but I think keeping five with, without Canada, without Russia, would have been a challenge, to be honest. So that's point. The first one. No, I think this volatility demonstrate that the PPA main business is one where you know people want fixed price is not a good idea. You need to be a little more, I would say, imaginative, creative, because there is no way for us to take a fixed price PPA on the long term with costs going up and without losing part of the upside, you know. It's back to, I think, a normal way to evolve. It has to be a little more. The idea that fundamentally you continue to drive down the cost and that phase, it's an industry where cost will permanently go down to zero is a wrong idea. It's a wrong idea. Again, that's what was the. Because all that was subsidized somewhere by many people somewhere, and it's not true. I'm not surprised to see costs going up and then we have cycles everywhere. That means that when you sign the PPA, you need to keep to have formulas where part of the upside could be shared and they help to secure some to launch the project. We need to find a way to have formulas to keep the to keep the upsides. Stéphane, you want to comment on that? No, that's what you say. What in the recent PPA we have signed, we start to see clever things than just the fixed price. There is fixed price, there is corridor. We share the upside on merchant price and so on. That's one. Second, what we see is that clearly PPA prices are increasing because inflation rises and costs, it's coming. To be honest, even some projects that we assigned, we've been able to renegotiate them because the demand for green PPA is much higher than what the market can offer. Yes, on one side you have a cost increase, but on the other side you have a demand growth as well. Any other question? Yeah. We had Lucas and Kim. Kim. On here. Kim. Kim first. First, because I didn't hear the voice of Kim. I've heard the voice of Lucas. Kim, is that, yeah. Yeah. Hi, this is Kim Fustier, HSBC. I was just wondering, in terms of the 100 GW target for renewables by 2030, how much of this target is already secured and in your portfolio? And could you perhaps talk about the bridge between where you are today and how to get to the 100 GW? And my second question is on power prices. I mean, you disclose your assumptions on oil prices, gas prices, refining margins, but you don't disclose your assumptions on power prices specifically in Europe, for example. So without talking about specific numbers, are you able to just give general thoughts as to how you view the current forward curve in European power prices, which is at unprecedented levels, and how you think this is gonna shake out, and particularly the uncoupling between gas and electricity? Thank you. Well, the power price, you know, for us, we still believe in the connections between marginal prices, the gas-fired power plant. It's quite easy. When I use $8 per million BTU, you can derive what is the electricity price, which is there. It's you multiply by three, you multiply by six in fact, and you add the cost of CO2, so it's something like 70 or 80 EUR per MWh. But very easily. Well, we still consider despite all what I hear that it's a right way to price electricity. Might be higher, but, let's say it's, so it's a little conservative, but it's going to be $1, okay? Why $1, by the way, I did not comment it. It's just that, okay, don't consider a use $1. That's why it's conservative, because for the next, as Helle has told you, for the next three-five years, with all that we see in Europe, with lack of regas capacity, LNG supply, which is stretched, we'll be surprised to see $1. $1 is more long-term view, but in a stable world, if you have enough LNG on this planet, then the gas price in Europe should be driven by the cost of US LNG going to Europe. When you do the math, you find $6-$8, I mean, $8, but it's conservative $8. Which is, by the way, a fundamental shift before but compared to last year in our assumption. Because last year we were using something like $5, I think. Just because we had the Russian gas in the system. When you eliminate the Russian gas, you have much more energy coming to Europe. That's changing a lot of course with perspective on European gas. I would be surprised to see $8 next year. I mean, I'm more betting, I don't know, $25 or something like that, than $8, you know? And $85, that means that for electricity is around, by the famous 180, by the way, that the European wants to establish in fact as a sort of ceiling above which they want to take everything. By the way, 180 euro per MW is $25 per million BTU, in fact. You connect that. The previous question was what? The 100 GW. Oh, yeah, the 100 GW. Stéphane can answer to that. I think we are more than 70 today in our portfolio. Okay. It's long, you know, we have time. We have time. Again, my team wanted to increase it. I said, "No. Don't be afraid." I don't know. I want to keep the capacity to arbitrate between all your projects. Just to come back, by the way, this is a segment where we say no to our teams in renewables. We say no more to our teams in renewables than in E&P, you know. We say no because their projects are not fitting our profitability targets. Again, this as Helle described to you and on the U.S., there is a lot of opportunity, so we have time to identify the right ones. And what I think as well, what I hope is that we are building on how many more people. You know, we begin to have quite a number of direct employees. So I'm waiting for them to have organic growth in order to create the value, and so that will be also the engine of the future growth. Lucas Herrmann, you have the right to ask a second round of question. It depends on the question. I might reserve my right to answer. Actually, that's probably a sensible approach. 'Cause it's slightly conceptual, but I think it's reached that point in the meeting. I've got 200 BCM a year of gas a year kind of stranded in Russia. I look at an LNG industry that, you know, clearly there's great need et cetera, supply at the moment. You can see, you know, a lot of players pushing quite aggressively to try and build and construct their project. Do you worry that there's a point over the next, let's just call it several years, where some kind of a rapprochement, unsurprisingly, is reached between Europe and Russia and that a good chunk of that 200 BCM, you know, that stranded gas starts to work its way back in? I ask because you can see that, you know, five, six years' time, all this LNG capacity is coming on stream, which you're all committed to. Then unfortunately, suddenly, you know, 20, 30 BCM, doesn't have to be a big number. Just works its way back into Europe and pow. It's a political question, this one. My view is, I don't. If we have to exit from this war and to find peace in our continent again, the gas business will happy to be part of the peace between Russia and Europe, but not at the level it was before. Not at 150 BCM, but I would not be surprised to see 50 BCM continuing to flow somewhere. Is it LNG? Is it pipe gas? I don't know. LNG offers more flexibility to everybody rather than pipelines, which by the way seems to have some issues. Maybe the pipeline will. No, I mean, I'm. Yes, I parted. If we are optimistic, I'm not today, because at this I don't see any. Unfortunately, the way it developed is quite frightening. Yes, I think gas business will come back, but not the same volume. That's the point. Yeah. No other question? Bo, that's good. We are perfectly on time. Thank you. It's 12. I think the program is to have lunch. Yes. To come back at 1:30 P.M. Yes. Correct. Right. All right. Thank you very much for your time and for your questions.