Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to TotalEnergies' Strategy, Sustainability and Climate Presentation Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speech, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star one on your telephone. I must advise you that this conference is being recorded today, the 24th of March, 2022. I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Patrick Pouyanné, TotalEnergies Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Please go ahead, sir. Good morning, or good afternoon, wherever you are today. Welcome to this TotalEnergies strategy, sustainability climate investor presentation. Before to enter into a presentation about strategies, sustainability and climate, I cannot avoid, of course, to begin by having a strong thought for our colleagues in Ukraine and addressing the Russia-Ukraine situation. Within TotalEnergies, all meeting in the morning begin by a safety moment, and all meeting in the afternoons by a sustainability moment. Today, this is my turn for a sustainability moment with this photo of Yevhen and Maksym, two of our Ukrainian employees who have joined the Ukrainian forces since the beginning of the conflict. I want to pay special tribute to them and to all of our friends and colleagues in Ukraine. Yevhen and Maksym are our heroes in the company. We receive photos of their new life, and we follow them as our all our employees in Ukraine. Seven are still in Kyiv, and we are assisting them as well as all the other ones. By the way, a third employee, named Yevhen, as well, has enrolled himself yesterday in the army. These are life-changing events for them, and indeed for everyone. We take this moment to reflect on our people as well as the company are affected. TotalEnergies condemns categorically Russia aggression, and I want to reiterate our solidarity with the people of Ukraine. We see the tragedy of human suffering from Ukraine today, for Russia population tomorrow, a threat to the peace of Europe and to the world. We are mobilized to help, of course, our Ukrainian employees, but beyond to provide assistance to Ukrainian refugees coming to Europe. We provide fuels and other equipment to Ukrainian authorities. Without reservation, TotalEnergies supports the scope, the strength of the sanctions put in place by Europe and the U.S. We will implement these present and future sanctions regardless of the consequences on our activities. We support sanctions because we believe they are the only non-violent means to try to put an end to this tragedy. We are, of course, deeply affected on a personal level by the crisis. At the same time, we are responsible for managing the assets of the company. To act responsibly as a European company and in accordance with our values, we have defined some clear principles of conduct for managing our Russian-related interests, and we published them two days ago. First, as I said, TotalEnergies has and will continue to act in strict compliance with European sanctions, existing and future ones, regardless of the consequence on our activities and assets. No doubt about this. It's important to point out at this stage that we do not operate any oil fields, gas fields, or LNG plants in Russia. We own minority interests within non-state companies. In fact, the headcounts of employees, of people, of TotalEnergies, which were seconded in these companies, were quite limited before the beginning of the conflict, 11 persons, 11 secondees. We have initiated a progressive suspension of our activities in Russia while ensuring the safety of our staff. As of today, only three expat secondees are remaining in the country. In the same spirit, we have stopped all the business developments for batteries and lubricant businesses in Russia. The second principle of conduct, and we immediately stated it, is that obviously we will not provide any new capital for projects in Russia, and this applies as well to the Arctic LNG 2 project. Given the uncertainty created by the technological financial sanctions on the ability to deliver this full project, we have decided to debook all proved reserves for Arctic LNG 2 project from our accounts at the end of last year. Third, we have been criticized for not announcing that we are abandoning our assets and withdrawing from Russia. I want again to clarify that abandoning these asset interests would only enrich Russian investors by more than $10 billion, in contradiction to the very purpose of the sanctions. As we are not operators, abandoning the minority interest held by TotalEnergies would have no impact on this company's operations and revenues. Furthermore, the current environment of European sanctions and Russian laws controlling foreign investments would prevent us from finding a non-Russian buyer for our interest, and we would have to transfer that for zero. Finally, under the existing contracts, abandoning our interest could open TotalEnergies up to significant potential liabilities. We monitor this situation very carefully with the board. Last part, last principle of conduct is, of course, that TotalEnergies' mission is to supply clean, reliable, and affordable energy to as many people as possible. In this specific case, the reliability, the security of energy supply for the European continent is of the essence. It's not up to TotalEnergies to decide if we need to bring gas to Europe. It's up to the governments to decide what we should do, and then to act accordingly. Of course, as you all know, Europe does not have the same domestic resources as the U.K. or the U.S., and gas is in particular a critical issue. European governments at this stage consider that Russian gas is necessary for the European population. As you know, most of the experts think that we need two-three years, given the realities of the European gas logistics, if we want to avoid to be severely impacted or to have to ration some gas in Europe. Again, it is a job of governments decide if yes or no we must get rid of gas, not to private company like TotalEnergies. The situation is different for oil and petroleum products because we can access alternative supplies, and so ensure the security of supply to our European customers. This is why we have decided to halt all our purchasing for Russian oil and petroleum products as soon as possible, and at the latest by the end of the year. Since February 25, we have stopped all trading operations on the spot markets on oil and petroleum products, and that has been extended to gas since February 25. We have some term contracts to purchase Russian oil and petroleum products that end at the latest on December 31, 2022. Primarily to cover supplies for the Leuna refinery in Eastern Germany, which is served by the Druzhba pipeline from Russia, but also to cover some supply for diesel, gas oil to our European retail networks and marketing activities. In close cooperation with the German government, we will terminate our Russian oil supply contract for the Leuna refinery as soon as possible, and by the end of 2022 at the latest. We are putting in place, and we have already some capacity, logistic capacity in place to bring alternative solutions by importing oil via Poland. Considering the diesel supply, let me remind you that around 12% of European diesel was imported from Russia in 2021. Unless we receive any contrary instruction from European governments, we will also terminate our Russian diesel purchase contracts as soon as possible, by the end of 2022 at the latest. We'll instead import petroleum products, and in a specific case, we will dedicate our share of diesel being produced by the SATORP refinery to Europe. By sharing these principles of conduct in a transparent way, we allow our investors, our stakeholders to verify that we act in a responsible manner. Again, we monitor this critical situation very carefully with the board. Obviously, the point of view of our main shareholders is of essence for all of us. Since the beginning of the crisis, our investor relationship team is in close contact with most of them, and their advice is very precious. Just second slide on Russia I want to comment is a recap of our exposure to Russia in a transparent way. I would say that, and you know it, that we have a deliberate policy within our company for many years, which is that we do not want one single country to represent more than 10% of our global portfolio. This is the case for Russia. As you can see, our capital employed in Russia were at $13.7 billion by the end of the year and at 10%. We knew that we could have some opportunities, but the board was already, before the crisis, asking itself, "Up to which point can we continue to develop our position?" Mr. Putin has answered that question, but again, it was there as part of a policy which is at the core of the way we manage our political exposure in the company. In terms of cash flow, in 2021, our upstream assets were representing $1.5 billion compared to a base of almost $30 billion. Results were $2.1 billion. To be compared to our global results of around 11%. The cash flow 5% are lower because, as you know, part of the results are linked to our Novatek participation, which we receive only dividend from Novatek. In terms of exposure, a word about a potential debt service default on the financing warranties that we have given. This could represent $500 million regarding the financing of Yamal LNG, and $800 million on the financing of Arctic LNG 2. The volumes are more important, 17% of the production is coming from Russia, 21% of our reserves. What is important for shareholders is the value that we can derive from these volumes. The volumes are impressive, but they are linked, in fact, to the Novatek volumes, where we are shareholder, which are mainly domestic gas with a low margin and cash margin per barrel. That's why you have 20% of volume and 5% of cash flows. This is very manageable at the, I would say, global corporate level, and we will go through whatever, again, the consequences are. You have the list of the assets that we own, minority interest in non-operated assets. You have also the term contracts that we are managing. I'd already discussed the oil and petroleum products contracts. We have a maximum of one year, end of 2022 we have no more commitment. On the LNG side, it's different because we have 5 million tons per year, which have been long-term contracted with Yamal LNG. We have only 0.9 million tons, which is under a one-year contract, that we will not renew, obviously. These contracts, of course, in case of sanctions against Novatek, are force majeure clause which would be activated by TotalEnergies if it is the decisions of the governments, European governments. Now after this introduction on Russia and Ukraine, I will come, I would say, to what was the core initially of the presentation. I would say that, speaking about strategy and sustainability, I think Russia and Ukraine are at the core of both, and so it was important to introduce this debate immediately. We will enter into the presentation that we planned some months ago in view of the annual shareholder meeting of end of May. I would say, we do not know at that time that the invasion of Ukraine will affect us going forward. We must recognize as well there is another crisis building that also demands our attention, as the IPCC new report powerfully reminds us of the climate emergency and imperative. Today, objective is also to explain our ambition and to show how it's being put in place, and I think it takes its full meaning despite this tragedy in Ukraine and Russia. In 2021, as you know, our shareholders broadly supported this ambition through their vote at the annual shareholder meeting. Today, one year later, as it was a commitment by the board, we are publishing our first sustainability and climate progress report with several objectives. One is to show how our ambition is reflected in the deployment of our strategy and in our investment decision. Second, to share our 2021 achievements which demonstrate, and I hope we'll be convinced, and illustrates the path of our transformation in order to meet our 2030 objectives, which are clearly commitments, and get to net zero by 2050 together with society. This report also provides an opportunity for us to explain clearly and transparently our climate ambition, our progress, the pertinence of our 2030 objectives, and our ability to meet or exceed them. Again, in doing so, we want to show to all our stakeholders that we are already on the right track, and the progress we are making in transforming TotalEnergies into a stronger company with a sustainable and profitable future. I will share this presentation today with Helle Kristoffersen, our President, Strategy and Sustainability. We have Namita Shah, our President, OneTech, which is also supervising the people and social engagement activities. You will also find in this report some new targets that will be detailed, and along the presentation, you will see some signals, new, because it's, I would say, a permanent, for us, quest to become better, to enhance our proposal, to take into account the scenarios, the technologies, the innovations, to listen to the society in order for us to find the best roadmap. I'm confident that, with what we will present you will be convinced that we drive the transformation of our industrial model to shape the just energy transition to which our societies aspire. Let's go into the strategy part that I will first cover, then Helle will cover the climate and environment part. Namita will cover the well-being of people part, and then I will come back about how we share the prosperity that we are creating with our stakeholders and conclude. It's true that energy is reinventing itself, and so we have decided to embark into this journey to build a multi energy company sustainable and profitable. It's a matter, of course, of delivering reliable, affordable, clean energy. The world needs more energy, but less emissions to develop a more sustainable business model, and of course, ultimately to increase the returns for shareholders because this is also our objectives. This strategy is underpinned by the evolution of the energy markets we anticipate. There are two fundamental trends that I just mentioned. More energy because the population continue to grow and is aiming for higher living standards around the planet. There is a growing energy demand despite all the energy efficiency gains that we must do as well. You have the other imperative of climate neutrality for the planet. It has an impact on the evolution of the energy mix. Fundamentally, today, the energy is made of coal. We are not involved, so I will not discuss that energy, but oil and natural gas. Oil, we see and we observe an acceleration of innovation to substitute oil use. We consider, we take as an assumption that the oil demand will plateau and then decline beyond 2030 with some impact on long-term prices. Natural gas is a transition fuel, and I would say 2021 has demonstrated more than ever that it's a transition fuel between coal and decarbonized energies. There is a growth in natural gas, in particular in the energy segments. The transition will be made possible only if we, on one side, develop new molecules, biofuels, biogas, hydrogen, e-fuels. I would say that for oil and gas company, which is a molecule company, this is a natural trend, leveraging our competencies in chemistry, in refining, in all the downstream part to look to these new molecules. The transition is a matter of electricity. We know that to decarbonize the energy, the electricity supply should be multiplied by two in the next 20-30 years if we want to meet the net zero policies. Of course, when I say electricity, it's fundamentally decarbonized renewable electricity. The last point of this, I would say, evolution of energy markets, there is a last market which is developing carbon sinks, which will be required to achieve net zero. What we have decided within Total, and this is, I would say, the roadmap of a strategy, is to enter not only to continue to be part of the energy of today in oil, to maintain with no growth, I will come back on it, to grow in natural gas as a transition fuel, and to engage the company in these new pillars of the future energy system, new molecules, electricity and carbon sinks. I have often the questions why investing in power, which historically is an activity, is a business with lower returns than oil and gas. On this slide, you have the motivations of our commitment to invest in this energy, which is electricity. Fundamentally, what we think is that we can develop, and we will develop a business model with higher risks, creating higher returns from integration, arbitrage, flexibility, but the traditional business model of utilities, which I would characterize by lower risk and lower returns. In fact, the fundamental idea is what we want to approach the electricity market as we are managing today, the oil and gas markets. These are commodities. We know that the commodity is volatile. We know also the fundamentals to manage this volatility. The fundamentals are to select low cost assets in order to lower your break even. The other fundamentals is integration, to be along the full value chain, from the generation to the storage, to the trading, to the aggregation, to the supply for the electricity value chain. You know, today in the oil markets, with the increase in the oil price, I see the downstream businesses suffering. Of course, we rebalance at the profits and revenues from the upstream part. It was the reverse two years ago during the COVID crisis, where our downstream businesses were more resilient than the upstream. Integration, low cost are the DNA of the company in oil and gas. This is a model we want to transfer in order to the electricity, in order, again, maybe to take higher risks than some competitors, but to generate higher returns. There is in-- On this slide, you have the arguments and you will understand that first, there is a premium to early mover. Today, we are willing to secure long-term positions on the land, on marine, on green interconnections, which has resource, exactly like oil and gas concession in the oil and gas business. We have an example of what we have done recently in the last New York Bight tender, where we secure for 50-year lease held by production in, I would say, in the marine domain, in front of New York and New Jersey to produce 3 GW. This acquisition in a company, an asset which will be there for long, and we will deliver future revenues and profits to the company. In this growing segment market, we have also a positive outlook for electricity prices because of the complexity of electricity market, which is secondary energy. We also think that, again, I said managing commodities, we know to do it, which means like we've done with the LNG in the last 20 years. The way we'll approach the electricity market is a combination, I would say, of long-term contracts for 70%, what we call PPA, and 30% of the production will be exposed to markets. Not to take some risk, exactly the LNG. You know, in the 1990s, we developed the LNG business by securing for each plant the equivalent as a long-term contract. It was a point-to-point industry, I would say, fully secured. Then since the 2000s, we changed the model. We decided that we could-- Our company will offtake part of the LNG, so to put some energy on our own balance sheet. This strategy is delivering more and more results. 2021 again has been a demonstration that yes, we took higher risks, but it create higher returns. This is exactly the view we have again for the electricity markets. In order to reach, and this is what we do today, more than 10% return on equity. Last point I mentioned is low cost assets, which have to be in order to be on the right part of the cost merit curve on a local basis because electricity is a local energy. Last but not least, we can implement such a strategy of higher risks and higher returns because we benefit from a strong balance sheet with a low gear rate compared to most of the competitors in the utility competitors. The second slide that to introduce our strategy to answer a second question. You say that you have the ambition today to be a net zero company in 2050, but what does it mean for TotalEnergies to be a net zero company in 2050? So with this slide, we want to give you a clarity of the vision that we have today, and again, it will evolve in the future, but I think it's an important addition to the ambition we described last year. To do that, we have read carefully the net zero scenario from the IEA, and in particular, the landing point in 2050 of the net zero scenario of the IEA. We do not agree with the trajectory to go there, but we agree on the landing point, so we took that as a reference. The IEA describe a world of energy of 20% of fossil fuels, 20% of bioenergy, 60% of decarbonized electricity, and 7 billion tons of carbon capture and storage. For TotalEnergies, if we try to translate this landscape in the vision in 2050, what we want to build years after years is a company which would be 50% involved in the renewable and electricity, so we need to make steps in the next decade, 500 TWh per year of production, net production. We think, and we want also to engage in the new molecules for 25% to produce 50 million tons per year of biofuel, biogas, hydrogen, along with e-fuel, which is a way to recirculate CO2. Hydrogen + CO2 is giving e-fuels or e-gas. 75% of the business will be in, I would say, the decarbonized energies, and 25% will still be in fossil fuel, because as it was mentioned in the IEA scenario, we still need some of it. Fundamentally, gas and LNG, 25 million -30 million tons of LNG, compared to today our production with around 25 million tons. There's still some room for growing in this business. Also some oil, probably 200 million -300 million barrels of oil, fundamentally for making petrochemicals and polymers on which we will come back. This is a vision. After you translate this production mix into emissions, by 2050, we consider that with the technologies, we will reduce our Scope 1 and 2 emissions to around 10 million tons, which will be compensated by 10 billion tons per year of nature-based solutions, which is very manageable, and Helle will come back on that. This scenario, this mix represent 100 billion tons of Scope 3 by 2050, which would be compensated by a mix of carbon capture and storage that we will offer to customers, service storage to customers, for 50 million -100 million tons. We need to engage and to invest in this business. Again, as I said, 7 billion tons at the world level, 50 million -100 million tons for TotalEnergies. This is also, I would say, the right measure without overstretching the company, which will present 1%-2% of the market, which is more or less our share in oil and gas. Last but not least, of course, achieving this vision means that the lifecycle carbon intensity of TotalEnergies, the net zero lifecycle carbon intensity would be zero, and reducing our lifecycle carbon intensity by 100% to be clear as we had some questions about what is the end target. Maybe this vision will help to understand what we want to build. It will take time. Now I embark you in the next decade on which, with my management team, with the executive, we are fully responsible to implement. There is the two. You heard it last year, so this does not change. On the oil again, we will not produce more by 2030 than we were in 2019. Quota impacting 2021. There is a small rebound in 2025, but the objective is clear, maintain. On the gas, as I said, full LNG continue to increase to deliver this transition fuel, which is required by many emerging countries to shift from coal to gas. Electricity renewables, it is the offtake of our productions on both renewables and flexible generation in order to deliver firm power to our customers. Globally, on this decade, we want to produce 30% more energy than by 2020 on LNG, full LNG, and electricity. On the sales side, this is also, as I said, we want to adapt the company to the future decline in oil products demand that we anticipate beyond 2030. We will diminish our oil product sales by more than 30%. In fact, the objective is that by the end of the decade to realign what we sell with what we will produce around 1.4 million barrels of oil per day. The gas is following, I would say, the increase of the production, so a multiplication by two, and electricity, same, multiplication by three. That makes a mix, and you have, you can see that there are the new molecules which are on the top of the liquid part and the gas part, which we could put aside. This is the new category, which will represent around 5% of our mix by 2030. If I go through each of these energies, on oil, the objective again, no more growth, maintaining, and then we will decline beyond 2030 with the demand, when the demand will exit the plateau that we anticipate. Which means that there is a big effort being done on the downstream. This decrease, by the way, and I will explain you, is a new objective that we set to ourselves, so we will commit that the Scope 3 emissions for oil will be decreased by 30% between today and 2030. It's a new commitment. 120 million tons of CO2 Scope 3 emissions of our customers will disappear. We will do that in particular for, I would say, a new strategy that we implement in the marketing and services business, where we want on one side to preserve the net cash flow by arbitraging some low-margin sales, but also by increasing some non-fuel sales, benefiting from the, I would say, the retail network that we have to increase these revenues. By the way, we implement this strategy, as we have explained you in February 2021, it was +15% of net cash flow by the marketing and services and -20% of sales. This is possible, and we'll continue to develop it. On the upstream part, we focus only, in order to maintain the production, I will come back on it. We need to invest in some few green fields. We need to-- We restrict ourselves to low cost and low emission oil projects. I will come back. Infill or exploration CapEx is limited to $500 million for the next years. Last but not least, we are divesting non-core mature high-cost and high-emission assets. Last year, we exited Venezuela heavy oil because we do not intend to allocate any future CapEx to some hydrocarbons which clearly cannot fit with low cost, low emission oil projects. On the gas, you know our strategy. It was not impacted by the Russia case because we have a very rich portfolio to feed off low cost LNG growth. Clearly, the growth will not come from Russia. I want to be very clear, there is no more capital which will be allocated by TotalEnergies to Russia. It will come from other projects. We have Cameron in the U.S., ECA in Mexico, Nigeria, Train 7. There is a lot of gas onshore Nigeria to do more, not far from Europe, which is a new LNG market open to us. Mozambique, Papua LNG. Yemen is an option in our portfolio which can be revived if there is an agreement with Iran. We are studying other U.S. options. Again, something in front of us give us, I would say, the Russian crisis, of course, no future for growth in Russia, but there is a new market, which is European market for LNG. This is a market and a new opportunity for us to implement our strategy that we have defined today. No modification on the strategy. Projects might be different, but the same, I would say, belief and that we can leverage our integrated LNG position for all these markets. Of course, this means that we continue to focus on investment in first, second quartile low cost, long-term competitive LNG projects. I remind you that our portfolio, LNG portfolio, has a leverage to high oil and gas price. We gave you the indexation in February. Nothing changed. There is one condition to do that, is that we need to be very serious, more than serious. We need to aim to zero methane emissions. We set ourself, and I will come back on it, a new target by 2030 to reduce our methane emission by 80% compared to 2020. Our last remark, some people tell us, "You know, it's not so true that LNG is going to replace coal. You know, the coal continue to grow." I would say that, and I think it's a comfort to us, that today we sell our LNG, 99% of our sales were sold to net-zero countries. This in part is a demonstration that yes, it's a transition fuel for many countries, and it will contribute to for these countries to reach their net-zero targets. Electricity of renewables have been long, so I will not comment more on this slide. The targets did not change for 2030. We are on the way to deliver them. We explained to you, we reached 10 GW last year. We'll do for 2024 for 16 GW in 2022. A target of 100 GW, and I already explained you. To be net cash positive on these segments before 2030 to fuel the future cash flows and net cash flows and returns to shareholders. A slide on the new molecules which will be required for the energy transition. We just joined recently a group of companies which have the ambition to double circularity within the next 10 years, which means a circular economy, recycling. In fact, these new molecules are a good way to do it. In biofuels, we give a clear priority to waste and residues, in particular for SAF, for sustainable aviation fuels. We have an objective of 5 million tons per year of biofuels. We will produce 300,000 tons of SAF by 2024. In recycling and in polymers, a priority is being given to recycled and biopolymers as well, with an ambition of 1 million tons per year of high-value circular polymers by 2030 for different technologies. In biogas, there is more and more strong demand for bioLNG, bioCNG. A lot of customers which have engaged in gas want to make biogas today, like shipping. There is more demand than supply, to be clear, because the scaling effect is not so easy to grow. We have a target of more than 5 TWh per year by 2030. We have all the assets in France, and we have just soon launched and produced our first projects in Texas. Last but not least, hydrogen and e-fuels, which we put together because the e-fuel is derived from hydrogen. It's linked to electricity if we do it as green hydrogen, so to gas, if it's a blue hydrogen, gas plus CCS, if it's a blue hydrogen. We'll manage these technologies. We have engaged refining or all our refineries to, I would say, have clean hydrogen in all our European refineries by the end of the decade. We made some progress in Normandy recently. We are looking clearly to the way to develop first projects in e-fuels. On green hydrogen, a first project has been selected by the French government in La Mède among the European-supported projects which will be developed. I mentioned as well that in Abu Dhabi, we recently partnered with Masdar and Siemens Energy about a pilot to make some sustainable aviation fuel from green hydrogen. It represents only 5% of the CapEx within the next few years, but I'm convinced this will grow in the future. It's also linked to the demand. It's a matter not only of supply. Again, on biofuels, biogas, clearly for me today, the bottleneck is partly on the feedstock that we need to mobilize. Then it's a matter, I would say, more on hydrogen issues of demand, that we need also to identify in order to go further. This strategy is supported by a capital investments allocations to build this multi-energy company. 50% of our CapEx between $13 billion-$16 billion between 2020 to 2025 are dedicated to growth in renewable electricity, growth in the new molecules. I would say so 30% are on the new energies and 20% on LNG and gas. The other 50% are contributing to the maintenance of our old system. Among the 50%, I had also some question about it, 20% are in fact dedicated to new greenfields and exploration. You see, we invest less in new greenfields and exploration than renewable and electricity. I would say another way to illustrate our strategy is where do we invest in terms of R&D or do we plan the future. I think it's quite an interesting slide to show that the transformation is advanced. You see that in the last five years, we shifted our R&D expenditures. 70% were in hydrocarbons in 2017. Our budget today is at 40% only. It's a clear shift and a clear ambition. All that is led by Namita and his teams in these global organizations called OneTech, which is supporting the transition where we put together all our technical R&D skills in order to implement this strategy. You can see that in 2022, the new energies, it's some CCUS, some batteries, and all the other fields of technologies. The last two slides demonstrate again, as we select our hydrocarbon projects, that it's compatible with our climate ambition to get to net zero. We want to ensure the sustainability of the portfolio and the profitability of the portfolio. As I said, we select low cost, low emissions projects. You will find the details in the report. These are the eight projects which have been sanctioned in 2021. All of them have a technical cost under $20 per barrel and a break even under $30. All of them have emissions which are lower than the average of the portfolio, which means, by the way, that the average is going lower year after year. This criteria will be more stringent. A new assumption in our way that we appreciate the profitability of the projects, we are using from now $100 per ton from 2023 in all the projects. The idea that it gives guidance to all our teams to select the projects to abate CO2 emissions. We give a new guidance to our teams. If you have projects where the cost of abatement of CO2 is less than $100 per ton, we are ready to finance and to develop it. I think it's important because it's part of the Scope 1 and 2 roadmap. Another piece of information about, I would say, the sustainability of our portfolio linked to the European Taxonomy or some resilient tests that we are doing ourselves. For the first time, we are publishing in this report, not only the eligible CapEx of the taxonomy as per the regulation, but also the aligned CapEx that we evaluated. It's not mandatory, but we thought it was useful. You will see that, as a proportionate view, 23% of our CapEx are said as being aligned on the taxonomy. It was only 9% in 2020. I think the transition is well on the way within TotalEnergies. We tested the resilience of the portfolio to different ideas. What happens, what is the impact on the value of a portfolio if instead of $100 per ton, the CO2 would be at $200 per ton? The impact is 9% of the NPV 7. We also tested the resilience of the portfolio to the price scenario of the net zero of the IEA compared to what is our reference scenario, which is today at $50 per barrel and $100 per ton. The net zero scenario of the IEA is going down to $25 per barrel quite quickly. It would have an impact of 17% of the NPV 7 of the portfolio. It's, I think, some important information again for investors to understand of resilience is how it is resilient to invest within Total in TotalEnergies shares. This is a strategy, and now we go to the second part, which is to show you, and it was a core of the, I would say, resolution which was voted last year, how we integrate sustainability into the strategies, the projects and operations. Helle and Namita will go through, I would say, the climate part, the environment part, the people part, and I will come back on the shared prosperity. Helle, the floor is yours. Good morning and good afternoon, everyone. I'm going to cover our strategy and 2021 progress in the following two areas that Patrick just mentioned. Less emissions, sustainable energy, and caring for the environment. First, on sustainable energy, meaning less emissions. To set the stage, I would like to point out the following external assessment of our net zero ambition together with society. Back in November, Transition Pathway Initiative came out with this statement saying that TotalEnergies is one of the very few oil and gas firms that have set emission reduction targets that are ambitious enough to reach net zero by 2050, and therefore align with TPI's 1.5 degree benchmark. That was just what I wanted to share with you on 2050, and let's now talk about the next 10 years. Here is where we stand with respect to our 2030 targets and how we have performed in 2021. It's in green here on the chart. On our direct and indirect emissions, meaning the emissions related to the use of energy products by our customers. The data for 2020 and 2021 excludes the impact of COVID so as to be comparable with respect to 2030. As Patrick said, we've signed up for several new objectives, and they are in the table here. One related to methane emissions from our operated activities. We wanna reduce them by 80% by 2030. Another one on our worldwide Scope 3 oil-related emissions. We wanna cut them by 30% or more by 2030. I will come back on each of those two objectives in a short while. If you look at the table, and of course you'll have the time to do so, you will see that we have improved on most, if not all, the objectives in 2021 versus 2020. I know that routine flaring seems to be going up, but it's actually a rounding effect, so I just wanted to make that a little comment. It's flattish. I will now cover each of these indicators in more details and share with you some highlights from our 2021 accomplishments. First, on Scope 1 and 2 emissions from our operated facilities. You know it, our goal is to go from 46 million tons of CO2 in 2015 to less than 40 million tons in 2025, and a net reduction, including carbon sinks, of more than 40%, 40% or more in 2030. Let me flag just a couple of elements on this chart. First, as shown, these targets cover our new businesses, and so in particular, they cover our CCGTs. Secondly, and more importantly, we've tried to assess the relevance of this goal to reduce by 40% or more in 2030 by looking at some external benchmarks and rebasing everything to 2015, since this is the year that we use for our evolution. The results are shown to the right on the chart. In the IEA net zero emission scenario, worldwide emissions are down by 39% in 2030 versus 2015, so very close to our target of 40% or more. Likewise, the EU Fit for 55% goal, which goes between 1990 and 2030, the 55% reduction, that becomes a -37% reduction if you rebase it to 2015. Again, close to -40% or more. Following COP26, we asked two recognized climate experts to undertake a study on the greenhouse gas reduction commitments of all those countries that had pledged to be net zero by 2050. The work was done by Carbon [cath] in France and by the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy in the U.S. As you know, when a country pledges to be net zero, it considers its direct national emissions, excluding imported emissions. It is therefore the equivalent of corporate Scope 1 emissions. The outcomes of the two studies show that, at best, the net zero 50 countries will reduce their emissions by 40% with respect to 2015. I would say that our own target looks pretty well-calibrated. The next chart here summarizes how we're gonna achieve that target using best available technologies and following the three steps: avoid, reduce, and compensate emissions. We've discussed this before, so I'll go fast. We'll stop routine flaring by 2030 with a pretty tough intermediate goal for 2025. We're also reducing non-routine flaring. We're improving the energy efficiency of our sites, lowering the overall energy consumption, and recycling or optimizing lost energy. This has been one of the focus areas of our digital factory in 2021. We're electrifying our operations using green power. You may recall the two large Go Green projects that we announced last year, powering our sites in Europe and in the U.S. with in-house renewable power. Finally, we're working on decarbonizing the hydrogen used in our refineries, and we are also developing CCS projects for our own use. Coming now to methane. We're fully aware, as Patrick said, of the importance of tackling methane emissions. It was highlighted by the IPCC report back in August and, of course, by the Glasgow COP. We've been acting four years, and you can see it here on the chart, we've almost halved methane emissions from our operations between 2010 and 2020. Again, we've introduced two new targets on methane from our operated facilities, and they are shown here. The reference for those targets is 2020, aligned with the COP methane pledge. The only reasonable long-term ambition is to aim for zero emissions, full stop. We intend to get to near zero as quickly as possible, and we target to cut back methane emissions by 50% in 2025 and, as Patrick said, by 80% in 2030. This target is consistent with external benchmarks shown to the right, provided by the IEA net zero emission scenario and by the EU gas market framework. In our full report, you will also see that we have several leading-edge innovation and R&D platforms working in support of this target. As you may recall, we're investing $100 million per year in nature-based solutions with the ambition to build a portfolio of 100 million tons of carbon credits based only on the highest standards of certification. These credits will be available for our own use from 2030 onwards to offset any residual Scope 1 and 2 emissions. We are talking about more than 5 million tons sequestration capacity per annum from that year onwards. We've closed several deals in the course of 2021 and 2022. Two of them are summarized on the chart here. The rest, of course, you'll find in the report. By the end of last year, our portfolio amounted to 7 million tons of certified credits. Our committed funds represented 23 million tons of credits by 2030 and 31 million tons by 2050. The message is that we are investing deliberately for the long term. Since the goal is to actively contribute to the preservation of natural carbon sinks, be it forest or wetlands, as a matter of consistency, we have introduced a new requirement for all new projects on new sites. They must result in zero net deforestation, otherwise we won't invest. In addition to reducing CO2 from our operated facilities, we're also taking care of our non-operated emissions. We're showing here a new disclosure on Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions in equity share, so included non-operated facilities. The total is 54 million tons equivalent in 2021. The bulk of non-operated equity emissions comes from upstream and refining, as you can see on the chart. Last year, we worked with our partners on carbon reduction roadmaps for assets such as Ichthys in Australia, SATORP in Saudi Arabia or HTP in Korea, just to name a few. Here is another new disclosure, the geographical breakdown of our emissions on a worldwide basis. You will see that there are very few emissions in the Americas. The chart here covers both Scope 1 and 2 emissions that we've just discussed, and Scope 3 emissions from our customers that are now, I'm now going to review in a little more details. Let me provide some color on our indirect Scope 3 emissions from energy products used by our customers. In terms of methodology, we are accounting for the highest emissions along our integrated value chains in oil and gas, meaning in this case, sales for both oil and gas, as you can see on the chart. The sum of these emissions leads to 400 million tons in 2021, flat versus 2020, all of course, excluding COVID, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. The chart here shows first to the right, how we're gonna reconcile the 15% growth in energy sales in this decade that Patrick mentioned, and our 2030 target to reduce global Scope 3 emissions below the ceiling of 2015. The answer is the change in the sales mix that you can see here to the right built into our strategy. As Patrick showed, we will align oil sales on all production before the end of the decade, which induces a reduction of 30% or more in oil sales. At the same time, LNG sales, here in blue, are gonna grow strongly. To the left, you see the new commitment that Patrick also referred to, and it of course stems from our strategy. Again, it's to decrease worldwide oil-related Scope 3 emissions by 30% or more in 2030 versus 2015. It means saving some 100 million tons-- some 120 million tons of CO2, so it's absolutely huge. We will report on this new metric from now onwards. Here is another perspective on our Scope 3 emissions, trying to respond to questions that we get now and so often. As you know, we have committed to reducing Scope 3 emissions in the EU by 30% in support of the Green Deal. Of course we will deliver on that goal. Outside of Europe, which in our case mostly means in Africa and in Southeast Asia, we expect emissions to go up as we serve the increasing energy needs of poorer countries that simply won't develop and improve living standards without more energy. This is very much in line with the call for a just transition that was expressed in Glasgow. Moving on to CCS. CCS is part of our multi-energy customer offering, and it will clearly play a role for us to achieve net zero by 2050 together with society, as Patrick explained. The chart here summarizes where we stand with respect to three larger CCS projects, enabling us to offer CO2 transport and storage services to our customers from roughly the middle of this decade. I think you're familiar with the project, so I won't elaborate. Just note, however, that they're all centered on the North Sea, which has the attributes to become a world-class competitive carbon storage hub. Overall, we're targeting 10 million tons of CO2 storage capacity by 2030. Patrick already mentioned this, we're aiming for 50 million -100 million tons CO2 storage per year in 2050. To reduce Scope 3 emissions, we must of course act on demand. You've heard us say this often, and specifically act on mobility demand, which is one of our larger markets. Here you see our roadmap to decarbonize mobility between now and 2025, and some of the key milestones that we achieved last year. I won't comment everything. I will let you read that. To the far left, we've broken down the overall demand into light duty, heavy duty, shipping, and aviation, and then we show the energies that we are promoting as a substitute for oil. We have a lot going on in this space, as you can imagine, and 2021 has truly been a year of acceleration of our various initiatives jointly with our customers to build profitable low carbon transport solutions. Taking now another angle and focusing on B2B customers, we announced a couple of weeks ago, the creation of a new customer-oriented entity within the company, focusing on clients from a dozen of energy-intensive industries, and they're all listed on the chart here. The task of this new team will be to help these customers decarbonize thanks to our multi-energy offering. To the right you see two illustrations of how we engage with B2B customers. In our renewable power business, we've closed a significant number of new corporate PPAs in 2021 with large credit-worthy customers in Europe and the U.S. We've also signed up multiple new customers for our distributed generation offering, with great momentum in Southeast Asia, for instance. Second illustration is that we continue to be selective on our oil products sales, as Patrick already mentioned. Moving on to our advocacy efforts. We, of course, make sure that they are aligned with our climate ambition. You can see here the six principles that we use in our yearly assessment of trade association memberships, principles that led us to exit from the API at the beginning of 2021. Again, I'll let you read the chart. This concludes the update on our climate and emission reductions. You'll find many more details in the full report. As you can see, we've been pretty busy in 2021. We worked hard, and I think it's fair to say that we are definitely delivering on the strategy that we presented a little less than a year ago. I'm coming now with a couple of charts to show how we embed caring for the environment into our strategy, our projects, and our operations. Actions to preserve our shared planet, its biological diversity, and its ecosystems are an essential part of sustainable development. They can take many forms. We at TotalEnergies have chosen to focus on three areas in priority: biodiversity, fresh water resources, and circularity. First, on biodiversity. We came out with a new charter in 2020, which we then enhanced last year with a report highlighting some of our concrete action plans and providing proof points, if I may say so, with respect to our undertakings. We are summarizing the biodiversity commitments of our company. From the charter to the right, to the left of the chart here, and you can see the four large categories of commitments when it comes to biodiversity. As I mentioned earlier, we've also taken a new commitment last year, recently, namely zero net deforestation for any new project on any new site. We're also part of the task force on nature-related financial disclosures, which kind of mirrors TCFD for matters that pertain to nature. In 2021, eight biodiversity action plans have been initiated or implemented in connection with new projects. The most visible and publicized action plan is shown to the right of the chart, and it relates to our Tilenga project in Uganda. As you know, it's tailored to generate a net gain for biodiversity. Second area of focus, preserving scarce freshwater resources. Early this year, we joined the UN Global Compact's CEO Water Mandate. That encompasses providing stewardship and improvements in the six core areas listed on the chart here. I will let you read them. We've also defined new environmental performance targets for 2030, having achieved the ones that we have set out for ourselves for the previous decade. Those environmental performance targets include two objectives related to water that are also on the chart here. Finally, circular resources. Earlier this year again, as Patrick said, we decided to join PACE, the Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy, which is launched by the World Economic Forum and hosted by the WRI. In connection with this new initiative, we've looked at how we can double circularity in our businesses within the next 10 years, and we've come out with the two new objectives that you can see here. First, double circularity of feedstock. This is very much related, as Patrick already said, to our biogas and biofuel businesses that do use different forms of waste and residue as intake. Second objective, double the circularity of our top line. You'll find more on this in the full report, and you will also be able to read about how we're doing as a founding member of the Alliance to End Plastic Waste and how we've banned single-use plastic bags from our retail networks in Africa and Asia in 2021 after having already done so in Europe. Now I hand over to Namita, who will present where we stand with respect to caring for our people and building an inclusive and diverse work environment. Namita? Thank you very much, Helle. Good afternoon or good morning, everybody. I'm going to spend a little time talking to you about people's well-being because I think as we all know, if we want to be sustainable, we need to ensure that the people who work for us, that the people who work with us, and the people who are impacted by the projects and the things that we are doing on the ground all need to be looked after in order to ensure that we are creating, as we are growing, a sustainable environment. Let me first talk to you about health and safety. Health and safety, as you all know, is our core value. It is something on which we spend a lot of time. One of our most important contributions or objectives is, of course, to make sure that we have zero fatalities. Unfortunately, in 2021, we had one fatality in Kazakhstan in our Dunga operations, which is extremely regrettable. Our objective is to ensure that every man and woman who works for us goes home to their family at the end of the day. The last two years have also shown that the health and safety of our employees is extremely important in the context of COVID, which we have all managed and made sure that we have kept our employees safe while ensuring that our operations continue without any industrial accidents. Despite the challenges that a lot of us have faced over the past year, we have been able to maintain safe operations, and you can see that we continue to decrease our TRIR rate over the course of time, as illustrated in this slide. Let me talk to you a little bit about enabling a just transition for our employees. As you have heard over the course of 2021, and as Patrick and Helle have explained to you before me, we have embarked on a change at TotalEnergies. We have embarked on a change where we are becoming a multi-energy company. It is extremely important that the 100,000 men and women who work for us are also embarked on that change, that we leverage their skills in order to build this multi-energy company, and that we ensure that none of them feel that they have been left behind or that they will be left behind during the course of this transformation. We have launched a program called Transforming With Our People. Clearly, it is extremely important to continue to listen to our people, to understand what it is in this change that is making them uncomfortable, what their concerns may be, what their needs may be in terms of development, in terms of understanding, and to ensure that we meet those needs. We need also to make sure that everybody understands the different energies of a multi-energy company, and that is something that we're going to be doing by sharing across the company the achievements and the developments in all of the different energies that we are working in today and in which we will be working tomorrow. Last but very important is training. We are going to have to make sure that the employees who want to be part of this multi-energy company and who feel that they may not have the skills to be part of the new energies that are coming on tomorrow will all be able to participate in all of the energies and in all of the businesses that will be growing over the next few years. It is important that this works in all of the senses. Every employee, old or new, must be part of this multi-energy company that we are building and be able to understand all of the energies in which we are going to be working. In order to achieve our goals, we are going to need a lot of innovation, a lot of new ideas, a lot of collective intelligence, and that is, of course, very much best met by promoting both diversity and inclusion. It is clear that we need to reflect the world in which we live in, and we live in a world of over 130 different countries with 100,000 people who come from all kinds of diverse talents and backgrounds. In order to ensure that we continue on our path to promoting diversity and inclusion, we have ensured that we have clear targets as far as both gender equality and international diversity is concerned that are well communicated within the organization and on which our senior management are going to be judged. One very important aspect, as I'm sure you all know, is that setting targets to promote diversity is not enough to ensure that these different talents grow and contribute and feel part of the organization. Therefore, the work that we do in terms of inclusion is extremely important. I'd like just to give you an example of what we are doing with people for disabilities, because what we have done is embarked on a program where when we have somebody with disabilities who joins a particular team in our organization, we ensure that we accompany not only the person who enters our organization, but also that person's manager and colleagues to help them understand how people need to think about and adapt to disabilities. I'm also particularly proud that these, all these, policies go beyond what is happening in terms of just being in headquarters or in developed countries. Once again, I think for disabilities, you will all agree with me. We are lucky enough, most of us, to live in an environment or in countries which look at issues with disabilities. There are a lot of countries in which we operate today where people with disabilities, and very often even gender issues, are not really addressed by local legislation. Our ambition is to make sure that these good practices and inclusion for all of these people happens across the world. As of today, we have 41 countries who have themselves voluntarily signed up to put in place very specific programs for people with disabilities. This idea of embedding sustainability in our social policy, the idea that sustainability is not something that is limited to a particular parameter, but something that we need to push across all of the countries in which we live and work is very, very important to us as an organization. In order to do so, we have pushed forward quite a lot of initiatives which make sure that people living in countries across the world who may not have access to the same level of understanding or rights. If they work for our organization or when they work for our organization, we make sure that we promote these issues. As some examples, workplace dialogue. Working with unions is perhaps not something that is systematic and required by law in all of the countries where we work, but we believe that it is extremely important that all of our employees are represented, and that all of our affiliates put in place programs and organizations and systems where employee representation can have a direct link to discussions with management. Similarly, when we talk about worldwide equal pay for men and women or about gender-neutral parental leave, it is not something that is evident depending on all of the countries that we live and work in. All across from the United States to Papua New Guinea, every employee who works in our organization will have equal pay, whether they are men or women, and will have access to gender-neutral paid parental leave. That is something that in some of the countries that we work in a tremendous step forward and very important for us to continue to promote. Let me spend a little bit of time talking to you about human rights and respect of human rights. When I began my presentation, I said that it was important for us to look after the well-being of the people who work for us and also the well-being of the people who work with us and the people who are impacted by our projects on the ground. Our human rights program is an extremely well-organized and well-designed program. We have ensured that we identify our salient human rights issues according to the United Nations Guiding Principles, and we have made sure that we do an analysis of our different businesses and the impact on human rights that they might have in the context of the work that we do. To give you just a few examples. First of all, we can see that because we are working in so many different countries around the world, and because we do a lot of local content and we work with contractors across the world, issues regarding child labor or forced labor, discrimination, and just and fair working conditions is something that we need to be very vigilant about. We have been working with our contractors and ensuring that our people in our companies working in these different countries, as well as the contractors with whom we work with, understand what our policy is and put in place systems to be in line with our policy. We follow up on this by doing regular audits, both internally and externally, and have done 80 audits of our contractors last year in order to ensure that our human rights policies are looked at when we are working with our contractors. Another specific example is the work that we are doing in Uganda. Helle talked about our Tilenga pipeline, our EACOP and our Tilenga program. Once again, we have specifically identified the salient human rights issues that could arise from the work and the construction around this, and we work with baseline studies as well as third-party organizations. We do a transparent reporting of the findings that we have published on our websites, and we make sure that we follow up on all of the actions, programs that we have put in place to achieve the ambition and the goal of looking after the people that are impacted by our program. Last but not least, another example is just the voluntary principles on human rights and security, which can come into play in certain of our countries where we have an overlap of the work that we are doing and military or police personnel who are working in that, in the same areas. We have a very strong program where we ensure that the military or the police personnel are well trained, and we provide training programs in order to make sure that these human rights principles are followed up on. All of this can only work if we have robust grievance mechanisms, which we have put in place in 100% of our subsidiaries across the world, where we can get feedback and receive complaints from the people who are impacted by our operations. Those are the main areas. If you look at our sustainability report, you will have a lot more information. Now I hand over to Patrick for the concluding part of this presentation. Thank you, Namita. Thank you, Helle, for all this information about the way we deploy our sustainable ambition in the company. I think, you know, we set ourselves some key objectives and we progress thanks to all this report, because for me, reporting is also a way to benchmark ourselves and to go to good, better practices. I think this is a way to improve the company on the global way and becoming more sustainable. The last part, of course, of our, I would say, sustainable ambition is look to shared prosperity with all stakeholders, and I would like to enlighten some few elements of it. Of course, we create quite a lot of shared value. Its importance is not only for our employees or shareholders or primary stakeholders, but for others. I would emphasize, of course, we have the local communities with whom we work, developing and engaging in local content. When we have giant projects, of course it's important that they see some, I would say, pragmatic, concrete benefits for them. That's also something on which we professionalize our approach with some community liaison officers, for example, in Uganda, but also in other countries. We have a lot of people and actions to support the socioeconomic developments and connections with local content. Another aspect is the suppliers. You know, we have, we, I think we spend more or less $25 billion per year, and we have decided that we need to have a stronger and more sustainable supply chain. It's not only some requirement, it's also about climate, by the way. We took some initiatives this year. When we think about Scope 3 in a company like Total, we look at a lot of the downstream, which was described by Helle, 400 million tons. It's a full focus. I was reading yesterday evening the new SEC guidelines, and they are speaking about Scope 3 upstream. It means beyond to come. It's in fact fundamentally the supply chain. For TotalEnergies, it's more complex. We deal with around 10 million tons, which was not the primary focus when we embarked, to be honest, in the climate emissions. Now we think because it's not only the 10 million tons for me, it's that TotalEnergies can be, I would say, a sort of driving force. We have to lead by example and to be steward to our supply chain to meet, to be better. What they will do for us, we will do for others. We have a multiplication effect on our upstream Scope 3, I would say. We have engaged with 1,000 suppliers, which represent, I would say 80% of the Scope 3 greenhouse gas emission upstream one, as I said, in order to engage them with some new initiative, to have a dialogue with them. We wrote them some letter to tell them it's important for us, it should be important for you. For the top 40 of them, for 40% of them, 400 of them, we ask them to set themselves some targets for 2030 to reduce emissions. We will monitor this, I would say, this new initiative. Again, it's not only the impact for, of the Scope 3 of TotalEnergies, it will have a multiplicatory effect on all the actions of the supply chain. I think it's important, and, thank you to the, people working on the procurement, which are very strong to make synergies and to deliver. I would say the best available, the best equipment, the best price, but also to drive these efforts. I would show also to, on this slide, to highlight a new report. You know, you have heard a lot the word transparency, I think. I've seen that Helle demonstrated to you that we think to progress transparency of essence: emissions by country, by products, by operated, non-operated, all that has to be put on the table because when you look at it, you benchmark and you improve. Again, tax transparency is a requirement for society. Next week, probably beginning of next week, at the same time, we work hard today in many, many parts of the company in recent months. There will be a new tax transparency report which will be disclosed, where we'll publish what is called the CBCR data, which normally are delivered by a company like TotalEnergies, only to fiscal authorities, in an undisclosed way. It's a private way. There is a new European regulation, and we have decided not only to anticipate but to enlarge the regulation. We'll publish all the CBCR reports and data for all European countries, of course, for the non-cooperative countries in line with the European legislation, but also for all the countries in which we have some extractive industries. They are much beyond Europe. It's a very large report. I know that some stakeholders are very keen for that. We were pioneers with the EITI initiatives for many years. We have also, by the way, the very last board adopted a, I would say, a new, not new because there was a fiscal policy in the company, but we have modernized it, I would say, and included some key principles, in particular all the responsible tax principles promoted by the B Team. We will work together. Stakeholders are important. Of course, it's a matter, when we said about sharing value, it's a matter of value creation and of do we split it. We have there a chart on which the way the value created, added value which was created by the company in 2021, almost $50 billion. Where does it go? It goes, of course, first to invest in the company. Last year it was around 30%, but I would say the image which was there is more or less stable. It was also, of course, to our employees, who are first, I would say, stakeholders. The company would be nothing without them. More than 100,000 employees. 65,000 of them are shareholders. There is a good connection between shareholders and employees in the company. You know, we make annual programs dedicated to employee shared reserved shares. Since I am CEO, a strong believer that the best alignment is to have employees being also shareholders, so they represent 6.8% of the capital. 20% of the value creation is going through them through salaries, social charges. It increased a little last year, + 3.4%. It will increase more in 2022 because we have to cope with inflation, so we have a more generous, I would say, policy for people in 2022. So results were a little better. We have also, of course, our shareholders, dividends and buyback, which represent around 20% of our allocation of added value. Last but not least, this is a share of taxes, you know. This one, by the way, it's a comment because I know there are debates about taxing super profits of energy companies. You know, in fact, we are already quite highly taxed, not maybe by the consuming countries, but by the producing countries. The figure which is there of $16 billion that we paid last year, $11 billion, more than $11 billion, by the way, were paid to non-OECD countries. It's a contribution to, I would say, the development of these emerging economies. It was only $6 billion in 2020 when the price was very low and the COVID was there. In fact, and the added value jumped by $10 billion -$11 billion, but most of the addition of added value was in fact paid back to producing countries. Our industry is in fact heavily taxed, in particular, when you have super profits and the producing countries are taking most of it. Last element about shareholders, it's maybe a new information because we didn't have all the records. In fact, we have 1.3 million individual shareholders. It increased in the last two years by 150,000 new individual shareholders. It's quite remarkable. Maybe during COVID, people were locked down at home, but they were using their savings to invest. They've invested. It seems they've invested heavily in TotalEnergies, which is delivering good dividends. These guys are quite smart. They represent 13.5% of capital, and clearly our policy is to try to develop that transferable capital. Of course, our board is really there to support all our sustainable ambition. You know, we have each decision is judged by the board, at the taking into account the environmental, social challenges in each investment file. We spend some time on it, and we explain what we will do. If we will cope with the sustainability of investment, it's of course, very important for the long-term benefit of our shareholders. Our board is diverse. Very, I would say, very high level of attendance, more than 99%, so very present. Clearly, we spent a lot of time on, I can tell you, strategy and climate, an annual seminar of two days and more sessions each time we need in order to have a same understanding. For example, this year in 2021, we invited Fatih Birol to explain to the board the net zero scenario, and we had a very interesting debate. That's a committed board. The board, of course, is at the core of the strategy, implementing the strategy, in particular of the capital allocation framework. This is, of course, a fundamental element of the board decision, which is to allocate our capital. This does not change. You know that slide for several years. We are consistent. CapEx, we maintain the discipline. We'll spend $13 billion -$16 billion next for three-four years until 2025. In 2022, we gave you a range in February, 14-15, no change. The dividend, of course, we want to have a long policy of supporting the dividend by underlying long-term cash flow growth. We announced that the 2022 quarterly interim dividends will be enhanced by 5%. Russia does not change anything to this commitment because it's supported by more than only some few Russian projects. I think we are, as I said, resilient, and we will manage that this crisis from this perspective. The balance sheet is strong, gearing under 20%. I think Jean-Pierre reported to you 15% by end of 2022. We have some margins there to maneuver. Of course, the share buyback, sharing the surplus of cash flows. Nothing new to say as well. We are committed to execute the $2 billion in the first half, and then we'll see, for the latter with our results and different events, what we will decide for the second half of the year. It seems that the prices are quite high and even higher than the assumptions that we had in mind when we set that first target. Maybe we were right not to announce a program for the full year for the benefit of shareholders. The board also is asking us, and I think it's also important to share that with you, regularly to present some benchmarks on our ESG performance. Why benchmark? Because it's a way to improve. We present this benchmark, and we analyze them in detail with the board, not only by the way on our oil and gas peers, but also with the utility peers because they are different companies, not exactly the same, I would say, challenges. It's interesting as we want to go from being an energy company. It's not becoming a utility, let's be clear. It's both. Taking the best out of both categories, I would say. You can see where we position ourselves on the different benchmarks that we are sharing with you. It's a little busy, this slide, but you know there are a lot of benchmarks. Maybe it's an area of improvement for investors to have more, I would say, a global ESG benchmark. It will help probably. You can see that we are generally very well-positioned compared to our oil and gas peers. We have some few gaps compared to utility peers. Sometimes we are better. Again, for me, what is important in this and what I attach an importance is that for me, it's a tool to become better. We analyze the gaps, and when we have a gap, we see, okay, why other companies are doing better than us. If somebody else can do it, there's no reason why TotalEnergies will not do it. This is, I would say, a principles of management which led me in managing the company. Of course, the board also wants to align, and it's also important, between, all strategic objectives, and transformation of the company, the capital allocation, the ESG, and to integrate in the way we incentivize the management, on these ESG criteria, but also, of course, other financial elements. You have there on this slide, and I will not give you the detail, just you will see that more or less the ESG criteria, either the CO₂ emissions or diversity or other elements, represent, for me, 40% of my, own, I would say, variable pay. For senior executive it's 30%, and as well, it has been integrated since last year in, the way we, evaluate or we allocate the performance share at, each every three year. This is something in mind. I think 30%, honestly, we think, going beyond might be tricky because also it's a matter of financial performance, which is important. We know that sometimes some shareholders have some debate about the right criteria, so we think that we are there at a right level, and it's among the best practice within the industry. That's also important. I think we'll conclude now this presentation. It has been 1.5 hour, a lot of information. But you know, I invite you to read the Sustainability and Climate Progress report. It's published today. It will be on internet site. It should be now in French and English. Thank you to the teams who have worked hard during the last two months. We know when you issue a new report, it's a lot of work of many levels of the company. Again, it was a commitment of the board last year at the AGM when we submitted the resolution. The commitment has been fulfilled, not only by publishing, but by the content, I would say, of the report. We have taken another decision, which we think that, in fact, in the same way we submit to your vote, I would say, our financial accounts, we will submit to the vote this progress report. Which, as you have understood today, is not only what we have done, but it's also the opportunity for us to enlarge the ambition. You have seen a lot of small signal new. This report is a way for us to progress. This is, I think, what all shareholders should expect from us because a new scenario came, like the IEA net zero emissions, new technologies, progress. You know customers speaking now about e-methanol for shipping. Nobody was speaking about that one year ago. So we need to take all that on board and to have, I would say, some the strategy not to change, but to integrate these elements. Again, I hope that what we have done, we will be convinced that yes, we are building a multi-energy company which will be sustainable, profitable, and which will get to net zero by 2050. The last slide, which is a summary, will not comment it. It's just, but sometimes during our roadshows we need to have, I would say, a demonstration of what is TotalEnergies. What is it? Why is it a competing investment case? I think when I described to you at the beginning of my presentation why we invest in electricity, why we think electricity might will become for us a high-return business. In fact, I just repeated all the fundamentals of our business model. Low cost is just fundamental. We are in a commodity business. Integration, and to take benefit of the integration, leveraging our balance sheet. And also, of course, which I think is very important, to continue to have an attractive and sustainable policy of return to our shareholders and also to our stakeholders with, of course, shared prosperity. Thank you for your attention. No, I think I will invite, by the way, Jean-Pierre, in case you have some financial questions or more, to join me with during the Q&A session. In the room here, unfortunately, and I hope it's the last time that we do that, I would say, not in presence. Next time, if COVID permits, we should meet all of you in September, end of September in New York, for the next presentation and having more time with all of you. Today, we will open the Q&A session and thank you for, again, your attention. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session. As a reminder, if you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. Please kindly mute any audio sources while asking a question. If you wish to cancel your request, please press the hash key. Once again, please press star one if you wish to ask a question. The first question comes from the line of Michele Della Vigna from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Thank you very much, Patrick, Helle, Namita, for the insightful presentation. I had two questions, if I may. The first one relates to your five MTPA of long-term LNG contracts from Russia. If a further tightening of sanctions forced you to call force majeure on that supply, how would that change your exposure to spot LNG pricing and the $800 million of cash flow sensitivity to $10 change in NBP? Secondly, if you had at some point to let go of your Russian business, which is about 10% of capital employed and free cash flow, you know, it would take about two-three years of growth from the rest of the business to make up for that loss. In terms of dividend, should we assume that over that time period, the dividend would most likely remain flat as, the rest of the business growth, makes up for that potential loss? Thank you. The first question I think is proportionate. We produce these long-term contracts represent 5 million tons. Global long-term contracts represent it now in terms of production. It's now the contract is a downstream. The production itself is not 5 million tons for Yamal. It's only 2 million tons, I think. So 2 million tons out of 20, so it's 10%. You have your math, it's around, let's say $100 million. It's not major in terms of sensitivity. First point. Yes, it's that. On the second one, my answer is no. If we abandon Russia, that does not mean that, again, as you have seen, the impact on the cash flow is around, I think we said $1.5 billion per year. It represents, according to our plan, one year, I would say, of increase. 1.5 years of increase. You know, we told you that we will increase our cash flow by EUR 1 billion per year during five years. That would represent 1.5 years. Maybe one of the years would be affected, but not the global idea that we will increase the dividend. Again, I repeat to you what I just said, that the first 5% that we have announced, we will deliver to you for 2022. No, the answer to you is, it might affect 1.5 years out of five, but not more. Again, for me, the impact of Russia is more about in this LNG business, we will clearly stop and loss of opportunities. If I remember, I was emphasizing one or two years ago, I remember in a presentation, that we have a portfolio of energy opportunities which is much larger than what we want to deliver. We will continue. You know, clearly after what is happening there, we are working to see if we could have another opportunity in the U.S. maybe, which is not today in the portfolio. You know, that's the flexibility of what we could have in a large company like us. Thank you, Patrick. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Lydia Rainforth from Barclays. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon. Patrick, thank you both for the transparency and for sharing the stories of your Ukrainian colleagues. I actually have three questions if that's okay. The first one, clearly in terms of Russia, there is still cash flow being generated from that. Is that going into a ring-fenced account or how are you actually dealing with the cash that's coming directly from Russia, at this stage in terms of continuing to sell the cargoes from Yamal? The second question, was on the difference between your scenario and the IEA net zero pathway. Are you seeing challenges, whether it's in terms of finances or from banks or from investors that think that the strategies aren't exactly aligned? That actually the end point is the same, but when the IEA talks about not needing new oil and gas projects, does that become difficult? The final question, if I could, for Namita. In terms of the, you talked about the supply chain and working through that and looking at the human rights and forced labor and child labor. Are you seeing a difference in terms of? Is there anything that's been uncompetitive so that the cost base has increased significantly for Total versus others that aren't acting in the way that Total is? Thank you. On the first one, again, it is, I would say, a moving answer because, you know, in this story, sanctions are changing regularly and the Russian legislation are changing as well regularly, you know. Yesterday we have some statement from Russia that we should pay in ruble. I don't know, by the way, if it's only for the pipe gas. LNG, in fact, today at this stage, to be clear, it's offshore accounts with dollars. We are analyzing all the elements of sanctions to know if we can have access or not, you know. I will be prudent. Today, I will tell you that the $1 billion and $1.5 billion I mentioned last year maybe will not be in our cash flow for 2022, if I'm prudent. That's not changed a lot, you know, because our cash flows when we will announce our quarterly results with the increase of the oil price and the gas price, I think it's quite little compared to, I would say, the revenues and the cash flows we generate today. I'm prudent. I tell you maybe nothing, and then we will report to you. Again, my instruction, by the way, to my teams is no way not to obey. It's our lawyers have an instruction to be super prudent and not to get anything which could be then an issue. I think, by the way, I'm not alone. All my colleagues which continue in fact to manage contracts with Russia have probably the same issue. On the second one, I mean, honestly, you will see in our report. I invite you to read a paper which has been written by Helle and approved by myself. We are co-responsible. What have we evaluated this IEA net zero scenario? Because yes, it's becoming a reference, it seems, for many people. Again, I was clear. Yes, we agree with the landing point. Frankly, the trajectory which says that the demand, the supply and demand for oil, because it's what they, I would say it's a normative scenario which is starting from the end and trying to design the beginning. This scenario says that the demand for oil will decrease by 30%. 30%. 30 million barrels per day between 2020 and 2030. Frankly, it is not at all what is happening on the planet. Before the Russia war, people were thinking we'll reach 100, maybe 99 this year. Frankly, we are not there. That's the problem of this scenario is, I agree with the landing point, but not the trajectory. This is why in two assumptions with Jean-Pierre, we have taken to evaluate the impairments of the assets. We didn't follow that, you know, because this scenario told us that we should be at $40. Are we at $40 today? No, because the demand is strong, the investments were not enough. I mean, that's for me the limit of this scenario, and I would encourage, frankly, banks and investors to have their own view. By the way, I was yesterday at the IEA ministerial meeting. Today, I was listening to the speeches, you know, and, the IEA themselves, it's about short-term targets of oil demand, you can read that quarter after quarter. They don't speak about a decrease of, I would say, 3% next year, but an increase. I think that's the difficulty. Honestly, it's not easy, it's not a criticism. It's a very difficult task to translate, I would say, the landing point in 2050 in a trajectory because, by the way, when you read the IPCC reports, there is not one trajectory. You have 70 different trajectories. So all that needs, and I think it's there that we need to share with you all the information, the assumption we take, and to convince that, yes, we are on the way. I think from this perspective, my best answer to investors is look our objective with 2030. Are they compatible with the society? I think Helle demonstrated you, I hope you are convinced, that the -40% is aligned with what the net zero countries want to do, what we are in line with that. - 40% on Scope 1 and 2 in the next decade, we are on the right path. That's for me, like for methane, - 80%. This is what the EU wants to do, and I think we are there. If we deliver this next 10 years from this emissions point of view, I consider, we consider that we are on the right pathway. No, on the last point, let me be clear. There is no, and I don't want you to misunderstand the presentation of Namita. I'm not astonished by your question. I was a little worried. No, Namita, I told you, we go through a very professional process to identify all the salient issues. You know, it's very fundamental not to be blind. You know, we need to look. We know that in the countries where we work, we could have some risks, and they are reported. Obviously, this is very strong, you know. I can tell you that child labor or forced labor was one of, when I became CEO, one of my main motto in the company. There is no way for me to accept it. Of course, it requires a huge effort to ensure it because you know we are a large company. We have, I think 150,000 suppliers and value and supply chains which are at different levels. I don't have any case which has been, I would say, brought to my office. For sure, we have no case of these types of issues that I can mention to you. Perfect. Thank you very, very much. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Biraj Borkhataria from RBC. Please go ahead. Biraj, your line is now open. Please check you're on mute. Can you hear me okay? Yes, we can hear you now. Oh, perfect. Sorry about that. I've got two hypothetical questions on your strategy and your emissions profile. The first one is, you know, you've put out these various targets that give you the framework on in carbon intensity and absolute emissions reductions. I'm just wondering, if you were to do a transformational acquisition Let's say in the upstream or in LNG, would you look to rebase your targets to reflect the change in portfolio? Or should we assume the targets stay the same and you'll operate within that sort of framework, current framework over time? Then the second question is on slide 27. Really interesting analysis and the benchmark you've done there. I guess the question I have is, society is not mobilizing at the pace that you are mobilizing. Particularly if you look from your reference point in 2015, your emissions are down 15%-20% to 2021. It's like global emissions are up over that period. The question is, what happens if we get to 2025 and your emissions are down a further 20%, CO2 emissions are up 5% or 10% globally? You know, your plans are in line with society. How should we think about whether your plans change or not if you're sort of accelerating much faster than wider society? Thank you. Okay. Thank you for both questions. The second one, I mean, clearly, the target is clear. We want it to. It's not, don't take it in the reverse way. We want it to. Because we have this question about are your objectives aligned with the Paris Agreement? It's difficult to know because Paris Agreement does not translate in any one trajectory. So we wanted to test, and we asked, I think, two independent third party, Columbia University Energy Center and Carbone 4, in order to assess, to tell us, "Okay, take the countries which claim they are net zero, what is the trajectory for 2030?" They told us they gave between -29% and -39%. It depends who exactly, which country they signed or they don't sign, forget. We think the 40% is the right target. For me, this target will remain. - 40% will remain. Maybe, again, it's not a question of base, it's a question to be able to and we have time to act. It's not a question to change the target. - 40% will remain. If we make a major acquisition, maybe at the end of the day, the Scope 1 and 2 absolute emission will be higher. Obviously, if we have more assets will be higher. The -40% for me are the right base and I will maintain the -40%. Whatever the company we would acquire would have done before. Because I'm convinced that the recipes we apply today in E&P, in refining and chemicals to lower the emissions we can apply to any assets, you know. I'm also convinced by the way that most of our industry today is embarking into this type of program. It's not moving. We will not change this strategy because of society. We just test it. -40% for me is a valid target. It's demonstrated now. We'll keep it and we'll see if it's moving but in the positive way, not in the negative way. Yeah, we sure, it's true what you said. We are more ambitions at the same time. I think an oil and gas company, when mobilize a lot of engineers, a lot of capacities, we have mobilized all our teams around lowering our emissions. It's becoming as important as profits in the company because for me, it's the right to operate, you know, for the company. We are delivering on that. Again, my answer to you is no, for the objective or description of Scope 1 and 2. On Scope 3 the same, because I'm sure we'll not make a major acquisition in the downstream after what I explained to you. A comment on the life cycle carbon intensity targets. The more I'm looking to it, the more I'm I think it's a strange target because in fact, if I want to be lower it, I have to introduce more and more and more electrons in the targets, which is not the best business. For me, absolute emissions, Scope 1 and 2 or Scope 3 oil emissions are fundamentally more important. The reduction of the absolute emissions are fundamentally more important. By the way, this is what the climate receives, you know? It receives the emissions, not the intensity. The carbon intensity is more reflecting the evolution of the portfolio, the strategy in fact. You can evaluate it like that. Understood. Thank you. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Chris Kuplent from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Thank you very much, and thank you everyone for the work that's gone into this presentation. I was gonna ask two questions, but could I just first of all ask for a clarification, Patrick, on your answer regarding those hypothetical transactions, disposals or acquisitions. Of course, whatever you acquire, you're trying to reduce emissions on as well. But are you saying you're not going to move your absolute targets, whatever you do in terms of M&A? That's just a quick question for clarification. My other question was going to be on your CapEx program. Of course, these numbers are not new. Can I take it that all your 2030 targets that you have highlighted here, again, some of them updated, you think are broadly achievable within the same capital framework, assuming all the things we know about regarding inflation, et cetera? Don't want to make you a fool. Don't want you to give us a CapEx budget for the rest of the decade, but is my assumption correct that these numbers are in this presentation because you think roughly with this kind of outlay, your 2030 targets are achievable? Last question, please, if I may, on the oil indexation of your LNG sales, you mentioned that's about 80%. How confident are you that the oil indexation itself, considering that for the first time in many years, hub prices are significantly above Brent index prices? How confident are you that this oil indexation can actually gradually shift its slope to Brent higher and ultimately give you a higher CFFO sensitivity to oil medium term? Thank you. I'm not sure to have understood the last question. I understood the beginning, but not the end of your question, in fact, but I will try to answer. No, the first one. No, let me be clear. Your question was about major M&A. A major M&A, I said we will maintain the -40%. This was my answer. I didn't tell you that absolute value at the end will be the same, if it's major. What I can tell you, if it's a small M&A, we will be absorbed. By the way, you have clarified this year, you know, we have acquired between 2015, where we had no CCGT, because of the new strategy we have acquired, I would say some CCGTs for around EUR 5 billion. We have included them in the same target, you know. We didn't tell you, we have. It's absorbed. I consider that the absolute value will remain the same for, I would say, minor moves, including a new strategy like this one. If it's a major one, the absolute part could grow, but of course we will have to, but the - 40% will remain the same. Yes, the CapEx again, my answer is of course there is inflation today, we observe it, but what is sure is that we will not enter into the same cycle that we had in 2008 or 2010 or 2011 when, because inflation, we accept the inflation, we spend more and we explode the CapEx, and then we have breakeven going back to I don't know where. For, I will not do that, you know. I will not create a new crisis. Consider that, by the way, we, you have probably noticed that the 13-15 become 13-16. That's the right guidance for the next five years and I think it's fine for the next ten. My commitments is until 2025 when. It's not something major because we must resist to launch projects if they are costly because they are profitable to another dollar per barrel. We continue, and we will continue to approve projects based on $50 per barrel and $1 per ton of CO2. The only assumption which might change, which will change, be very transparent with you, is the gas price in Europe. I think what is happening is fundamentally changing our assumption for the gas price in Europe. Before we were seeing Europe as a huge, I would say, low cost Russian gas, a cap being given by the U.S. LNG, $6-$7. Then suddenly, you forget all that because the gas in Europe will be LNG. We are probably more, and this is a difficult answer today, above $10, but at $5, I would say. I would just give you this range. That might change. We are revisiting positively some few projects that we could have in North Sea, by the way. I see that some European states are asking us to see if we could produce more domestically. We are revisiting if we have what I call short cycle projects, which could be profitable at $10 per million BTU and not at $5. The teams of Nicolas are working hard. This is a contribution as well, I think, to energy security supply in Europe. This is the point. The last one, I mean, what I think is that, I think the buyers will be keen to continue to give contract linked to Brent, you know. Because I will see a lot of volatility on this JKM or things like that. Henry Hub is more stable. Brent is probably more stable today than I would say the JKM index. My view is that, I mean, I'm not sure to have understood the full question, but I think that, for me, it's the behavior of the market should not change. What we can hope, of course, when we'll market, for example, Papua LNG, is that we'll have more than the 10% or 11% Brent. We are raising the bar, you know. I think the customers are probably more open to that. The question will be not to go again to 15% or 16% because this is not sustainable. It's 10%, 11%, we are low, 15%, 16% too high. Where is the right level? This is the debate we will have, we have today with customers. I hope I have-- That's exactly where my question was heading. Thank you very much, Patrick. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Alastair Syme from Citi. Please go ahead. Hi, Patrick. In the slide, you are sort of justifying the capital into power generation. You have the comment there that you expect a positive outlook on power prices, given market complexity. Are you prepared to disclose what power price assumptions you're using when you look at these projects? I'm sure it depends by country, but you know, any sense of magnitude of higher prices that you're expecting or embedding? Thank you. Just the one question. I will not answer because it's an element of competition. You know, today, when we bid on some tenders. There is one element which could make a difference, which is what is your assumption in your electricity price. I will not disclose that. It's, I think, part of the volatility of the issue. We are not to reassure you, we are not super optimistic neither. We are quite reasonable because it's a market we enter, but we are very reasonable on the assumption we use. What we are trying to explain is that we have a view, a positive view. We are bullish on the fact that this price will go higher in the future. Investing today, if we are reasonable, like with my $50 per barrel on the Brent, which is a reasonable assumption, if I'm reasonable with EUR 50 per megawatt hour, it's not the assumption, just to give you an example. I think there is some upside to be done. It's the same approach, I would say. I really think that with what we have developed as a way to be profitable on gas could give us better returns on electricity. By the way, it's more complex because these are local markets. It's not one assumption that we need to take. You have a European market, you have a U.S. market, which are the main ones, I would say, deregulated, where the assumption is key. You know, the U.K. is not the same with continental Europe, so we have different views. Australian market. Then you have, of course, and all what I told you about keeping, by the way, 70%, 30%, 70% PPA, 30% market, is valid for the unregulated market. When we develop a project, I would say, in South Africa or in Angola, obviously, it will be linked to a PPA, because there is no capacity to take much upside. The PPA are generally higher than in the unregulated markets. Patrick, can I? Yeah. Helle wants to add something. Yeah. I just wanted to emphasize what Patrick said, which is, I really don't think that we are, I would say, betting on sky-high prices when we look at our power projects. Don't get the comment wrong, really. We've discussed in the past, you know, that we are rather a cautious company when it comes to making assumptions about future prices. I think the $50 Brent reference is a good one. Patrick, think of us using the same cautiousness or discipline as we look at projects in power. On the other hand, we are very much, I think, improving our ability to assess the upside that we can get from power projects, again, country by country, by taking a little more, wholesale market exposure instead of fixing everything through PPAs or having floors and caps on those PPAs. That's really the message, Alistair. Brilliant. Thanks to you both. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Lucas Herrmann from Exane. Please go ahead. Yeah, good afternoon. Listen, thanks very much for the opportunity, and thanks for what's been a very clear presentation. Two questions, if I might. The first one regards the reduction in carbon emissions of 30% essentially from the downstream business. Can you break that down in any greater detail? I guess I'm asking how much of it is gonna come from you ceding share or ceding positions organically, for want of a better phrase, and how much potentially come from actually divesting positions in the downstream business? Secondly, Patrick, just coming back to the CapEx number of EUR 13 billion-EUR 16 billion now. Do you wanna provide any color as to why you've decided to add EUR 1 billion to your CapEx budget? I mean, it's pretty understandable given the environment and perhaps given everything you just said on short cycle projects. Just some greater color if possible. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. On the first one, you know, already we have done - 14%. It's pure organic. You know, there is almost no divestment in it. Which does not mean. Again, it's a question of, for me, it's arbitrage within the low margin sales. We have, you know, when we embarked into this transformation, we dig into, by the way, what is our Scope 3. We made, I would say, an evaluation with the marketing and services teams about, I would say to segment the sales between different markets. Of course, then we discovered there were good sales, I would say, and there are a bunch of them. In particular, I would say in the form of B2B of what we sell en masse. The bulk sales, which we are in fact manipulating a lot of volumes with, not much, you know? It depends where it happens, you know. Where we have some niche markets could be profitable, but not everywhere. We have decided, okay, we need to arbitrage on it and Helle will continue. That's part of it. Having said that, this strategy could lead as well, I will be honest, so that there are many countries where we consider that it's not fundamental, it's an arbitrage. We have also the EU against rest of the world. Helle wants to add something. Yeah. This was for Scope 3. My comment, Lucas, were just on 1 and 2. If you look at the table on how we did in 2021 versus 2020, that is a combination of, we don't break it all out, but a combination of organic in-house carbon footprint reduction projects, in line with the chart we presented. Of course, the fact that we did divest a refinery in the U.K. and also the fact that we decided to transform our Grandpuits refinery in France into a zero oil platform all participated to the Scope 1 and 2 reduction in 2021. Let me be clear, it's not against the downstream, it's just that we want to anticipate the fact that in particular in Europe there will be a declining market. You know, the strategy of the car manufacturers are quite clear. They all announce more and more electric cars in Europe by 2030, 2045. It's our duty independently of Scope 3. I would say our strategy to adapt the downstream footprint of the company and not to be with a stranded asset. We prefer to anticipate that part. The EUR 1 billion short cycle CapEx, which was introduced or, you know, there was. It's not new. You know, we have some wells which have been launched in Angola, as I said, or in with which we are stuck. I would say we have a portfolio of short cycle wells, and we just recently approved the COMEX, some additional phase on CLOV or projects like these ones. But again, I was telling you that we might have new projects coming in North Sea. Adapting to that. I think it's for me, that's the best way. It's not to increase suddenly the base of organic CapEx, but to benefit, to try to. What we call short cycle is a payback of less than two years. I think it makes a lot of sense with these high prices to allocate some additional CapEx. Jean-Pierre will just add something. By the way, it was a CapEx that was cut in 2020 to face the COVID crisis. It makes sense to remobilize these assets when the prices are favorable. Okay. The message is, in essence, this is allocation towards short cycle opportunities that look more attractive than the market that we're in today and more likely market long term, given everything that's been happening in the world of gas. No. At this stage, no. Again, it's more short cycle. Again, as I said before, when we spoke about LNG, obviously there is a new European LNG market. The view we'll have on the U.S. projects might be different. That's why I maintain all our targets on the LNG growth, because it's not Russia will get out of the portfolio for the future, but other opportunity will arise. It's a question of reallocation of CapEx. When we said to you, no more capital allocated to Russia, this capital will go somewhere. Okay. Patrick, thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Henri Patricot from UBS. Please go ahead. Yes, everyone, thank you for the presentation and the additional disclosures. I want to follow up on the question on CapEx, given the greater focus on energy security. You've talked about gas and LNG, the new market in Europe. I mean, are there other areas where you could see an acceleration, a more favorable environment, we could perhaps raise some of the targets in terms of capacity built around the new molecules or on the renewable side? No. You have probably noticed in the presentation that we have identified the new molecules. You know, we try to be before they were a little hidden between the liquids and the gas. We say, "No, it's a new molecule," because they are. This is part of the ambition by net zero. By the way, it's an improvement when we analyze the net zero and okay, also because for me, one of the news of 2021 was the fact that we've seen some customers in some shipping business or even you know, the change of position in Germany, but maybe not EV by 2030, but later. The e-fuels or e-gas is becoming something new. I think this is maybe an area where we could allocate more capital. By the way, the 5% we mentioned in 2022, we are not at 5%. Biogas, for example, we make a small entry in biogas where we see the demand for biogas today, we have the conviction that the supply will be short of the demand if it continues like that. Let's invest. The problem with this type of project is that one project is not big amount of CapEx, we can make a lot. This is probably the new molecules, an area where you could see some acceleration in terms of allocation. One point on this one, we need to have the demand in front of it. I will not invest everything. It's a topic on which we will probably take initiatives in future months, and we'll come back to you and we will see, hear about this. Yeah, Hello? Yeah, I just wanted to add, of course, Henry, I don't know if that was also part of your question, that this new plan that Europe has just come out with because of the war in Ukraine about repowering Europe. As part of, you know, trying to get rid of Russian pipe gas, there will be huge opportunity for LNG, but Europe is also saying, of course, more renewables as quickly as we can and more of these new molecules. I think our outlook on where we want to grow for the next 10 years is only reaffirmed and validated by what's going on right now, unfortunately, you may say. Yeah. Even if I think the new molecules, it's probably better to produce them where electricity is low than when in a continent where electricity is high. I share the objective. I'm not sure to share the location of the objective. Because we have to think to the long-term profitability, profitable of this asset. I know. It's always a trilemma between security, affordability, and of course, being green. We're in the middle of that. Yeah, exactly. Creating new dependencies if you import or have higher prices. Yeah. Exactly. One element that I forgot to mention, which maybe it was underestimated, is the CCS investments CapEx. We just show you in the presentation that when we made all to be net zero by 2050, we must compensate somewhere 100 billion tons of CO2. We have the e-fuels which might consume, or e-gas might consume part of it, in particular if they go to chemicals and all value chain. We have also the CCS. One work we are doing is just we put more than 100 billion, it's clearly more than 100 billion we need to invest in the year, so probably we'll raise the bar. We will come to you by September with a better evaluation of what we need to invest in order to cope with that objective service. Again, we speak about maybe going from $100 million-$300 million. It does not change the global allocation framework. We have allocation framework we deliver to you. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Irene Himona from Société Générale. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. And thank you for what looks like a very rich sustainability progress report. You announced this very interesting new target for a 30% reduction in Scope 3. I think it's the first time we've seen such a specific Scope 3 target by a major energy company. I had two related questions. Firstly, Scope 3 does not really depend so much on you, more on regulators and policymakers effectively mandating that the users must decarbonize. So my question is, isn't the risk a bit too high that demand simply lags behind supply on decarbonization due to weak policy making? And then the risk is you miss that target. And then secondly, the related question, this is clearly an increasingly litigious society. Shell was told to do things on their global emissions by a Dutch regional court. It used to be a U.S. phenomenon. It's now spreading over here. How do you assess the future risk of litigation against TotalEnergies surrounding, in particular, the delivery or not of this new Scope 3 target? In other words, is that a risk for you, Patrick? Thank you. Well, I think on the second question, there is a risk for everybody, I would say. For us, for all the oil and gas companies, you know, I honestly understand why Shell make an appeal. I think it was announced yesterday because I don't know if this Dutch judge has decided that it is so precise, he's able to say that's the target. Frankly, I can understand that we are liable on all our Scope 1 and 2 emissions. Scope 3, as you said, is together with societies or customers. By the way, again, if I was reading yesterday's SEC regulation, there is an interesting statement in what they propose, is that they consider, they ask companies to disclose the Scope 3, but companies will not be taken liable for the Scope 3. I think it's an interesting statement by the regulator. The U.S. regulator make it clear, and I think it's just fundamental to me. Honestly, I consider that the part of what the Dutch judge has gone too far is the Scope 3. I mean, Scope 3. I mean, again, otherwise we have to stop saying. In our case, coming back to your question, I think I want to repeat what is the strategy. It's fundamental. TotalEnergies, we are a company where we say integration, but in fact, we have a downstream. We sell. We refine more than what we produce in terms of oil and condensates. That's a fact. We are not so really integrated with part integration and/or analysis. In particular, these businesses where we are, I would say, when we analyze our footprint, it's in Europe. You know, refining in Europe, I had the chance to manage that, and Bernard, now is managing that. It's a tough business, you know. Even this year, when you have such high gas prices, you know, even if the spread seems to be good on one side, the results is not so high. I mean, that's a tough business and we have decided to engage. We are proud to be number two in refining in Europe. Unfortunately, the volume does not make the results. For me, this is a strategy which is deliberate to lower our footprint. I think some of our peers have done the same and will continue to do it. The idea is to realign the refining footprint of the production to be really integrated. The marketing is the same story. Of course, the marketing footprint is much larger, but it's also heavily in Europe. I think we have more or less, if I remember, it was 60% of the Scope 3 was in Europe with the marketing. I know having 60% of our volumes in Europe in a continent where you have a clear indication by the policymakers, by European Green Deal 2030, 2035, they will want to diminish the consumption of oil products. It will make little sense to continue to develop or even to maintain. We have to prepare, and I want to anticipate. For me, the Scope 3 reduction, maybe I am in a different position than my peers, but you know, by the way, the reduction we announced is on oil, Scope 3 oil. You know, because everybody's asking us Scope 3. Scope 3 oil, yes, we can announce and I'm confirming, but we have -30% reduction. If we are ahead of the group of peers, that's not bad for us, you know. Having said that, we also very transparently explain, and this is why Scope 3 is complex because it's customer story. But you know that globally, if you take oil and gas, as we have a deliberate strategy to increase our gas sales because of LNG, globally, our target is to be under 400 million tons by 2030. As we know that we cannot deliver on the whole, we set to ourselves a constraint. The constraint is for me, the results of a deliberate strategy to realign upstream refining and marketing, and in particular, to accelerate in Europe. Because in Europe, the policymakers have delivered a clear strategy, and we need to take that into account. Otherwise, we don't do our job properly. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Martijn Rats from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hi. Hello. Thanks for the opportunity. I had two somewhat related sort of questions. I wanted to pick you up on some of the comments that you just referred to earlier when it comes to the European natural gas market. I think it's very clear that there is a growing ambition to wean Europe off Russian natural gas. I was wondering, from the position where you're sitting and your knowledge of the market and the industry, what your observations would be about that plan in terms of the obstacles that there are, how long this would take, the investments that need to be made, what the conditions that need to be put in place for this to happen, the role that Total could play in this. Could you say a few words about how such a large sort of target could be realized? Then in addition to natural gas in Europe, I also wanted to ask you sort of a related question about the middle distillate market. It strikes me that middle distillate inventories are pretty much very low in inventory and inventories are pretty much falling very fast almost everywhere, including in Europe. The idea that we could run out of diesel, well, it sounds dramatic to say, you know, looks a little sort of, you know, perhaps over the top, but it's not far off. I was wondering from your perspective what the impediments are, well, to let your European refining system simply run harder, produce more diesel. Is that a matter of crude availability, natural gas prices, or the availability of hydrogen in the system? How do you see the sharp shortage of middle distillates, particularly in Europe, playing out? The second question. You know, by the way, the refining system in Europe is not really delivering a lot of middle distillate. It's an old system. We spend a lot of money to improve this production. The economic results are not very good. I hope that the tools we have developed in some refineries will benefit from this tight market. I think for me, the point is that at the end of the day, you know, and this is I think the difficulty, it's not my job, it's the European leaders who have to decide. Sanctions on liquids have a little effect except increasing prices, you know, because at the end it's liquid. Liquid can move around. If we don't take Russian middle distillate, we will take from another part of the world. I've mentioned Saudi Arabia for us, but it will move. Then probably Russia will sell their middle distillates to other countries, you know, emerging countries which face high prices and which will have a discount. I'm not sure it's very efficient, but again. I'm not so afraid. I think that at the end of the day, these type of policies are pushing, I would say, the diesel price up. It's not bad for refineries. Should we change our strategy on refining in Europe because of that element? I say no. I mean, because fundamentally, again, there is another perspective, which is, the decarbonization, the Green Deal and all that. What I heard from the European leaders is they want to accelerate, not to decelerate, because they consider that all these renewables, electricity is a way to increase the security of supply. So on that part, no. On the first one, you know, we have already a strong position, and we I remember we bought all these regas capacities from ENGIE. It was considered a negative value. It was liabilities. Today, Stéphane and his teams are quite happy. These are full. Should we increase? I had a discussion, by the way, with a high political person in the continent about why don't we have. He asked me, "Why don't we have all these regas terminals today?" I told him, "It's normal. Why do you want private investors to invest in regas terminals when you explain weeks after weeks, months after months, that you don't want natural gas?" I mean, that's the point. You know, this regas terminal in Germany, I think I've heard about it for 15 years, since I am in this in the company taking longer than that, but about LNG. Nobody has taken the risk because you had a debate, you have a political policymaker telling us gas is not good. Suddenly we wake up. What we told them, we are able to bring back some floating storage unit that I'm ready to bring back. We have two in our fleet. If European. But we need to commit, because if we have a procedure of three years or two years to connect FSRU you know, maybe it's better to-- No, it's, I exaggerate, but it seems that it's, for some it's 15 months, which is too long. We can do that. I'm ready to contribute, of course. We have gas to bring. We have LNG to bring. Let's be clear to Europe, by the way, today, we are dedicating because the market is high, so it's naturally that the LNG is coming to Europe. We can do. If we have more capacities, we'll fill the capacities. I think Stéphane's teams have looked to all possible capacities in Europe. Most of it is full. Should we invest in onshore regas terminals? It depends, and it's back to something else which is missing in Europe, which is long-term contract, you know. We need to open a new debate, I think, with the policymakers. I think a continent which is in deficit with a lack of storage, with a lack of regas terminal and with no long-term contract, we will face a crisis regularly. I think if it's linked to long-term terminal, you know, why not? You know, we are looking to build a regas terminal in Vietnam. If we have beyond the terminal some long-term contracts, we could apply the same policy to Europe. I think. Of course, now it's a matter of urgent decisions. I think the best for Germany is probably to engage the government and seek public funds in order to get these regas terminals as quick as possible and to take, to enact the right regulations so that the procedures are shorter, and I think it will take probably two-three years to build them. Again, yes, European, as I said before, it's a LNG. I'm convinced that this will be a good market for LNG. We have strong position in the U.S. Remind you that we were last year the largest exporter from U.S. LNG. It was going last year to Asia, now it's going to Europe. It's a question of arbitrage between the markets. Thank you. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Jason Gabelman from Cowen. Please go ahead. Hey, thanks for the presentation and taking my questions. One, just a clarification on the Russian exposure that you talked about at the top of the call. The Arctic LNG 2 project, I understand you're not putting more money into that project, but does the project itself, at the project level, have enough access to financing to be completed absent any additional contribution from Total? Then the two questions I had, first on the inflation that we're seeing, particularly on renewable power inputs. Are you able to pass that through in terms of the PPAs you're agreeing to moving forward? Or do you expect to see, potentially as a result of the inflation, some degradation on future earnings power of those projects? The other question was just on the marketing business. I appreciate the insight into reducing oil emissions via rationalizing some of the marketing footprint. What do you expect that to do to marketing earnings over the next 5-10 years? I think you previously discussed about $100 million per year of earnings growth. Is that something you could still achieve? If so, how do you achieve that in light of shrinking the footprint? Thanks. On the last question, marketing is a good business. We managed to deliver this additional $100 million. I think the question from us, it's linked for me to the capacity to grow quicker the non-fuel sales. In fact, it's back to, I don't know if it's a number of cup of coffee that we need to sell, but it's this is a business on which we can probably improve. We have a target to improve by 1% per year. I think the non-fuel sales, that's a source of because the margins are better than on fuel, by the way. It's a question that we have strategically, what is the best way for us in order to improve these non-fuel sales? This is something which it's a topic on which some marketing and there's a supervision of Thierry Pflimlin is working hard, and so we're at a point. I confirm the target. On the cost inflation, you know, PPAs, when you negotiate, you negotiate with a certain cost. You try to edge your modules. Of course, it's dangerous for me. The question is that I think probably the early movers on the corporate side to sign some fixed price PPAs will be a little more complex. There are some lessons learned that, by the way, we recommend to our teams to be a little more careful. It's better to go like the LNG. The parallel is good, you know, to have a sort of slope, to absorb part of inflation, or part, by the way, of the upside part of electricity, you know? Of course there is competition, but I think this is yet an immature market. Probably large corporations were very lucky to sign quicker. Some lessons learned. My view is that because there is one advantage. You know, when you make a solar plant, it takes two years maximum. One year, two years. It's a short-term project, you know? You can deliver, you can easily buy. One thing we are doing at a corporate level for TotalEnergies, on which we work between the renewable team, the procurement, and the OneTech organization, is obviously to anticipate purchasing some modules. Yesterday, we approved on a U.S. project to anticipate a large inventory of solar cells and modules in order to protect from the inflation. I think a strategy that a company like TotalEnergies can deploy in order to manage this cost inflation. Having said that, another remark. I think there is a lesson there. We must also develop alternative sources of modules and cells than China. You know, there is a-- It's not possible, and I think we are working, by the way. I can share that with you in India with Adani to see if we could develop, I would say another source of supply for solar, maybe wind in India together, in order to have alternative because it's competition, which is the answer to cost inflation. Otherwise, we'll be stuck, you know, if we depend only on one country. On the first one. Oh, Arctic 2, yes, important. To be clear, Arctic 2, what is the status? I will be transparent. The GBS 1, which is the first, you know, we have what we call the gravity-based structure. We have three twins, each on which on each train. The first GBS, which is built in Murmansk, is in fact completed at 98%. This one. It has to be towed to the Ob River, but I would say 98%. There might be some tricky points where I know that I can tell you that all the equipment providers are checking today, and it's a difficult task because sanctions are moving as well to understand what could be delivered. Nobody wants to, everybody wants to take risk. Part of that is provided from China, but part of the equipment is coming from other parts of the world, including Western countries. This 2% might be. This is a point on which. I would say this one has a high chance to be completed. We have the number two, which is today at 40%, so there's more work to be done. The Chinese part is moving forward. You have the rest, all the rest of the equipment. The third GBS did not begin because in a few months you have only two quantity, the construction. The two dry docks, so it should begin after the first one left. This is the status of the project. In terms of financing, we put $2.5 billion of capital, in fact, and we have financing was put in place where, in fact, most of the financing should come now from China, but there is also some Japanese funds. The Italian funds, I think, will not come. It's possible that the project will call for capital, but we will answer no. You have, in the shareholders' agreements, some procedures. I mean, some I would say a cure system. This is a matter of discussion, would be a matter of discussion between TotalEnergies and the other participants. I cannot answer you. This is why we have decided, because there are some uncertainties, you know, and proved reserves means 90% of chance. I have 90% of chance to do GBS 1. Do we have 90% of chance to do GBS 3? I would, I'm prudent. I want the accounts of the company to be on the prudent side from this perspective. We discussed with the board, we decided not to book this. It does not mean that the project is stopped, but that's midway, by the way, which we impaired the project because it's a project that can move on. I think we will have clarity month after month, week after week about what can be done really and what is the position we should adopt. For TotalEnergies, I'm very clear, we will not put a single dollar from TotalEnergies SE in Paris in any new projects in Russia. Great. Thanks. Thank you. Last question comes from the line of Bertrand Hodée from Kepler Cheuvreux. Please go ahead. Yes, good afternoon, and thanks for the presentation and the very rich roadmap and detailed roadmap. I think it will take me a while to digest all those new data. Two quick questions follow-up on Russia. You have a 5 million ton LNG offtake from Yamal and 1 million from Novatek portfolio. So I understand that if there are sanctions against Novatek or Russian LNG, you will be able to call for a force majeure and stop offloading those volumes. But I was wondering whether you have already pre-sold or hedged some of those LNG volumes going forward, and that could generate potentially a negative impact. Happy if you can share some color on that. The second related question on Russia, and I fully understand your principles of conduct for Russia, but have you considered stepping down from Novatek's board? I understand there was a board recently. Can you share some of the discussion inside the board if you can? Lastly, so nothing to do with Russia, can you disclose the CapEx that will be dedicated out to 2030? Don't know if you have a precise number, but a kind of a range that you will be dedicated to your Scope 1 reduction in both upstream and downstream. Thank you. The last question, if somebody has the answer, I don't have it. But honestly, it's not hundreds of millions of the last Scope 1 and 2. I mean, there's more. I mean, I prefer not to answer to you. We'll come back. It's linked to, by the way, at a certain point, which CCS do we need to have, which is more expensive to capture part of it. I've seen in front of me, Nicolas and Bernard, so you can work hard during the next six months to answer to Bertrand. Maybe not for 2030, but 2027 because we work on five-year business plan, you know. And we can take it next time, next September. No, but as you said, you have many data. You want always more, but first digest all the data and, you will know better TotalEnergies. Second, the second question. Again, Novatek is not a sanctioned entity. I want to be clear. Novatek is not a sanctioned entity. Gennady Timchenko, one of the shareholder, is a sanctioned E.U. person and U.S. person. He left the board first. It is clear that the board members of Total might be one day becoming, I would say, silent or sleeping people. That's possible. It is clear as well that they don't, for this last board, you know, they are not participating at all to any decision linked to, any revenues going to shareholders, for example, dividends. We abstain from that. Your question is a good one. We'll see. It's for me, it's linked to the potential evolution of the sanctions. You know, again, it's Novatek is a different entity than Rosneft or Gazprom. It's not a state-owned company. It's not the Russian state. It's a privately owned company which has been built by one man, Leonid Mikhelson, starting from nothing. He didn't take any state assets. It's not this type of company. I want to tell you that, and we continue of course to be in contact with Leonid Mikhelson. He's doing an excellent job. These guys are not responsible for what has been decided by the leadership of Russia. Having said that, the board and myself, our duty is to protect TotalEnergies, you know? We'll again tell you what we will do. Again, it's not a sanctioned entity and it's not a Russian state company, which of course for me makes difference, some difference compared to other situation from our peers. By the way, I have my own policy, which is to be never a board member from any of the companies in which we have participation, just to protect TotalEnergies. For me, there is no way for the Chairman and CEO of TotalEnergies to be a board member for many of the companies in which I participate. Just to protect as well TotalEnergies. On the 5 million ton. Yes, of course, you know our policy. Our policy is that we hedge one year in advance, so the volumes are hedged. That's true, that's clear. That might have an impact. Would be a financial impact if we have to stop that. The hedge will have to be, I would say, deliver. It represent in Europe around $2 billion. But again, month after month, it's diminishing. By the way, today, the only way, I remind you, this long-term contract, the only way for us to exit the contract is force majeure linked to sanction. Otherwise, we have to perform the contract. By the way, for me, it's not only a question of money, it's a question of principle, you know. In any country of the world, we all respect the rule of law. You know, there is a rule of law. Maybe the leader of Russia does not respect the rule of law for sure, but it should not impact all the behaviors of all the economic players in the world, you know? Let's respect each other. It's a fundamental value of the company, and it's a question of credibility for us on other markets, you know. Because we have customers in many countries. There are not only democracies on this planet. We have to also behave, I would say, with some values. Honoring contracts is a fundamental value of this company, and I think it's the core of a global corporation. Having said that, we will assume the consequences. This is why we state it clearly. Any sanction we will apply, whatever the consequences are. All that is manageable at the level of a corporation. By the way, the hedge and the margin calls are already somewhere in the working capital out of the treasury of Jean-Pierre. Maybe we'll not see the margin calls coming back, but it was in the working capital of 31st of December. In terms of treasury, it's no more in our hand. Let's see and, again, it's, we spend a lot of time, but, it does not depend on us, and we will obey to the policymakers, whatever the decisions are. It's clear as well that Stéphane and his teams do not have the right at all to hedge anything on the Russian volumes for 2023. Just to clarify. It's limited to 2022 hedging if there is an issue. Thank you for the transparent answer. I'm very transparent because the only way, I think, for everybody in this crisis is to be transparent. This is a value. I think rather than letting you trying to guess what is the impact on TotalEnergies, again, my message to you, the main impact for TotalEnergies is that we stop having any future energy growth in Russia. Again, we have a large portfolio, and we will redeploy our capital on other opportunities, looking for more. I think this is the advantage of a global corporation with large balance sheet and large footprint like TotalEnergies. We can face this crisis in the same way, by the way, as we faced the COVID crisis two years ago, where we maintain, like, you know, compared to other players, we maintained the dividend through the crisis. I think you can observe that maybe we maintain our stance on Russia not taking, I would say, quick decisions, emotional decisions, before we think that we need also to be responsible of all the assets we have in our hands for everybody, our shareholder, our customers, our employees. It's not by being too emotional that we'll solve the issue. Thank you. I think this is the last question from Bertrand, so you will have time to digest now. Thank you, I think, for your attendance to all of you. Again, I really hope that the COVID does not come back, and that end of September we will meet all together in New York. In the meantime, I'm sure I will have the opportunity with Helle and Jean-Pierre. We'll embark into a series of roadshows in the coming weeks to meet you and to not only answer many questions about our strategy, sustainability, climate, but also about Russia. I think, as I said in my speech, it's very important for us that our shareholders will give us some feedbacks because it's part of. The board is also asking me. They own the company, you know, somewhere. We need to understand what we do is in line with the expectations. The message we receive until now is that they consider that we are the asset keeper, you know, it's our role. Then, of course, to protect the company is the other part. Thank you. Thank you for your attention, and see you soon to all of you.