Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to TotalEnergies' Q1 2022 Results 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 28 April, 2022. I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Patrick Pouyanné, CEO of TotalEnergies, and Mr. Jean-Pierre Sbraire, CFO of TotalEnergies. Please go ahead, sir. Good morning, hello to everyone. Welcome to this conference call for the Q1 of 2022. Given the geopolitical turmoil and the market volatility, I am joining the call to talk about how we are navigating this environment and to answer your question from this perspective of management and the board. I am today with Jean-Pierre, and he will present you the results after my initial remarks and then the Q&A. To that point, it was months ago on 24 February that Russia invaded Ukraine, triggering violence and destructions that have killed thousands and displaced millions. TotalEnergies condemns this military aggression, and in response, we have outlined on 22 March our principles of conduct to manage our Russian-related activities, including our full support to current and future sanctions, whatever the consequences on our assets will be. Going beyond the sanctions, we have also announced our decision to stop the flow of capital to new projects in Russia, initiated a gradual suspension of our activities there while ensuring the safety of our staff. In doing so, we are exercising our duty of vigilance in line with our corporate responsibility. We have began to end our activities related to Russian oil and petroleum products. We stopped spot trading transactions linked to Russian oil or natural gas. On 22 March, we announced that, given the uncertainty created by the technological and financial sanctions on the ability to carry out the Arctic LNG 2 project currently under construction and where probable tightening with the first worsening conflict, we had decided to no longer book proved reserves for this project. Since then, on 8 April, new sanctions have effectively been adopted by European authorities, notably prohibiting export from European Union countries of goods and technologies for the use in the LNG benefiting a Russian company. This new prohibition constitute additional risks on the execution of the Arctic LNG 2 project, and as a result, we decided to record in the accounts of TotalEnergies SE as of 31 March, 2022, an impairment of $4.1 billion concerning notably Arctic LNG 2. Our activity related to Russia is essentially in fact centered around LNG supply from Yamal LNG, which the EU has deemed necessary until now. Until there is a change through possible sanction, we'll continue to honor our contractual obligations and protect the company from potential significant liabilities. For Russia, we also apply our principle of transparency. On 24 March, we communicated to you the 2021 results and cash related to Russian businesses. Today, you probably noticed in our press release that we have added a special table related to results, cash flows of our Russian assets, as well as to capital employed in Russia. Russia is material in terms of volume, but represents indeed only a very limited part of the generation of revenues and cash flows. In the Q1, Russian assets accounted for $300 million or about 2.5% of our cash flow, mainly from Yamal LNG as there was no dividend from Novatek, and $1 billion or about 10% of our net operating income. Capital employed is now less than $10 billion after the impairment out of more $140 billion from the company. The consequences of Russia's actions are going beyond the Russian-related businesses and will have a significant impact on the global economy, potentially more serious than the COVID pandemic and related shutdowns. The immediate impact, of course, has been the significant disruptions to energy markets that pushed oil prices above $100 per barrel and gas prices in Europe and Asia to more than $30 per million BTU. Oil prices could remain high, particularly if additional production capacity from OPEC or U.S. and conventional fail to compensate for the potential loss of two to three million barrels of oil per day of Russian crude production, plus a drop in refining capacities from Russia for petroleum products. Gas prices are likely to remain high and volatile as Europe seeks to rebuild inventories and reduce dependence on Russian gas, which puts Europe into competition with Asia for LNG. The most important impact is also the need for Europe to diversify its energy supply, which will be a massive effort over many years. This will may permanently alter the global supply chain for oil and even for more gas, more for gas. It’s also created, of course, new opportunities for our North Sea natural gas businesses as well as for LNG business and our transition to electricity and renewables. To respond to this new situation during this quarter, TotalEnergies mobilized its full capacities and leveraged its integrated midstream LNG business to saturate all our European regas capacities with a record 4.7 million tons of spot LNG purchases. In addition, we are mobilizing additional investments to support short-term gas production in the North Sea assets. Two rigs have been mobilized in Denmark for infill wells and well stimulation. I remind you that Tyra redevelopment startup is planned by mid-2023. We have also debottlenecked Culzean by 10%. We are drilling infill wells on Alvheim, and we are taking actions to boost the production of West of Shetlands by 10% by lowering pressures in some pipelines. Of course, we are supporting actions launched by Equinor in Norway. It's important, however, to recognize that oil and gas prices started to move higher in the second half of last year before the invasion of Ukraine. The post-COVID rebound in energy demand made it clear that supply-demand balance was already tight, even with China partially locked down and that inventories were low. Years of underinvestment in new supply of oil and gas production and storage helped to create this situation, and there is no quick and easy fix for it. The industry needs to invest more, but I'm also convinced that our industry will avoid triggering the runaway cost inflation that marked the last commodity super cycle, as we will keep this lesson in mind. At TotalEnergies, we continue to invest with discipline. We just acquired deep offshore oil production in Brazil. We signed yesterday the Atapu and Sépia contract, and production will flow from today in our accounts. I remember we acquired them in last December on a very reasonable price deck of assumptions. We have made promising oil discoveries in Suriname and Namibia. Of course, we are moving forward with partners in North America to further expand our LNG business. Energy is a commodity, and commodity markets tend to move cyclically in and out of balance, usually accompanied by periods of uncertainty and high availability. The current geopolitical turmoil and market volatility illustrates the challenge that we describe as the energy triangle. We must seek to balance security of supply with affordability to the customer and impact on climate. Climate is an imperative, but overemphasizing any one of these three factors typically comes at the expense of the two others. In our case, oil and gas will continue to be a significant source of cash for the company. We continue to fund our growth in low carbon energies, which we will provide to our customers so that they have access to cleaner, more reliable and affordable energy. At this point in the commodity cycle, high oil and gas prices are flowing into the company, generating strong reserves and cash flows, which is a complete reversal of situation from just two years ago. In the Q1, we generated free cash flow after investment, dividends, and buyback of $5.8 billion, and we were able to reduce our net debt so that the gearing fell to 12.5%. Jean-Pierre will come back on the results in detail. Given the strong cash flow generations, solid and a strong balance sheet, the board reviewed our cash flow, cash allocation principles, and clearly reaffirmed its willingness to give priority to accelerate the company's transformation through countercyclical opportunities. It is, however, in fact, a matter of patience. The board confirms a 5% increase in the first interim 2022 dividend to EUR 0.659 per share, and it authorized the company to buy back up to three billion of its shares in the first half. An increase of one billion compared to the guidance for this first half, which was given in last February. $2 billion will be bought back in Q2, twice more than Q1. We will maintain capital discipline as we look for opportunities to profitably grow the company, mainly of course in LNG and renewables and power. We may, at the same time, move countercyclically to divest some non-strategic oil in this favorable environment, particularly production that is high, that has high carbon intensity to further rebalance our energy mix. In particular, we will put for sale our 10% interest in the oil licenses of SPDC onshore Nigeria, as the disruptions by local communities are a source of great concerns, not only for the operator, but also for us as non-operator. We will keep, however, the onshore gas licenses of SPDC onshore Nigeria, as they are critical to feed an LNG expansion. Expanding our integrated LNG activities along with our renewables and electric business is central to our strategy, and we plan to play an important role in Europe's plan to diversify its energy supply away from Russian gas. We have announced the expansion of our partnership with Sempra in North America. First, we launched this last month the FEED of Cameron LNG extension. I think it represents a 6.5 million ton additional capacity. Second, we extend our partnership to a new potential project in Mexico called Vista Pacífico. Third, we will develop together with Sempra some onshore and renewables and offshore wind in California. TotalEnergies is investing around about 25% of its CapEx to develop renewable and electricity, and similar amounts to grow LNG and what we call the new molecules. Both are critical to the energy transition. In these uncertain times, we remain confident that disciplined investments support our multi-energy strategy will create long-term shareholder value. In 2022, this might be close to $15 billion inside the previous guidance of $14 to 15 billion. A last word before to give the floor to Jean-Pierre about the preparation of our annual shareholders meetings on May twenty-fifth. You probably noticed that we had a constructive dialogue with some shareholders, and that after our sustainability and climate progress report 2022, issued on March twenty-fourth. In line with our principle of transparency, we took some new commitment to extend the scope of our reporting to enable investors to fully assess the company's energy transition strategy. In particular, all these reports will be published each year and submitted to a yearly advisory vote. The board has decided not to accept a resolution submitted by Follow This as it contravenes French legal rules, setting the prerogatives of the company's governance bodies. The board is in charge of the strategy, not the AGM. Invited all these, those supporting the proposed resolution to express their views, either through a verbal or written question, which will be addressed as a matter of priority at our next annual shareholder meeting. We are definitely open to a transparent and constructive dialogue with all our shareholders. Now I will turn it over to Jean-Pierre for a review of the results, and will come back to join you for the Q&A. Thank you, Patrick. Reported IFRS net income for the Q1 of 2022 was $4.9 billion, which takes into account the $4.1 billion impairment related to our Russian exposure. Adjusted net income was $9 billion for this quarter, the highest quarterly result in the history of the company, up 32% from the previous quarter, mainly due to the 24% increase in our average realized oil price, as well as an 8% increase in our average realized gas price and strong results from our midstream and downstream activities. Adjusted earnings per share was $2.4 in the Q1, a one-third increase from Q4. Net adjusted cash flow was $12 billion, up 23% from the previous quarter, ahead of expectations. Patrick explained to you how we'll allocate this strong cash flow. Going now through the results by segment. The Integrated Gas, Renewables and Power segment reported adjusted net operating income of more than $3 billion in the Q1, up 11% from the previous quarter, and a threefold increase from a year ago. Thanks to its ability to capture higher LNG prices and leverage strong performance from gas, LNG, and electricity trading activities. Operating cash flows before working capital changes was $2.6 billion, up 6% from the previous quarter, and 2.4 times higher than the Q1 last year. Cash flow from operations was $315 million, reflecting the increase in working cap linked to the seasonality and to the price effect on receivables for the gas and power supply business. LNG sales were 13.3 million tons in the Q1, up 15% from the previous quarter and more than 30% from a year ago. LNG sales from our equity production were stable at 4.4 million tons. The main driver was record level third-party volumes sold on the spot market, notably in Europe, as Patrick mentioned. Our average price for LNG in the Q1 remained strong at $13.6 per million BTU, and we anticipate that it will be above $14 per million BTU in Q2. Our ability to execute and deliver along the entire gas value chain, including our midstream LNG trading activities, has continued to outperform expectations. iGRP increased gross renewable power generation to 10.7GW at the end of the Q1, up 400 million watts from the previous quarter, thanks in part to startups in India. Gross power generation capacity under development increased to nearly 25GW, mainly due to the award of concession for offshore wind farms, including 3GW off the coast of New York and New Jersey and 2GW off the coast of Scotland. Net-net electricity generation grew to 7.6 TWh in the Q1, up 61% year-on-year, thanks to higher utilization from our CCGT power plants in a strong margin environment, as well as continued growth in electricity generation from renewable sources. EBITDA from the renewable and electricity business was $175 million in the Q1 in the context of power price volatility and the mechanism for setting the regulated electricity sales tariff in France. The E&P segment reported adjusted net operating income of $5 billion, up 42% from the previous quarter, and 2.5 times higher than the same quarter last year, far above the increase in oil and gas prices, demonstrating strong leverage to the environment. Operating cash flow before working capital changes was $7.3 billion in the Q1, up 28% from the previous quarter and nearly double the same quarter last year, reflecting the higher commodity price environment. Operationally, the E&P segment oil and gas production grew by 3% compared to the previous quarter and was stable compared to the year ago. Startups and ramp ups of projects, mainly in Angola and Brazil, plus an increase in OPEC production quotas offsets the natural decline, the price effect and other negative impacts, including the 25,000 barrels per day equivalent decrease in Nigeria related to security concern about SPDC, which we're considering for divestment, as Patrick explained. Looking ahead, including the startup of Mero-1 and our entry in Atapu and Sépia, we expect production in Brazil to grow by 30,000 barrels per day in Q2 and then by 60,000 barrels per day in Q4. Our downstream activities generated $1.4 billion of adjusted net operating income in the Q1, up 35% from the previous quarter and 2.6 times higher than the same quarter a year ago. Operating cash flow before working capital changes was $1.9 billion, up 22% from the previous quarter and more than 2x higher than a year ago. The strong downstream performance was mainly due to higher distillate margins in Europe in the context of reduced imports of Russian petroleum products, as well as outperformance of around $400 million compared to standard results in the quarter by our crude and products trading activities. Refinery throughput increased to 1.1 million barrels per day in the Q1, reflecting demand recovery, particularly in the U.S. and in Europe, and the restart of the distillation unit at the Normandy refinery. Petrochemical production volumes were stable. Petroleum product sales were 1.4 million barrels per day equivalent in the Q1, stable compared to a year ago as the demand recovery in aviation was offset by lower sales in Asia due to pandemic lockdowns. At the company level, operating cash flows before working capital changes was $11.6 billion in the Q1. This was a working capital build of $3.5 billion in Q1, mainly due to price effects on inventories, an increase in inventory levels to ensure the security of supply for refineries and the seasonality of the gas and electricity business. This was partially offset by a $0.9 billion release of margin costs and $1.9 billion of receivables/payables variation, including an increase in tax payables. Net investments were $2.9 billion in Q1, including $900 million for renewables and electricity, in line with the 2022 targets of 25% of our CapEx for the full year. We are maintaining capital discipline and full-year CapEx may trend towards $15 billion still inside the previous guidance of $14-$15 billion, as Patrick mentioned, including the mobilization of additional investment to support short-term gas production in the North Sea and additional opportunities that may arise in line with our strategy of transformation. We reduced net debt by $3.7 billion, which lowered the gearing ratio to 12.5% at the end of the Q1, and we bought back $1 billion of our shares during the quarter. We reaffirm the company's priority in terms of cash flow allocation in this context of higher oil and gas prices, investing in profitable projects to implement the strategy to transform TotalEnergies into a sustainable multi-energy company, linking dividend growth to structural cash flow growth, maintaining a strong balance sheet and a long term debt rating with a minimum A level by permanently anchoring gearing below 20% and allocating a share of the surplus cash flow from high hydrocarbon prices to share buybacks. That may conclude my remarks, and so we are ready with Patrick to begin the Q&A. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session. As a reminder, if you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. Please kindly mute any audio sources while asking questions. 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 Irene Himona from Société Générale. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. Good morning, and congratulations on these exceptional results. I have two questions, please. Firstly, on the actual results, refining and chemicals benefited from a rather low adjusted tax rate this quarter compared with norm and with last year. Was this a one-off, and do you expect it to move back up again over the rest of the year? Secondly, the balance sheet de-leveraging obviously continues, and arguably at the top of the cycle, this is quite normal to enable you to then withstand the eventual price downturn. As you stated, Patrick, prices may well remain elevated for a bit longer. Do you see this rapid de-leveraging as creating options for you for large scale M&A, particularly in new energies and low carbon? Thank you. We take the first question regarding tax rates. Globally, that's true that globally the group, the company benefited from a lower tax rate due to the higher contribution of iGRP. I mentioned to you the outperformance of the trading, and it's part of the explanation. The iGRP benefits from a lower tax rate than the traditional activities. There is no one-off on the refining and petrochemicals part of the business. Considering your second question, I mean, our priority, as we said, I think we have been very clear with the board. I think everything I said, we consider that this might be an opportunity to accelerate the transition by access to some counter-cyclical businesses. I said in my speech, you have to be patient. We know, I think we have demonstrated in the last six, seven years that we were able to capture this type of opportunities. Obviously, if we move, it will be primarily in either the LNG field and/or electricity and renewables. Will it be large scale? I'm not a big fan of very large scale M&A. You know, I think you can also, the matter is more about it's integration is important, and I think what we have done in the last seven years with, I would say $8 to 10 billion, like we've done on Maersk Oil or on Mozambique and Anadarko assets, were well done. We'll see. Again, there is nothing specific in our mind, let's be clear. Just the will from the board to use part of these exceptional cash flows to accelerate our strategy in line with what we said before. But again, as you know, in that field of renewable in particular, as I said often, there is a big bubble. Patience will be of the essence in order to create value, and it's not a matter of volume for us, it's a matter of value. You've seen that we have announced a first recent deal in the U.S. with Core Solar. There will be more to come in the coming months. Be patient. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Christyan Malek from JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Hi. Good morning, and thanks for taking my questions. So two questions, please. First, regarding the exposure to Russia and the impact of your industrial strategy to grow LNG, sorry, this may be slightly sensitive, but in a worst case scenario where you have to pull out altogether, could you frame the impact or sort of qualitatively the ability to grow your LNG business? And what would be the second and third order impacts on your transition, in light of this being a very important cash machine as well as an enabler to deliver more renewables? And for example, would you need to raise more investments elsewhere? The second question, and I sort of really like the way you framed this energy triangle of access to climate and security, Patrick. It's interesting you can frame oil and gas investment as a key enabler in order to deliver on the other two, and a sort of similar conclusion we came to in our energy study. It does seem these three variables have different weightings depending on the stakeholders involved. Assuming there is a super cycle that takes hold in the decade, should we expect you to raise CapEx in oil in order to take advantage, and underwrite, you know, obviously the diversification across energy in the other parts of your business? Thank you. Okay. First, the first one. Let me be clear. Russia exposure today to LNG in fact in our portfolio is Yamal LNG. Arctic LNG 2, as we said, will be difficult to believe that it can be built with the sanctions, and we do not, we will not provide more capital to this project. Yamal is in fact, we have 20% of Yamal LNG, which represent around four to five million tons of LNG in our portfolio. Can we find other opportunities to replace these volumes? I think the answer is quite clear, yes. We have already in our portfolio some assets to be developed. We just accelerated with our partners Cameron LNG. We have Papua LNG, we have Mozambique LNG. Well, be patient. We will have maybe in a few weeks some other news to explain to you how we will replace and ensure the growth for LNG in our portfolio. I don't expect a disruption of our growth profile in LNG, even if we have to fully exit Russia, which is not today, but which is a possible scenario. The impact on our. Yeah, I would say on the volume part, you know, the impact will come fundamentally more on the gas ratio as we would lose the Novatek gas production. As you know, it's not a lot of value. Having said that, it's not a funda. When we speak about our transition strategy, it's fundamentally based on LNG more than on domestic gas. That has always been very clear in our strategy. The energy triangles. I think, let's be clear, it's a triangle and they I think a lot of European political leaders rediscover it. The climate is fundamental. We know all that. It's a question of, I would say, survival for the planet, according to the scientists. There is no way to forget this one. We are very clear. It will not change fundamentally. It's not because suddenly we have a surge of oil and gas prices that we will change our strategy. The strategy, and this is fundamentally linked to a long-term energy markets evolution, which is that if we want to decarbonize, electricity is fundamental as well as new molecules. Having said that, it reinforce our views as well that on the next decade, 2020, 2030, we have announced that we will continue to have a sort of stable oil production. To make it stable, you know, as you know, with a decline of 3% to 4.4% per year, you need to invest. We did not renounce to invest in oil. Look, what we've done in Brazil. And by the way, we will benefit immediately from 2022 from this increase of price of oil in Brazil. We are starting Mero-1. We include in our portfolio Sépia and Atapu, which will represent in Q4 60,000 barrels per day of additional oil. With the fiscal terms of Brazil, it will be beneficial to the company. We have also launched the Uganda project. I mean, we are looking, as you know as well, we have signed a deal in Iraq last year, which is financed with this gas and renewable and oil. We will continue to look for oil opportunities in order because to maintain again on 10 years a decline of 3% to 4%, you need to find ideas. I'm very pleased as the CEO of the company that our exploration teams are going back on the roadmap of success with Suriname and now with Namibia. Namibia. It's a promising discovery. I say promising because, you know, it's only one well. I've seen incredible numbers in newspapers. We need to drill the appraisal well. We have decided to accelerate the appraisal well August, September, and to test, and then we will be able to communicate later. If we are able to appraise by ourselves all these oil discoveries, let's be clear, it's part of the strategy and we will develop them and it's in line with what we announced. Oil CapEx increase, it's linked to. It's not, it's no. My answer is no. Again, linked to opportunities we find. Just to be clear, Patrick, you're not going to raise oil CapEx beyond what you've planned? I just wanna make sure I understand. It's essentially part of the budget, but there's no plan to raise it. Oil CapEx represent 50% of the CapEx, if I understand, if I remember correctly, and I think it's a right measure. You know, there is one point on which we need to be super vigilant, and I will be vigilant, is the risk of inflation. I don't want to enter into the mistakes we have done on the previous super cycles, where inflation costs rise and because any barrels might be profitable, we'll begin to drill anything. Let's focus on short cycle projects and let's continue to focus on our strategy for oil, which is accessing to low cost barrels. I think there are opportunities and if these opportunities are there, we'll seize them. At the same time, as I said in my speech, it's also an opportunity for us to clean the portfolio, oil portfolio with the remaining high cost barrels and I would say high emitting barrels that we have in mature fields in the portfolio. When you are counter-cyclical, you have to be counter-cyclical in both ways, you know? Selling when the price is high and buying when the price is low. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Oswald Clint from Bernstein. Please go ahead. Thank you very much everyone. Just two asks as well, please. Firstly, just on LNG again. As I think about Cameron LNG, obviously we know it's one of the cheapest built plants in the last decade. You're going into FEED, you're going to engage with EPC contractors. There's gonna be a scramble for LNG. You spoke just about inflation in the last cycle. Is there a rough sort of unit CapEx number you're thinking about here for this project? But also the feedstock assumptions. Clearly Henry Hub's a lot higher than it has been over the last five or six years. Any description you could talk would actually be interesting. Then secondly, you know, we're waiting for peace in Ukraine, but it feels like the ceasefire in Yemen is actually holding up here. I know you've protected the plant pretty well in the last seven years during that particular war, but is there a probability you could place on a scenario where that plant, Yemen LNG, starts up in the next 12-24 months? Thank you. Yeah, thank you as well for the second question. I forget it in my speech because I know we have been longing to wait for any ceasefire in Yemen and we are not a part at all of its political discussions and difficult discussions. Obviously the plant is preserved, let's be clear. I remind you it's seven million ton plant. It, according to assumptions, could take six months to restart the plant, to remobilize and to have full plants or six months. These seven million tons might be available quite quickly if again, but it's conditional to the ceasefire. It's one of the option, by the way, when we lost it, I remind you that the cash flow per year of Yemen for TotalEnergies was around $1 billion when we lost it in 2015. It was very material, and it could replace easily part of the cash flows from Russian, you know. That's, I think, one of the advantage. We have a very large portfolio, up and down. Let's see. Cameron LNG cost advantage. Now, fundamentally, yes, it's an interesting project and it's because it's a brownfield project, you know, there is no logistics at all, no jetty, no additional storage tanks. It's we have everything is there. It's a matter of building a new train. I would say yes, of course, today we are more on LNG in the U.S. There are more, I would say, projects, so we might have some inflation. Fundamentally, the fundamentals are good. We also, by the way, will debottleneck the first three trains, so we have an additional advantage in terms of our profitability. This is a good, very good profitable project. In terms of your second question is quite interesting, and in fact it's back to integration for me. You know, we have this production in the Barnett Shale, and I'm happy to have this production in Barnett Shale of shale gas because it's a way to cover part of the gas that we transform in the LNG plants, even if it's not the same molecules, but economically it works. Obviously, I think, I will always been convinced that the integration strategy, so, it might be maybe not today because price is high, but on the medium term, I would say that the strategy where the more we develop in LNG in the US, the more we'll produce, we'll have to find access to gas assets in the gas shale. Gas in the US will be part of the strategy in order to economically integrate this LNG chain. It's an answer to your question. I don't give you the assumption. I just give you the way to cope with this, I would say, volatility of the gas price in the US. Very clear. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Michele Della Vigna from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Patrick, Jean-Pierre, thank you and really congratulations. I wanted to ask two questions on your view on future returns in some of the renewable investments. Because we're seeing strong conflicting forces. On one side, tremendous cost inflation, in some cases up to 30%, but on the other side we're seeing higher power prices and also much higher volatility. I was wondering, compared with your view one year ago, do you see higher or lower return investment opportunities in that space? Has this changed your view of what's the right balance between PPAs and merchant power? Staying on low carbon, hydrogen is really at the forefront of REPowerEU major upgrade to 2030 target, huge support. I was wondering, is this really coming through a more attractive set of incentives? Do you see large scale green hydrogen development in Europe actually showing, you know, improved profitability and support for the coming years? Thank you. First question, I think it's an excellent question. I think during the 24 March presentation, we told you that yes, we have the view that the price, power prices are going on a, I would say, higher trends structurally because of intermittency, because of storage, because of all this system to ensure firm power is more costly and it's not only a question of cost inflation of renewables. This is why we have taken the decision that, I don't know if we, it's a, it's a, I would say, rough idea, but we want to keep 30% of renewable assets open to the market to ensure the risk of volatility. Our balance sheet can support it. I think it can make the difference with others. By the way, also it's a way to enhance potentially the profitability of these assets on the long term. For me it's clear, and this is, I would say, compared to what we said a few years ago, where we entering in that field with the idea we need to secure. No, we are more, we have a better understanding. Of course, this needs some integration along the value chain and renewable is only a production mean, you know. It's a matter if you want to make value on such a commodity, you need to be able to store, you need to be able to trade, you need to be able to supply and like in all these commodities business. Today it doesn't give more. For me it's not bad news, this inflation, because it will cool down a little some of the players who are really in the tenders going to very low prices. We are not on our side participating. We have not been successful, for example, in all the tenders in the Middle East except one in Qatar. The rest is we have not been successful because for us everybody was anticipating a deflation thanks to the new technology. It's a world where you input in your model, you anticipate. Today you have inflation. My view is that it's better, it's calming down this business, so I'm optimistic about the possibility to have good returns. We continue to sanction projects. We've, as we said to you, more than 10% ROE, including by the fact that we might consider keeping and not only shutting down some assets when they are quite good, and we have some in mind. Hydrogen in Europe, I will tell you, green hydrogen, my view is that it's, I'm not fully convinced that it is in Europe that you have to produce the green hydrogen. For the time being, the incentives are not so high. There are some projects, but it's limited scale. You know, it's, we have one project that we will develop, which we have doubled the size around 150 megawatts, but it's still small. If you really want to drive the green hydrogen price down, you need to invest at a very large scale. There again, be patient. We will announce soon a project in that field at a large scale. It will not be in Europe because fundamentally, we think that green hydrogen is a matter of cost of electricity. We are looking to where we could locate very large scale, with a very low cost of electricity on the long term in order to engage into this business. Thank you. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Lydia Rainforth from Barclays. Please go ahead. Thank you, good afternoon. Two questions, if I could. The first one, Patrick, can you just talk us through the thinking of the board in terms of the share repurchase level and how that changed versus February? Just any thoughts around sort of what happens for the second half. Secondly, on Russia and the impairment, is that the start of a retreat from Russia? Or, effectively, what would it take now in terms of Yamal to say, "Actually, this isn't working for Total anymore?" Sorry, one final one, if I could. Just a comment on the diesel market, just given that with how tight those markets seem to be and we've seen crack spreads move up very quickly. Thank you. Well, first, the share buyback, I will tell you, it's, there is no surprise to you. It should have no surprise. We you should just believe what we said, you know? We said that, we will share the benefits from higher hydrocarbon prices with the shareholders through buybacks, you know? It's clear that when you have a cash flow from operations of $11.6 billion, it's much higher than you can compare to what we've done in Q4, which was $9 billion. Obviously, when we set the $2 billion buyback level for first half, it was not done on an assumption of $11.6 billion. You know, you have $1 billion extra. It was not a mathematical exercise by the board. It was more the idea, and you can just remark that it's a post calculation. It was not done like that, discussion. That $1 billion is 40% of additional $2.5 billion of cash flow compared to Q4 cash flow. That's just so I think that's logic. We will continue to monitor that quarter after quarter at the board level. We will not make a big announcement. I think it's also a matter to manage all the stakeholders on that matter. Again, but at the same time, the board is consistent and reaffirm its strategy to accelerate, if possible, the strategy of transition of the company as a priority. On the gradual suspension, you know, I think something is wrong with what sometimes on Russia. We never stated we will stay in Russia. We just not stated that we will exit from Russia, which is a little different. There are many reasons, as we explained in our principle of conduct of March 2022. We are looking step after step about what the sanction might be. The sanctions are. We take the conclusions on Arctic LNG 2, but obviously in other assets. You have your suspensions, but well, you know, it's that we have other activities. For example, we have in Russia a lubricant activity. It's not a big business, but we have a lack of additives. So we are suspending, and not only suspending, yes, production will be stopped and our activity in lubricant, for example, will be stopped by the end of this month. That's another example and suspension. We have other assets that we are looking around. On Novatek and Yamal, our position is clear. We have some contracts. We don't know these contracts. These contracts represent huge amounts of money. The volume of the 20-year LNG contract is huge at pace. We'll have to honor the contract as long as sanctions allow us to do it. If it's not possible, we'll take the actions as well. Again, the board of directors of TotalEnergies has decided to face the Russian situation in a responsible way and in particular, to try to protect as much as we can the value of our assets for our shareholders' interest. We are monitoring that, but you can observe that we have no the board as well have no, I would say, hesitation to say we need to meet the impairment, we make the impairment according to what is happening. The diesel crack celebrates the outlook for diesel. Yes, it's clear, it's huge. I was looking this morning, I think we are about $200 per ton, I think. So I never seen such a diesel crack. It's clear that EU sanctions on Russia for petroleum products will obviously impact this market because Europe is relying on the Russian diesel. You know, we import Russian diesel because the European refining system is more designed for gasoline than diesel. It's not new, it was before. Obviously, the market is anticipating such a ban. For our activity and for refining businesses, of course, it's even more important that our refineries in Europe are all running. It will be the case very soon. You know, we had unfortunately, those were stopped, but now it's coming back on stream after 1.5 year of voluntary stoppage. It restarts. All our refineries will be run at full capacity for this Q2 very soon. That's positive for the company. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Christopher Kuplent from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. Two quick questions from me as well, Patrick. Can you go a little bit more into detail and tell us what the missing parts are that are delaying Arctic LNG 2, and your assessment of how long it would take to source these parts, circumventing sanctions that are now imposed? The second question is a bit of a wider question. You used 70 Brent and $20 for your gas price assumption when you gave us a 2022 cash flow outlook earlier this year. It looks like the $20 per BTU, at least it looks like that to me, has now become more of a floor than anything else, whereas at the time you said that might be a little bullish here relative to 70 Brent. Can you give us a little summary of your assessment following your introductory remarks around the price of energy security, particularly gas security, that Europe, you think, will have to pay in order to redirect volumes over the coming years as contracts with Gazprom expire? Thank you. On Arctic LNG 2, the situation is the following one. In fact, there is a list of LNG technologies and critical elements which have been put on the list. I think Technip and other contractors are looking through all these lists to identify which critical elements might miss. You know, these sanctions will be in place from May 27. So in the meantime, I think Novatek is mobilizing with contractors in order to be able to get as much equipment they can and transferring the teams, if they can, in order to achieve, I would say, the first GBS one, if possible. We'll see what it is, if they can do that. I think it's a question more for Novatek and for the contractors which are involved in this activity, in particular Technip Energies and Baker Hughes. On our side, we have decided to take a cautious approach in our accounts and to impair the value of Arctic LNG 2. On the economic assumptions, I think I'm not fully convinced that $20 per million BTU will remain, you know, because this $20 is a question of competition between Europe and other markets, you know. What I have noticed in particular in this Q1 is that the demand for LNG from China has diminished quite a lot, around 10%, even more than 10%, and probably linked to these high prices. There is, I think, on the LNG business, we must be careful because I see quite a big risk of demand destruction, in particular on the Asian side, you know, where the demand is coming from fundamentally. There was an exceptional situation. I would not take $20 as a floor for the long term in our economic macro assumptions. We are more around $8 to 10 per million BTU, but maybe I'm too cautious. For this year, it's quite clear that, yes, there is a good chance that we might end the average of the year by around $20, in particular, if Russia begins to stop themselves on their side, to provide gas through pipeline. That means that in order to refill the gas storage for next winter, LNG will continue to have to flow to Europe. LNG prices will probably be competing with other parts of the world. We'll see, and it's a good test for me, what will happen this summer. Because remember, last year it was during summertime that the Asian gas went through the roof because of the strong demand for air conditioning and also linked to the economic recovery. I don't know what is exactly the situation today in China. There are not a lot of certainties around these lockdowns linked to COVID. We are a little surprised, I think, today, on our, you know, western side. We'll see. If China is coming back into the market because they need gas like last year, of course the price will not go down, which will remain quite high. On the longer term, you have to be careful because the high gas or LNG is not only destroying demand in Asia, but might be really, I would say, will slow down, in my view, the use of gas in Europe because it could decimate the manufacturing industry in Europe, which was benefiting somewhat from the Russian gas, which was low-cost gas, will not be able to resist if we provide them gas at $20 per million BTU. It's not possible. That means that I think that some industries will begin to accelerate, to electrify their supply in order to try to get a cheaper energy with long-term contracts. I think I don't see if we could keep such a $20 for the long term, because the demand will, the customers will not take these type of prices. It's why on our outlook for projects, we have given internal instruction to use $8 to 10. But again, by the way, it's enough to relaunch, I would say, some North Sea gas projects, which at $5 were stuck, were stranded, at $8 to 10 have a profitability. We have a good example in our portfolio about the Quad Nine blow down gas cap, which is a 1 TCF gas which was stranded and which today is coming, is revived. I have asked the teams to look to these projects so we could make it put it on stream. We don't need $20 for this type of opportunity. That's my- Yeah. Answer to your nice question, please. Very, very clear, Patrick. I think eight to 10 is already, as you say, enough, and would simply be a very important message to recouple gas prices to Brent equivalent levels, going forward. I fully agree. Yeah. Okay. I fully agree. By the way, in our commercial part on the LNG sales, we have given instruction to our LNG people not to try to go back to the famous 16%, but to be reasonable, because for me today, the priority is to maintain a demand, and it's an opportunity for us to sign long-term contracts. Of course, offering long-term acceptable prices, affordable prices. It could help, by the way, to launch additional LNG project with this type of contracts. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Bertrand Hodée from Kepler Cheuvreux. Please go ahead. Yes, hello, and thank you for taking my question, and congratulations again for this very strong set of results, as well as your transparency on the Russia contribution this quarter. Two questions, if I may. The first one is related to Namibia. There are external industry reports that suggest that your Venus discovery could potentially exceed 10 billion of recoverable oil reserves, making it the largest ever deep offshore discovery. I know it is early stage, and you referred to it in your earlier remarks, but can you elaborate a bit more on this potential massive find, and share with us your initial thoughts on this discovery and any color on the potential fast track development? That was the first question. On second question on Russia, do you expect any dividend from Novatek in 2022? Well, first, the first question I already answered. Do you believe any? Stop reading newspapers, you know? Just listen to me. It's better. I think you see in its long history in the oil and gas industry, one well discovering 10 billion. I don't think it exists, but no, let me be serious about all that. It's all that are fantasy. But it is, as I say, it's a promising discovery. Let's drill the appraisal well, let's test the two wells, and then we will come. You know, when I will if really we had such levels, which I don't think, we'll be happy, and you will be happy shareholders, so. Again, I think by the way, this figure is more referring to the Namibia province rather than just our license. Again, I don't want to excite me. Let's wait. It's a promising discovery. It's enough. Russia dividend, Novatek has approved, I think, general assembly of shareholders has approved dividend last week. We are shareholders, so these dividends will be available, I don't know when, in rubles somewhere. Could we, yes or not, transfer them to TotalEnergies? That's another question which depends not only on us, but you know, on all the counter-sanctions from Russia. It's like the European sanctions, which are moving targets. The counter sanctions are also moving ones. We will. By the way, honestly, it's not so big. It represent, I think, $250 million for TotalEnergies. So again, this is not what will change or look the picture of TotalEnergies. That's why we are very transparent. I don't know if we'll have access or if we will keep the rubles somewhere or in an account in Russia. Thank you. Maybe I can squeeze one more on your impairment on Russia. You disclosed the book value of Arctic LNG 2 was $20.5 billion. Can you help me reconcile? This figure with the $4.1 billion impairment you took in Q1. No, you have the information which was transferred to you. We said notably. I think if you look to the slide which was distributed in March 24th, you could find alone the answer. Got it. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Alastair Syme from Citi. Please go ahead. Hi, Patrick, Jean-Pierre. A couple of questions just on sort of state of markets and negotiations. You've already touched on U.S. LNG. I'm just intrigued to know whether economics are changing. You know, it used to be sort of Henry Hub plus a fee. Clearly LNG developers see the same opportunity as you do out here. Just wondering if those negotiations are getting tougher. Secondly, could you sort of explain how the market for acquisitions and renewables looks? I mean, you touched on the Core Solar deal. I'm just trying to understand if that's a competitive auction and sort of how competitive these options are. Thank you. As you know, for the second question, to be clear, Core Solar was a deal which was a direct negotiation. I really have a very strong view on this market, and I said to our team, "Stop looking and stop spending your time or losing your time on competitive opportunities," because you have always in front of you, I would say, financial investors, which obviously do not have at all the same views on this type of assets. They have money with a negative return, so they are accepting returns which are too low. We are not in that field. The only way for us to continue to build the portfolio, but the Core Solar is an excellent example, is to have a direct negotiation and to be able to convince, I would say, the promoter that partnering with TotalEnergies will give you more added value. That's why we come in. We have other, I would say, opportunities in our portfolio which we work and, there again, be patient. You will understand what I just said in the coming weeks on which we work in different countries. On the first ones, I don't know which opportunities you are thinking to. If it is a matter of of taking no. Your question is a little mysterious for me because you have maybe something in mind. On the contrary, I would say on the Cameron LNG, it helped to accelerate, I would say, the decision process with our Japanese partners. On this type of difficult, it's more there is no fund. I don't know to which opportunity you refer which might be impacted by this LNG economic changing. Well, I meant to the deals on the U.S. Gulf Coast or Mexico indeed. You know, is it still sort of basically Henry Hub plus a fee? You're still apparently taking Henry Hub price risk? Yeah, yeah, it's linked to Henry Hub. Yeah. Yeah. If it is your question, the answer is yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Peter Low from Redburn. Please go ahead. The first question was just a clarification on the cash flow from Russia in 1Q that I guess relates to Yamal. Can you confirm that that has been repatriated from Russia? I appreciate it can change, but just to understand the current situation. Secondly, you talked about your willingness to explore counter-cyclical opportunities to accelerate the transformation. Can you clarify, would that be outside the $13 to 15 billion net investment range you have previously given to 2025? Or would you stick with that range and try to make disposals alongside any large acquisitions you were to make? Thanks. On the first one, it's clear. In fact, you have the figure. The most of the cash we receive this year is linked to Yamal LNG. It's the access to Yamal, no? Yes. Yes, its cash is getting back to TotalEnergies. The figures we gave, I have that in my cash. Yeah. Yes. This is what we have. It's in. Yes, we get the cash. Yeah. By the way, you know, the war only was declared the second part of the quarter. Yes. It's the Yamal cash system works until now. The second question, the range is valid for 2022. $14 to 15 billion. We said $14 to 15 billion. The answer to your question is yes, in fact. If we accelerate on one side, we might divest on the other side because again, we have yes, the answer is yes. Thank you. Thank you. Next question comes through the line of Biraj Borkhataria from RBC. Please go ahead. Hi. Thanks for the presentation. I have two questions for you. The first one's on Cameron LNG and the debottlenecking there for the existing trains. Do you have an idea of what timeline that debottlenecking is supposed to be delivered on? The second question is just on Mozambique LNG. Do you have an update on activities there, when you expect to restart and a view on startup and construction there? Thank you. Thank you, Biraj. The plan is to make the FEED this year, to sanction next year in 2023, and it takes three years to build the train, so 2026. For Cameron LNG and the new train. Mozambique LNG, you know, maybe not you, but some of your colleagues will ask me the question March 2024, there are not a lot of news between March 2024 and today. As I said, there is an activity on the ground, not from us, but from the government of Mozambique and its allies to recover the security. Then to bring back the population in peace to have a normal life. These are the two conditions we agreed with the Mozambique government. My view is that all that will take at least 2022, and then what we plan on our side is to go back there. As I said last time, we will restart all activity the day that I will myself be able to visit Afungi, Palma and Mocimboa da Praia. Because if my security people told me not to go, I will not send any of my people or contractors to face a difficult situation. I think it's a matter of, as I said before, there are good news on the ground, and the security has much improved, and there are less, much less, I would say, you know, recent attack. It's not yet fully recovered. I think the government of Mozambique communicated that they, their objective is to recover the security, I mean, by June, middle of the year. We want, we don't want to restart our activity surrounded by refugee camps. You know, we want the situation to be stabilized because peace is going as well with, I would say, the stabilization of the local population and economic activities. On which we contribute, by the way, with others to. There are a number of positive signs for the people who are going. Some of my senior officers went there, and so I've got some reports. It's a question of patience. Once we will consider that the situation is really under control and peace is back, we'll be able to remobilize, and we know that it will take us more than 6 months to come back to, I would say, a stabilized construction level. The opportunity is there, the progress are well, but it's not in our hand. It depends, again, on the actions of the Mozambique government and its allies. On the first question, the question I was asking for was for the 5% increase in the debottlenecking for the first three trains at Cameron LNG. Oh. What timeline would you expect to deliver that on? I think it's technically linked to the building of the trains. I mean, it's $25, I think. $25 for the first debottlenecking for the first train. Sorry, I didn't catch it. It was the first debottlenecking for the first train is $25, and after, each train will cost. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Henri Patricot from UBS. Please go ahead. Yes, everyone. Thank you for the update. One question on trading and a couple on downstream. The first one on trading, it's a very strong performance in the Q1. We continue to see significant volatility in the Q2. I was wondering to what extent you think it can replicate the very strong performance in the Q1 in the Q2 in both gas LNG trading and the RC trading. Secondly, you talked earlier about the risk of your demand destruction for gas. It was interesting to hear your views on the risk for oil demand at the current level of prices that we're seeing, and whether you are starting to see some weaker demand in your own network. Finally, can you give us an update on the impact of the you know, discounts at the pump and whether you would expect these to be extended? Thank you. Yeah. Trading, I think. When we say it's exceptional, it's exceptional, you know. That means that of course our traders are willing to do it regularly, but I would say on the oil trading, it was this quarter as exceptional more or less than Q2 of 2020. Volatility and so on. Again, it's more. This type of additional, what we I mentioned, let's say, $500 million extra cash is linked fundamentally to specific situation of volatility of the market, when they are in the right sense, so it's okay. For the gas, what I observe is that obviously, it's Q2 in a row that we have strong results. This volatility is there, and I think it's a matter also for our teams better position in particular on the LNG, you know, and gave us an advantage to be able to I would say get some good strong results. Let's see if they can replicate it. I just want to also to mention that we are also benefiting from good and strong electricity trading, and it's also Q2 in a row. I think the reality is that, I would say, performance of trading is generally linked to volatility of the market. They like volatility. Of course, it's a matter to have a good analysis of what is the market trends, because it could reverse, you know. It's. I will touch wood, but that's what we observe. On the demand destruction. No, I think oil is a little different. By the way, honestly, in our networks today, we have seen an impact because of COVID still in Q1. I remind you that even in Europe there was some COVID measures, and like in Asia today, in China. I cannot link oil demand to oil price today. I cannot. We do not see that. I've seen, I read some statistics on the month of April, where there is no real COVID impact. I cannot tell you that. It seems that we come back to the levels of 2019 with a small plus. We don't observe it. Even if it's not really in Europe, but the impact might be strong. You know, it's when we remember the super cycle, it was more in emerging countries where then the sort of governments have to subsidize, and of course, everything is expensive, and so they begin to take actions in order to be more efficient and to improve efficiency. It's not exactly like gas. That was my remark was more on LNG because LNG is competing with coal. We know it's a relative price of LNG to coal. When the LNG is very expensive, I'm afraid that some Asian countries will come back to coal quite easily, you know, and which is not good for climate, but that's what will happen. On oil, the alternative is not so obvious, you know. It's a liquid, you don't know because oil is not for electricity, oil is for transportation. We don't have much. The impact on oil demand might come from the economic growth. That means this war unfortunately begins to really have some impact on some supply chains. We begin, and I'm not a macro expert, but when I'm reading the papers from the IMF and some central banks, they begin to speak about even a growth which might be either low or negative. You have a direct link between, I would say, oil demand and macroeconomic environment. The discounts at the pump. I think it's for me we have taken some decisions on this one to be voluntary to make the voluntary discount because we think it's important and I think it's normal that we take care of our customers. It's a period where it's a matter of solidarity. We have, as you've seen, a very exceptional reserves. Frankly, I prefer, and it's a discussion with good intelligence with the government, French government, which prefers us to act by taking actions directly with customers. We've done it for gas, we've done it for gasoline rather than through taxes. I perfectly agree with this philosophy. Probably, yes, we'll take some initiatives for the summer where people are driving a lot. There is an idea around discount on motorways, but we need to elaborate on this one before to announce it. I think it's part of, I would say, again, it's a good way to share part of our profits directly with our customers. Thank you. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Martijn Rats from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Yeah, thank you. All my questions have been answered. Been very comprehensive. Thank you. Thank you. Next question comes from the line of Jason Gabelman from Cowen. Please go ahead. Hey, thanks for taking my questions. Two quick ones, 'cause I agree, the call's been quite comprehensive. The first on, the Brazil payments for Sépia and Atapu. Are there any payments left after whatever you disclosed for Q1? 'Cause it looks, at least on our numbers, a bit light, and I'm not sure if there's any additional payments coming for those PSCs for the rest of the year beyond what was booked for Q1. Secondly, I was wondering if you have any update on your views on when the Qatar LNG project, when they can award those contracts. It seems like this is about as good as an environment as we'll get to fully sanction the project. Any update there would be helpful. Thanks. Yeah, it would be helpful for me as well, you know. I will let the Qatari authorities communicate on that. It's a competitive process. We are part of the parties, of course. I'll let the Qatari authorities communicate. They're leading the process, and we are a long partner with them. Of course, we are adamant to contribute to this project. On the first one, your question is the right question because it's true that the bonus, there is no doubt, I think, linked to the oil price, but it's not, I would say, I don't think it will be paid immediately. It's on a yearly basis, and some years the mechanism can be described to you by your teams if you want the details. So today, yes, we have paid, in fact, yesterday, in fact, all the initial bonuses, which were representing something like $2.5 billion, I think, has been paid. The treasury of Jean-Pierre has been lowered yesterday. But he was worried to have too much money and so all that has been done. Well, because there was on the one side the bonus to the state, and I would say the compensation to Petrobras, which was paid yesterday. In our cash flows, I think you had in Q1 the bonus to the state and the compensation has been paid first, but the main part of the compensation to Petrobras was paid yesterday. Then on this part, there are some earn-outs linked to the oil price, but which are coming, I think, not before beginning of next year because it's a yearly mechanism, if I remember well, which is triggering at $70 per barrel, if I remember the contract. For this year, I think everything has been paid, and then we'll enjoy to get some production flowing 30,000 barrels per day, more or less as an average in Q2, growing to 60,000 by the end of the year. Additional production, if it remains at $100 per barrel, it's positive for our investments in terms of profitability. Great. Thanks. I understand there are no more questions. I would like to thank you, all of you, for attending this meeting, and we've been happy to answer all of your questions. Obviously, we benefit from a very strong environment, but I'm really, as Chairman and CEO, I'm very pleased that all the teams of TotalEnergies have been able, in all the segments, to capture this upside. Production was good, 2.85, higher than your consensus, so congratulations to the E&P teams. iGRP trading arms have performed again very well, and the result is even beating a record compared to Q4. On refining and chemicals, they come back from red to green in Europe, and I think there is more to come with the diesel crack and all refining, refinery running. Q2 will be probably better than the first one. On marketing and services is just stable. Business is suffering a little, of course, from all the upstream chains. Because when margins are strong in refining and prices are high, the margins becomes to be squeezed on the marketing and services, but we have high quality assets. I think that our Q2 should be more or less in the same vein, in the same or even little better than what we just done. as you have noticed, the board of TotalEnergies is fully committed to continue to enhance the returns to shareholders, as well as to implement our growth strategy in our transformation of the company. Thank you. Thank you. That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may all disconnect.