Welcome to TotalEnergies Q1 2023 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. 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 and one on your telephone. I must advise you that this conference is being recorded today, the 27th April 2023. Thank you for holding. The conference will start shortly. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to TotalEnergies Q1 2023 Results Conference Call. I now hand over to Patrick Pouyanné, CEO, and Jean-Pierre Sbraire, CFO, who will lead you through this call. Sir, please go ahead. Hello, everyone. Good morning or good afternoon, wherever you are. I'm here today together with Jean-Pierre. We'll give you, I would say the review of the very good quarter that we had on the Q1 of 2023. I just wanted, as an introduction, to comment the other news which came this morning around about the future of our Canadian assets. As you know, and we explained that in September at our CMD, we are planning to organize a spin-off of our Canadian assets. We went through the process and in the meantime, because fundamentally, I think we are very serious about making this spin-off a reality. We attracted some unsolicited offers in the last months, and one of them has materialized. I think, at a value which is quite attractive, CAD 5.5 billion cash plus CAD 600 million of additional payments under certain conditions. The value which is fitting with the expectations of the initial quotation which were given to us between CAD 5 billion-CAD 6 billion. Of course, it's coming from Suncor, who knows very well one of our two assets. Suncor will comment a little later in the day, his own view of the deal. For us, so it's fitting the value, it's a straightforward, I would say, way to diverse the assets as we are planning to do it straight away. From the company and from the shareholders' point of view, the board considered that it was this alternative was worth to be considered and approved yesterday to move forward with this transaction. Of course, the most important part of the discussion beyond this comparing both alternatives was about the distribution to shareholders. As you know, spin-off was meant in fact, a distribution in kind of some shares of the NewCo. We have board perfectly has that in mind. The guidance what we have decided to give to our shareholders today is that last year, you know, we put higher guidance on the payout to shareholders of 35%-40% of cash flow from operations, which we down in 2022, 37%. There, because we'll have, I would say, additional proceeds from this sales, the divestment, the guidance we give you today is at least 40%. I mean, that means, by the way, I told you before, but there was no ceiling. The 35%-40% was a range of targets. Today, we tell you that the board decided to increase or to enhance, I would say for 2023, this distribution to shareholders with at least 40%. Consider 40% plus. You have to guess the plus. For something about at least 40% of the cash flow from operations in 2023, which I think is good news for our shareholders, and which of course maintains the course of the company. You have noticed that on the Q1, we maintained the buyback at $2 billion, like last year's last quarters. On the Q2, we repeated the $2 billion. I think it gives this guidance for the distribution to shareholders for 2023, at least 40% of our cash flow from operations should give you some comfort about the will of the board to have, I would say, and to maintain or to develop even an attractive return for shareholders. I will not be longer. I think I will give the floor to Jean-Pierre, who will be happy for the first time over, as you know, today, we disclose the integrated LNG and integrated power segment results for the first time. I told you during the last investment day that we should we are targeting 10%. You know, in TotalEnergies, we are not at 10, but at 9.9%. It's, I think, comforting some expectations about the investments we are doing in this integrated power segment. Jean-Pierre, the floor is yours. Yes, thank you, Patrick. 2023 is off to a good start. Once again, I think we demonstrate our ability to generate strong results. Ladies and gentlemen, please hold the line. The conference will resume shortly. Okay. quarter-over-quarter, Brent went down 9% to $81 per barrel, and European gas dropped by 50% to $16 per million BTU. In this context, TotalEnergies reported Q1 2023 adjusted net income of $6.5 billion, a decrease of only 13%, and a strong cash conversion with a debt adjusted cash flow, the FCF, close to $10 billion. With Brent above $18 per barrel and European gas above $15 per million BTU, still high by historical standards, we are continuing to deliver excellent profitability with 25% ROACE in the Q1. Commodity prices have been volatile, albeit still at high levels. Oil prices fell briefly below $17.5 per barrel in March, largely on fears on economic slowdown before rebounding in April on news on OPEC+ quota reductions. Refining margins are easing down after several quarters of exceptionally high diesel cracks in the same context of fears of economic slowdown, high product inventories, largely fueled by Chinese exports, and the quicker than expected reorganization of Russian flows following the European embargo. Gas prices fell due to mild weather. We expect prices to remain stable until restocking begins in the second half of the year. Future markets are anticipating prices next to $20 per million BTU for this winter. For the first time, as announced, we are reporting integrated LNG and integrated power as independent segments. These two growing segments are, as you know, at the core of our transition strategy. The restated historical data for 2021 full year and 2022 quarters is available in the result press release. In terms of scale, integration and performance, we are unmatched among our peers in both of these activities. We are already widely recognized as having a very strong performing, globally integrated LNG portfolio in that business. Mainly through counter cyclical acquisition, we have achieved our position as the largest lifter of low cost U.S. LNG, more than 10 million tons, and the largest regas provider in premium priced European markets, around 20 million tons after the recent start up of the FSRU in Germany in Lubmin. Our unmatched access to the European markets creates a competitive advantage for our trading operations and make us more competitive as a partner in securing future resources. For example, our recent contract awards in Qatar. We launched this quarter, the FEED for Papua LNG, and this will contribute to the future growth of our portfolio with close to 2 million tons equity production. Last year, with LNG sales of 48 million tons, this business generated $10 billion of cash flow. In the Q1, sales were 11 million tons and cash flow was $2.1 billion. In the Q1 2023, LNG sales were down 17% quarter-over-quarter and 13% year-over-year. Reflecting mainly the decrease in spot sales due to lower LNG demand in Europe linked to the mild weather. Integrated LNG generated adjusted net operating income of $2.1 billion, down only by 10% compared to the previous quarter, excluding Novatek, mainly due to lower prices. Given the evolution of oil and gas prices in recent months and the lag effect on price formulas, we anticipate that our average LNG selling price might decrease by another 10%-15% in the Q2 because of this time lag versus $13.3 per million BTU this quarter. Operationally, we expect benefits from the restart of Freeport LNG in our Q2 2023 LNG sales. On the two new segments, integrated power is the newer business activity in the company. Mainly through a smart acquisition of early stage development projects, we have grown this business to 18 gigawatts of gross installed renewable power generation. Our two largest markets being Europe and the U.S. We are solidly on track to reach 38 GW by 2025 and 100 GW by 2030. Our flexible power generation capacity and growing positions in energy storage are fully integrated into the business strategy, allowing our traders to maximize our performance. Developing power projects, generating electricity, as well as integrating the trading and selling of power as we do other energy commodities, is a natural extension of our business. Last year, with net power production of 33 terawatt-hour, this business generated about $1 billion of cash flow. For the 12 months ended March 2023, integrated power generated a ROACE of 9.9% next to 10%, consistent with our stated objective to achieve double-digit profitability for this activity. Going into the details of the result of this new segment now. Renewable power generation capacity was 18 GW at the end of this quarter, an increase of more than 1 GW quarter-to-quarter, thanks to 0.6 GW from the acquisition of Casa dos Ventos in Brazil and 0.3 GW from the connection of the Seagreen offshore wind farm in the U.K. For the integrated power results, the best reference for comparison is Q1 2022, since like for the marketing and services business, the gas and power marketing business is seasonal. Net electricity generation was 8.4 TWh in the Q1, up 10% year-on-year, due to growing electricity generation from renewable offsetting the lower generation from flexible capacity in a context of lower demand. Integrated power posted adjusted net operating income of $170 million. This figure is significantly higher compared to the Q1 of 2022 adjusted net operating income, which was negative at -$82 million. Last year was heavily impacted by a huge increase of supply costs. This year, all segments have done better. Gas-fired power plants, renewable, supply and trading, despite the negative impact of winter seasonality of supply in the power marketing business. Higher cost of supply in winter versus equal invoicing along the year for many customers. Moving to the oil parts of our business. Operationally, our oil and gas production was 2.52 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, up 2% quarter-to-quarter, excluding Novatek. This includes the acquisition of a 20% interest in the SARB Umm Lulu already producing oil field in the Emirates starting from mid-March. The production also benefits from new project contribution, notably the startup of gas production of Block 10 in Oman and the ramp-up of Johan Sverdrup phase II in Norway. Production for Q2 2023 is expected at around 2.5 million barrel equivalent per day. Exploration and production reported adjusted net operating income of $2.7 billion, down 22% quarter-to-quarter, excluding Novatek, due to lower oil and gas prices. In the downstream now, Refining and Chemicals contributed $1.6 billion of adjusted net operating income, up 9% quarter-to-quarter and 44% year-on-year, despite the pension law protests that were ongoing in France at the end of the quarter, thanks to the strong refining margins. Refinery utilization rate was at 78%. For Q2 2023, we expect the refining utilization rates to increase above 80% given the end of strikes in France. Marketing and services results are stabilizing at a level around $300 million of adjusted net operating income, $280 million for the Q1 2023, up 3% year-on-year, despite sales being 6% lower. This demonstrates that our strategy of value over volumes is working. Overall, at company level, CFFO pre working cap was $9.6 billion in the Q1, plus 5% quarter-on-quarter, despite the lower price environment I already commented, as the Q4 2022 was impacted by exceptional taxes, notably the $1.1 billion European solidarity contribution, mainly impacting R&C, LMC and EMP to a lesser extent. There was a $4.5 billion working cap built in this Q1 2023. This is an exceptionally high build for a Q1, mainly related to higher crude and petroleum product inventories on water, notably due to the impacts of the pension law protest in France. This is an exceptional element which explain $1.4 billion of working cap builds and will disappear next quarter. Second factor is the seasonality of the gas and power marketing businesses, the gap between the seasonal cost of supply and the fixed monthly B2C clients payments. Of course, you have more traditional effects of lower prices on tax and trade payables that explain this working cap built in the Q1 2023. Note that parts of this working cap built will reverse in the next quarter, notably the higher inventories related to protests in France and the impact of seasonality for the gas and power marketing business. There was higher net investment in the Q1 at $6.4 billion, including $3.3 billion for acquisition. Mainly the acquisition of a 20% interest in SARB Umm Lulu concession, the payment relating to the acquisition of a stake in North Field East project in Qatar, and a stake in the joint venture with Casa dos Ventos in Brazil. Our guidance for 2023 net investments remain unchanged at $16 billion-$18 billion. Net investments include acquisition and divestments. The sales of our Canadian assets that Patrick commented for $4.1 billion, with the closing expected in Q3, should be counted in the envelope. The recently announced sale to Alimentation Couche-Tard for $3.1 billion is also expected to be closed by year end. Encouraged by the strong Q1 results, the board confirmed the 7.25% increase for the first interim dividend 2023 to EUR 0.74 per share, as well as a repurchase of $2 billion shares in the Q2 2023. I think now we can go to the Q&A with Patrick. Thank you. Myself. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We'll 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 star and two. Once again, please press star one if you wish to ask a question. Thank you. The first question is from Oswald Clint of Bernstein. Please go ahead. Good afternoon, and thank you very much for the time. I'm happy to guess the plus on the 40%. If I was to go up, you know, into the mid-40s, I guess the issue. No, no. No. you know, the range becomes. No, no. No, no. At least 40. At least 40. At least 40. Forget the plus. At least 40. I think some of your colleagues have found what it means. You can guess. I guess the question is, you know, is the 40% a number we could think about when you have good divestments topping it up? If not, we should think more around the 35%. Then the other, just, you know, related to that, is there any Novatek dividends included here? I know Novatek declared a dividend last week. It's up quite materially. Do Total expect to get anything in 2023, in terms of that cash flow? Then the second one is just Mozambique LNG. Lots of momentum, lots of discussion from the president recently. I think you're still hoping to secure some of the favorable cost terms, construction terms. Any update you could provide us on that side of it, please? Thank you. Okay. No, Oswald, we gave you a guidance 35-40, telling you that it's neither, 35 is a floor, but there is no ceiling. Last year we've done 37. That means that in fact it's not monitored by a specific figure, so it's not 35 certain time and 40 over time. The only point today which makes a difference is that we have. Board announced the spin-off, so it was a dividend in kind, so we have a sort of form of commitment from the board to our shareholders. The discussion that we, as soon as we decided to take the route of a direct sales, we are committed somewhere to have a reward to our shareholders. The decision yesterday was, at this stage, we don't know if it will go through buybacks or special dividends. Let's look to what will be, we are the beginning of the year, as all the proceeds of the sales are not yet, I would say, in the treasury of Jean-Pierre. Let's close and let's take time to see where we go in the year. The decision was, it's an opportunity and it's the commitment linked, I would say, to the decision of the spin-offs or the sort of distribute dividend in kind. We translate that as we'll go beyond what was announced, at least 40%. At least 40% means 40% plus. It will be then discussed either buyback or dividends. We have noted that for the time being, we have maintained the buyback at $2 billion per quarter for the first two quarter, despite the fact that the environment has softened. We did not decrease it. There might be a chance that we could maintain the $2 billion around, along the year. I think if you make some math in your model, you will find something above 40%. Novatek, I don't know. Again, you know my question. The question is, you know you have news, permanent news coming from Russia. Yesterday I've seen that the Russian authorities wanting to sanctions more European, Western companies. I don't know. It's difficult to answer to you. Yes, there was. Again, we are no more in the governance of Novatek, as you know. We are just, we are out of that. It's, it's no more consolidated in our accounts. Yes, we have seen that there was a decision of a dividend. Can it go through, to, up to the accounts of TotalEnergies? We'll see, along the year. I cannot just tell you today. We know we have decided, but Russia is, we do not plan the future. We just monitor, day after day, week after week, month after month. If it comes, it comes. If it does not come, it's not in the plan, I would say. Mozambique LNG, that's a good question, update on the cost terms. You know, you have understood that it's the last step before to restart. Some, I commented recently that we need the contractors to be reasonable. Some of them are not, so we will rebid some of the packages because there is no way for us to accept some undue costs. We have paid what we had to pay because we stopped the project and we have to restart the project. That had an impact obviously, the stop and restart. We don't see why we should pay more than that. That's where we progress. I think when we'll be ready, we'll come back to you on the. I think today it's premature again because we are, our teams, the project team is working with the contractors with a view to be able to relaunch the project, but under the conditions that the costs are controlled. That's fundamental to us. Excellent. Thank you. The next question is from Christopher Kuplent of Bank of America. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. Patrick, I'm gonna ask you, probably the same question again, if you don't mind. I think what I've heard, I'm looking for clarification, is the decision before the disposal to Suncor was to basically give proceeds to shareholders directly. Is that the principle we should continue to talk about and to consider the $4 billion as effectively an add-on, and then we can run our CFFO payout numbers as long as we like. So that's my question, just looking for confirmation. Lastly, second question, slightly connected to that. You've done, as you've highlighted, more than $3 billion of acquisitions in the Q1. You've announced disposals that go well beyond this. If we accept that the $4 billion disposals ought to be distributed to shareholders, you're kind of running on an even number for the, for the full year. I appreciate you're not likely to give us a number, but I wonder how big the Total Eren completion looms and whether you can confirm that that is baked into your $16 billion-$18 billion guidance. That would be it. Thank you. Okay. No, Chris, I need to clarify. We never said that the $4 billion will go to, back to shareholders. By the way, it was not the case in the spin-off scheme. If you remember correctly, first, there is an enterprise value of, which was around CAD 5 billion-CAD 6 billion, let's say $4 billion-$5 billion. Where this company would have a debt which would have been less a proceed for the company, then we were ready to spin off to keep 30% on our side. If you make your math, you are far from the $4 billion. Again, it's not the way we expressed it, we expressed it, and I can only repeat what we've what we said, is that the decision of the board is that. By the way, second remark, proceed of sales does not impact the cash flow from operations. The cash flow from operations as it is stated in all, the way we communicate and in our results and accounts, do not integrate the cash from divestments. We have an amount of cash flow from operations, and you know perfectly last year we had $46 billion at $100 per barrel. At $80, I think we'll be between $35 billion-$40 billion. Then, probably more if this environment of the Q1, this quarter, the cash flow from operation, I think is something like, maybe $9.5 billion, no? 9.5. If we have four quarters of EUR 9.5 billion, it will make EUR 38 billion. If you make 40%+, you can find what will be the guidance of payout to shareholders. You deduct the dividend, which is more or less according to the, you have all the figures on the dividend, no? We have, you can even calculate it for all the quarters. You have the last payment of EUR 0.74. The only unknown is exchange rate, euro dollar. You will find what could be the amount. The question for the board was, is it for through buyback shares or is it through share buyback or through special dividend? That will be discussed, and we'll see along the year. The feeling on our side is that as we consider that the share of the company is low compared to some U.S. peers and there is room for improvement, increasing, I mean, maintaining, not increasing, but maintaining a share buyback is probably a good investment and demonstrating the trust to our shareholders and to investors in the future of the company. Your other questions. Yes, there was some acquisition this year, but, you know, we cannot, it's not monitored quarter by quarter. There were also two big announcement of sales announcement, the divestments of the European network, plus this Canadian divestment. We have to proceed. Total Eren, there is no secret, I think it was mentioned. Of course Total Eren and all that is integrated in $16 billion-$18 billion guidance. We don't change the guidance, you know, neither on one way or the other way. Because I'm not fully sure that all the proceeds. I think Canada should come this year because it's quite an easy process, in fact. On the other side, the European network, there is more to do, in fact, on carve-outing, et cetera. Everybody is working to close the deal before year-end, and both parties want to do it, but you kno, sometimes you have sensitivity. Total Eren is integrated, and Total Eren, I think in cash is something around $1.5 billion-$2 billion, you know. I think we already mentioned that. That's great. Thank you very much, Patrick, for the clarification. May I add one quick follow-up? Could you give us details around the carrying value of your Canadian assets that are to be sold? What is the carrying value? You mean the capital employed in our balance sheet? Yeah. Yeah. It's around $5 billion. Perfect. Thank you. There will be a capital gain, I mean, there will be a positive results in our account. You know, it's, I would say it's an exceptional results. Yes. I mean, I'm under the control of my CF. Yes, it will be treated as an adjustment, yes. An adjustment. In our accounts. Okay. When it come. Thank you. When it comes. Thanks. The next question is from Irene Himona of Société Générale. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Two questions. First of all, on your EMP tax rate, please, which increased in the quarter. Can you remind us what is included in the Q1 in terms of upstream windfall taxes? At current price levels, what should we anticipate for that average EMP tax for the full year? Secondly, you referred to the significant inflation in renewables. Could you possibly talk around inflationary pressures you're seeing in your upstream operations, please? Thank you. Perhaps I will take the first question regarding the tax rate. Of course the Q1 has been prepared the same way as the 2022 accounts. At the time, I explained to you that the EPL, so a windfall tax proceed in the UK is treated in the adjusted net income. It has an impact in the 2022 tax tax rate. Of course it has an impact in the Q1 2023 tax rates. The amounts representing in relation with this with stack is $0.4 billion, just to give you one figure. On the opposite, all the exceptional contribution in relation with the European decision to put in place an exceptional contribution in 2022 was treated in 2022 as an exceptional element because it's an exceptional element. Of course we continue with this treatment, not impacting the tax rate in the Q1 of 2023. Cost inflation? Cost inflation in upstream. I mean, again, it's, I think, for the time being our OpEx per barrel is at $5.5 per barrel. In our operations, I do not see impact, which is by the way, very good performance from the team. On the rigs, yes, we know that there are the rigs, for deepwater rigs are more expensive, but we are benefiting of the fact that we had quite a number of long-term and medium-term contracts. We have seen some impact that is limited. Then you have the, where we had some, seen some inflation was more on the steel last year. We resisted, by the way, we are right because the steel went down again. Again, the question is more, I think that we are facing the will of some contractors to get some money back from, we say, bad years. They look to our reserves, and so they want a sort of share of the cake. Again, it's a question of supply and demand for me at the end. There is no reason to accept to pay more if the supply and demand is not stretched, and I think it's not stretched on many elements, which is why I was mentioning Mozambique. We will go to rebid when we have the feeling that the contractor which were awarded the contract try to benefit from the situation. We are not in a hurry and to go where, to know where the market, the best is to go to tender, so this is what we will do on this project. For me, and honestly, source of inflation last year which were more the steel and all that came down. We have observed it in our, by the way, in our Uganda projects. We were very right last year not to place the order for steel. I think we have saved a lot of money just to resist to the temptation. It's again, it's an arbitration for me between the value and the, and speed and, or it's a question of managing that. I don't see much inflation today, even if we have to resist. Which, by the way, is another good message to our team, which is simplifying the projects and that's good for everybody. Okay. Thank you. The next question is from Martijn Rats of Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hi. Hello. I wanted to ask if you could set out a little bit sort of the triggers or the drivers that would lead to the full payment in the disposal to Suncor. I've noticed that the press release wasn't really sort of all that clear about, but if you could say a few words about that would be helpful. Secondly, I wanted to ask if you could perhaps share some of your thoughts on the global LNG market. I noticed that on Thursday and Friday last week, Europe enjoyed all-time high LNG imports, which is of course a little bit surprising given that the price has been going lower, and yet the LNG keeps coming. It, it sort of, it doesn't look like Asian demand is sort of all, you know, picking up all that much, at least, you know, looking at the data that we have access to. Perhaps in your business you have earlier insights. I was wondering if you're seeing anything in terms of an Asian demand pickup, for example. Thank you. The additional payment. To be honest, it's quite nothing very classic, I would say. There is a price threshold above which, if we reach the. It's a monthly payment. The monthly calculation, if the price of WCS is reaching a certain level, then there is a multiplier effect by the dollar per barrel and depending also on the production, I would say, of the field. So it's quite, it's a classical CVR. What is good, I mean, what is good from my point of view is that we have five years, so it's 60 months of, I would say, casino. So it's a good, there is a good chance to get some of it. Just to let you know, a calculation, if we would have one year like 2022, we would have got the full $600 million. That's the point. Okay. Okay? Interesting. Interesting, yeah. As I said, global energy market, to be honest, there is a mixed year. We've seen at the beginning of the quarter some demand, even short-term demand picking up. On the price it's clear that today the market is better. It's a good time to sign, to try to sign some long-term contract. We are back to a better percentage of Brent than in the last years. This is what we want to do on PNG LNG. You know, today we are benefiting. Marketing of PNG LNG, in this type of environment is a good timing for us, in fact. We had a delay, but we benefit from that. I think we are targeting to finalize some long-term sales contract to cover our share of PNG LNG. On the other side, on the global market, Europe was more suffering than last year because, you know, the weather was mild in winter. The storage is limited in capacity, so when the storage are full, difficult to put more. If you have limited, then it's a problem for, by the way, for me, for Europe, is that we don't have a very large capacity of underground storage, in fact, in Europe. When it's full. That's why, by the way, we see that in the figures of TotalEnergies, there were less spot deals being done. There was another reason, by the way, about the spot deals, is that some strikes in France, the terminal energy, [audio distortion] terminals in France were in fact shut down. Not shut down, but they were not accessible from few, almost a month. Otherwise, I would say, do we see today, if your question is more Chinese demand? It's not too clear to me, to be honest. There is more than last year, but are we back to the 2021 level of Chinese LNG demand? It's not, it's a little premature to answer you positively. We are in between, I would say, at this stage, 2022 and 2021 for these Asia demand. More appetite for many players, and including by the way, the Chinese players, you have seen that they have signed some long-term contracts with Qatar. It's clearly because they are really willing to, I think, to ensure the security of supply. China is importing 40% of natural gas. It's a good opportunity and Qatar is benefiting of it, and we are working with them in order to try to secure on the long term their supply for natural gas. It's good for LNG. Wonderful. Thank you. The next question is from Biraj Borkhataria, sorry, from RBC. Please go ahead. Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. Two questions on the upstream, please. The first one, just on Mozambique. Appreciate your restarting there. On the other side, it seems like the operator was considering a second floating facility. I was just wondering from the Total point of view, is that something you've looked at, or something you're considering? The second question is just, could you just walk me through the kind of plans for 2023 for both Namibia and Suriname, and what are the next steps there, heading towards development? Thank you. No. I mean, honestly, when you have a Mozambique LNG, huge reserves, the question for us is to develop a scheme where we can really have the potential to take the most of these reserves. The floating LNG concept, which is honestly, not fully adapted, I think it was quite adapted the first development because it was a part of the reservoir, which was not related to the big reservoir that we want to develop. For us, honestly, in terms of allocation of capital, if I want to do LNG, I'd, I prefer to allocate capital for LNG to projects with the potential of upsides, because you make much more value with additional trains on a brown field way than on a greenfield project. The limitation for me on the floating LNG scheme is that in fact, you have the CapEx and then, you cannot expand it. You cannot benefit from the additional reserves. We have enough projects in our portfolio, LNG projects portfolio, not to allocate capital to floating LNG because we don't see the upside. Again, for me, LNG is a very good cash machine when you can add additional trains. Namibia and Suriname. Namibia, we are drilling just now, so you know we have. In fact in 2023 we spent $300 million. We have three wells to be drilled. We have two rigs. three wells, three tests. In fact it's a critical year. We are just making a second exploration well. We make an appraisal well of the first discovery and potentially another appraisal well if the, or the second appraisal well, either on the first discovery or on the second discovery, if it's a discovery. We test because it's fundamental. We have some good static, I would say, data last year, so very encouraging. It's why we have decided to commit almost half of our exploration budget in 2023. We need the dynamic at the test results, because, you know, when you are by 3,000 meters water depth, either it's, if it's 15,000 barrel per day per well, or 5,000, you don't have the same economics. They sell economics. The plan is there. My view is that, with all this data, we'll be in a position to have, by the end of 2023, maybe earlier, but end of 2023, to have a good idea of, what we have in hand and can we accelerate the time to market to develop a first discovery. On Suriname, I think, The last appraisal well is just being drilled. The good news is that we are trying to, you know, to develop an oil pool. The difficulty in Suriname is that the oil to gas ratio is quite high. What we want is to identify oil pool with a lower CGR in order to be able to have an efficient development. It's a development which we combine two discoveries. The first two appraisal wells of these two discoveries are a bit positive. Today, it's a pool of around 500+ million barrel of oil. We are waiting for the last oil well in order to reach 600-650. Then, it will be time to go to development, I would say, after these appraisal wells. We'd have again there a good vision and in order to move forward to the next step. This year, 2023, for both Namibia and Suriname is very important because for us, it could be, it will be the next wave of FID, going to FID for growing our oil business in the coming, in the future years. Thank you for the details. The next question is from Michele Della Vigna of Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Patrick and Jean-Pierre, congratulations on the strong results despite the deteriorating macro. I really had one question. We've seen a major shift in the renewable power strategies, both of the oil companies, some of whom are de-emphasizing that investment, but also from the utilities who are more focused on financial delevering. I'm wondering whether you're seeing signs that this shift is starting to restore better profitability, especially in wind, but also in solar, and perhaps opening up better opportunities for you as well. It's, I think it's a little premature. It's clear that today with, you have, you had last year some, higher costs from the supply chain, then of course you have the interest rates which are going up. You know, it's a highly leveraged industry. Of course, if you want at the end of the day, to, restore profitability, you have to put the price up, which is good, I think, for me. It might, for players like us, it will create opportunity for sure. We've seen as well on some tenders, to be honest, on the price, which we are very aggressive in offshore winds, which we do not understand, which we are probably too low. I don't know what is behind. There are. It's difficult to tell you, I would say, to have a clear-cut answer. I think this will come. We see higher prices in the negotiation of corporate PPAs in the U.S. clearly. People are more reasonable, and I think on both sides, by the way, the customers and the sellers, because everybody, when you have, you know, a direct discussions with some industries or some customers, it's a way to restore profitability. There is good signal from this point of view. Sometimes in tenders it's different. What we try to do, by the way, on the corporate PPA in order to restore part of the profitability is as well to introduce not only a fixed price PPA for 15 years or 10 years, which honestly is not the best, but to introduce some elements of some merchant elements in order to share some upside, downside with the customer, which we like knowing our model of TotalEnergies. This environment gave us more like capacity to propose this type of contract. I think what is true, to come back to you, is that I think there is a feeling that the race is more today not to volume, but to value. It's a little like I think the shale oil industry in the past, you know. There are more players looking to profitability. It is why we. You know, when we announce that we are targeting more than 10% for integrated power, I know that people have some doubts, but. Again, it's integrated because of full value chain, but I'm fully convinced that this will come. It's capital-intensive industry, and there is no way to just to think. You know, when the money, cost of the money was almost zero, you could find plenty of people ready to accept the low profitability. When the price of the money is at 4%, 5%, you have to add some 4%, 5% if you want to reach the same profitability. I think all that will probably help us to restore the profitability and to move from, I would say, an infant industry to a little more mature industry. Thank you. The next question is from Lydia Rainforth of Barclays. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon. Two questions, if I could. I did want to come back to the Suncor divestment proceeds. Given that you've kept the net investment number the same, is this effectively giving you more acquisition capacity? I just wanna double-check where we are on that. The second one, which is coming back to the integrated power business, obviously you've given us lots of helpful data and kind of splitting that out. It has been very volatile. When we're looking at that business kind of what are the key things that you actually want us to think about from that side? Thanks. On the first one, I would say yes and no, because again, in our view, when we put our budget for 2023, we planned the spinoff. We planned the spinoff. The company was TotalEnergies planning to allocate part of a certain amount of debt, let's say $2 billion more or less, to the spinoff. This $2 billion were the proceed which was integrated in our budget. I would say, so it does not change fundamentally the view we have of our guidance for CapEx, $16 billion-$18 billion. Yes, of course, we have room for both, again, divestment and acquisitions. We knew that this year that we will have some, I would say, higher proceeds of divestment, but we have also. Look, we have already spent some money for acquisition, we've done the Abu Dhabi deal. We've done the, we will have Total Eren, we'll have because we have some renewable deal which were introduced. The Qatar, we might have this year, by the way, it's not a question of acquisition, it's a question of past costs. In 2023 we'll have NFE was delayed to January, and we might have as well NFS. All that is integrated. Again, do not consider that the $4.5 billion of proceeds from Canada are extra. By the way, we also committed today through our announcement that the payout will be increased, but part of these proceeds will go to shareholders like it was. That's I think the point on the first one. On the second one. It looks good if we change. Yeah, it's volatile. Okay. It's volatile, but going up. It's volatile going up. And then including on the. I think honestly, the year 2022, on the supply side, to be honest, like Jean-Pierre told you, was complex because, you know, these European governments wanting to put some ceiling. introducing in our accounts the ceiling effects and, when you have some supply which are done on the spot, created the quarter by quarter results were not, I would say, a smooth exercise last year. This year, I have the impression that we are more, I would say, in a stable environment, even if you still have some governments which are putting some different schemes, but it's more stable. I'm expecting more stability from this, well, last year from this supply and supply business. The renewable part is growing, so I'm expecting more in 2023 than in 2022. Part of what could be volatile is linked to the gas pipe work plants, which were last year run at a very high rate. This Q1 was good, but not as high as last year because of mild weather. This is part of, you would say, a volatile results. We'll see. I mean, it's the beginning of a story, and we'll see quarter after quarter, and to give you some more elements, what Jean-Pierre and his teams have done and delivered to you, I think it's at the end of the press release. We've restated the year 2021 and all the quarters of 2022 in this segment, and other. I think it's good that you can engage with my IR team. They will be happy to give you more indications or maybe not, by the way, you know, just to help you to see what they can explain you. I think, by the way, the volatility, the answer will be more from growing and developing the business. You know, it's a question of size of this business. You have noticed that almost $400 million, I think, $370 million. Is quite sizable, right? It's It's the results is even larger than the one of Marketing and Services. After five years of development, I think it's a good achievement. We look to that positively and it will be a source of growth in the future, cash flow. That's great. Thank you very much. The next question is from Lucas Herrmann of Exane. Please go ahead. Yeah, thanks very much, and thanks for the opportunity. Patrick, I wanted to ask you two questions on the LNG business. The first, there's clearly been increasing talk in Europe of, you know, banning or doing something to stop Russian LNG imports into Europe. I just wonder whether you could make some observations around what's your understanding, interpretation, and whether. Well, just your position on that. I'm a little confused actually as to whether you were obliged to take volumes into Europe to regasify through the original contract, but anyway. The second, staying with LNG, is it goes back to Mozambique, and you have heads of agreement, or you have contracts signed for pretty much all of the offtake from Mozambique. How has that impacted, if at all, or how are those agreements impacted, if at all, as a consequence of, you know, push out, redoing FEED, retendering, et cetera, et cetera, and the delays that, you know, are clearly apparent for the offtakers? That was it. Thank you. The Mozambique LNG, I would say LNG contracts have not been affected until now by all that. The buyers are still maintaining all the. I think we did not reach any, I would say, a date where we would have to commit on something different. I think my view is, you know, that the buyers, when you look to different contracts, we have good contracts, but we are in the market. So we are not, I would say. There is no impact at this stage of this delay on the LNG contract, sales contract. By the way, TotalEnergies. Today, one of the contract was discussed or negotiated, but TotalEnergies took some volumes, and we are ready to take more volumes of Mozambique LNG on our side. On the Russian imports, you know, we are, I would say, you know, we have some long-term contracts. The part of this long term have a destination clause, which is Europe, to be, to be clear. Most of them, by the way, out of the 5 million tons of long-term contracts that we are committed to, I think at least three or four, if three of them four, have a destination close to Europe. There is also a force measure clause, which means that, if Europe decides to ban LNG, Russian LNG imports, then we would exercise the force measure clause, and we'll stop importing LNG from Russia to Europe. I have the impression when I'm reading what is at. Of course, there is a debate. The debate has rebounded, of course, first because there is not much improvement on the situation on the war, I would say. Second, because the European leaders think that today, they have taken actions and that maybe banning Russian LNG import is possible. It's not a unanimous position. Some countries are more concerned than others. What is being discussed today, if I understand correctly, the regulation which is put on the table, which will go to the European Parliament, which could take time in fact, because sanctions require unanimity and will not go full sanction. There is no unanimity in Brussels on that. If it goes to the. If I understand, the position is more about trying to regulate the capacity of Russian players to, I would say, wanted to book some regas capacities in Western Europe, future regas capacities. If it is the case, it's not a ban. By the way, it will not affect our position, to be clear. You know, our position on that, we will respect all the sanctions. At this stage, as you know, we have a long-term contract. It's a commitment, it's a huge contract, and we have no other way than respecting this long-term. It's a take or pay contract, so if we don't take, we'll pay. Again, in the balance of Europe, it was not neutral. Last year is what, it was something around 15 million tons, I think more or less, which were imported from Russia to Europe. Again, we are monitoring that week after week, and we will execute. I remember you that we don't hedge all these LNG contracts because we perfectly know that maybe it could happen to us that we'd have to stop. There is no market position being taken on the LNG from Russia. Sorry, just to go back to Mozambique and the volumes that you've now taken into portfolio, could you quantify the number? Quantify what? Quantify the amount of LNG that you effectively will take into your marketing business from Mozambique. At this stage, I think it's something like 0.7 million tons for TotalEnergies. Again, if some buyers want or just that they prefer to draw, we are ready to take more, so we are open to that. Some Japanese buyer are also ready to take more. Our Japanese friends of Mitsui are also keen, so there are some, there is some appetite. You know, Mozambique LNG is not only huge reserve, it's well located. You know, it's directly on the Indian Ocean. To go to some Asian countries, it's quite Indian players by the way. I think it's a good geographical position. I'm not afraid about selling this Mozambique LNG. Again, the buyers did not exercise any clause vis-à-vis the project. Okay. Patrick, thank you. The next question is from Matt Lofting of JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Hi. Thanks for taking the questions. Two if I could please. First on demand, Patrick, I think you talked LNG specifically earlier, but to the extent financial markets are putting something of a burden of proof on the resilience of global oil and energy demand more broadly here, are there any areas or sub-sectors through Total's extensive global downstream business where you're seeing any early warning signs on the rate of change in demand manifesting? Secondly, could you share any sense of the strength of contribution from the oil and products trading business within the Q1 Refining & Chemicals result? And perhaps how you see that trending going forward as the industry moves through the immediate effects of the embargo on Russian oil products? Thank you. Honestly, there is no. I mean, what we observed in Europe was of course some, I would say, energy saving, energy efficiency effect. Last year price were very high. I would say Europe has saved 15% of energy demand because of price. Prices were so high that a lot of industries, but also by the way, B2C customers, you know, have saved some energy. We've done all in a sort of, we have allocated to our customers in France a bonus. If they were saving more than 5% of their electricity during wintertime, we are ready to share with them part of the profit that we are gaining from the, I would say, forward supply. Half of our customers, more than 1 million customer, 1.2, 1.3 million customers, have saved an average of 15%. By the way, it's more or less the same figure that we observed on the manufacturing side, I mean, the industry side. There were some impacts on energy saving. Will it last? You know, I think this is really, I think it was really a reaction to the very high price. The gas price was almost $200 per barrel last year in Europe. Today it has softened, and we begin to see some demand coming back, I would say. I'm, I think there was. Is it short term? Is this fundamental? I'm not clear. Otherwise, no, I would say, we don't see some softening of energy demand. The expectation from the oil market are still high. On the second question about Russian ban, what is clear there has been a surprise. The surprise has been that really, there are many effects on the ban. The big surprise that in fact, the diesel from Russia was rerouted much quicker than expected. You know, I think the markets were anticipated some impact on the diesel trucks, which are integrated probably. We've seen a lot of players making inventories of diesel before the ban. In fact, the surprise of the coming months is that the diesel of Russia was quickly rerouted to Africa and South America. That was obvious because they were the two importing market, but also to the Middle East. Where some producing countries prefer to buy some diesel with a good discount and to sell their coal with no discount, which is by the way a good transfer of value from Russia to some Middle East countries. That is a surprise, which means that by the way, the diesel crack is softening clearly because there were high inventories. Now, Russian diesel is there, and the Chinese refineries are back full speed because also they benefit, by the way, from Russian coal with a discount. These ban, these, I would say, these cap on the Russian coal and diesel have so many effects on different parts of the world and some impacts on the global market. This is what we observe. All trading, you know, traders, they love volatility. There is a lot of volatility. I would say they have good results, but in fact they have very good results almost every quarter. I hope they will continue. That's my comment. Very good. Thank you, Patrick. The next question is from Kim Fustier of HSBC. Please go ahead. Hi, good afternoon, and thank you for taking my question. I've got two if I may. First one is I appreciate that you don't comment on rumors, but I'm just curious to hear any thoughts that you can share on the attractiveness of corporate upstream M&A, and particularly for producing assets, given that TotalEnergies has recently been linked to a certain private EMP company. I guess another way of asking that question is, hypothetically, what would you need to see in order to pull the trigger on, let's say, a $5 billion deal in the upstream? My second question is on Iraq. I just wondered if you could walk us through the updated Iraq integrated energy deal that was announced earlier this month. It seems to be a $10 billion headline investment, just how is that CapEx going to be phased over the years? Thank you. Okay. Iraq, yes, that was good news after my comments in London. I don't know if some people listened to my comments, but clearly, the government of Iraq confirmed the whole contract with no modification at all. I would say sanctity of contract went through a change of government. It was for me, fundamental. That was, for me, more than a good news. Secondly, we reached an agreement on the way that participating interest could be allocated to an Iraqi party. You have seen that we will invite also our partners from QatarEnergy to join us. That I think is a good setup. We are finalizing all the paperwork, but I think it's large. The, you know, you know, the $10 billion we spend fundamentally about, among, let's say 4 years we need to release our phase, by the way, phase in the way that the gas flaring, you know, we have to build some trains to flare down the gas. That will take 2 phase. Also on the oil part, by the way, increasing the production will be done in two phases. Let's consider four years with a ramp up along the years. That's the point. On the, you know, a few M&A, now don't believe all rumors. You know, people love to use our name. We have demonstrated, I think in the past, that we are able to make good deals when the price is good. I think it's price of acquisition. Second, I think it's a matter for me as well of synergies. Can you find some synergies in the acquisitions which will deliver additional value? The other point, which of course is important for us, is I mean, how does it make, how can we, can it, fit with our portfolio, you know, according to our different position? We are not trying to fill the gaps, you know, generally, we are more trying to be consistent with the strategy. We'll see. Don't believe all rumors. The next question is from Amy Wong of Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Hi, good afternoon, and thanks for taking my questions. I have two of them, please. One of them is just continuing along the lines of M&A strategy. You've made a, you know, quite a few chunky, pretty large acquisitions this quarter, an interesting mix across EMP, power, integrated gas. Can we take that as an indication of kind of how you're thinking along the lines in the near future? Then, as a follow-up to that is just think tying that with your Scope 1, 2, 3 emissions targets that you've talked about. How are those targets, in to any degree, if any at all, restricting the way you're looking at acquisitions at the moment? You know, the need to comply with some of those 2025, 2030 targets that you've put out. Thank you. The second question is easy. You know, there is no constraint of absolute value. We have a commitment, in particular when we look to hydrocarbons, that any project, either by the way, organic one or acquisition, must have an intensity, Scope one and two intensity of CO2 lower than the average of the company of 19. Any project, any M&A should enhance the position in intensity. That's my question now. Then we manage, if it's good for the shareholder, it delivers value, we will manage the absolute objective. It's up to us to make the effort. On other projects. I think we have demonstrated our capacity to have not only to acquire but to divest, you know, some assets like we are doing today. By the way, the exit of the Canadian oil sands from that perspective, pure CO2 budget, I would say, are giving us some space, in terms of CO2. It's again, don't consider that there is a direct, there is a link more for me, when we are developing our strategy, our integrated power strategy, it's very clear that we want to be able to offer to our customers a more decarbonized, I mean, lower, range of products, oil, gas, and some electricity. That's clear that it is a strategy. By the way, the first question, you know, we have demonstrated, I think this quarter is a perfect demonstration of the balance of our strategy. We can use M&A or organic development either to grow in oil like in Abu Dhabi, because we have the opportunity to put in our portfolio a very low cost, low CO2, by the way, asset. I think the cost of per barrel is price per barrel of production is around $7-$8 per barrel. We pay the cost more or less of $4 per barrel, so it's fitting very well, price, sorry, price of $4 per barrel, so it's fitting perfectly well with the strategy. Oil is good when it's fitting the strategy. We have the LNG in Qatar, which was, I mean, of course, the investment which was a result of last year positioning. It's LNG is clear, and we have some renewable. We'll continue to I would say feed with organic or M&A all the segments of the company if there are good opportunities. For me, the question when we look to M&A, and again, it's not today, we have more looks recently to divestment than a merger or than acquisition, I would say. It's we are looking to that, what is the value creation that we can get, not only by paying but beyond, I would say, the initial acquisition payment. That's what we look at it. Okay. The next question is from Paul Cheng of Scotiabank. Please go ahead. All right. Thank you. Patrick, just, if you don't mind, want to go back into the oil sands asset sales. Is that a competitive or that, you get some unsolicited, offer, but then you go out and put it as a, as a result that put it as a competitive bid or that is purely coming in from other people? Have you looked at to break up the asset and sell it individually? No, no, it's clear. No, no. I mean, there were, I think everything is a statement. In the press release, you just have to read my report. I think we said in the statement, we launched the spin-off. There was no bid organized at all. We received unsolicited, several unsolicited offers. Several is means many. Several players, not only one. We did not look at them. We look at them only in the last month when they begin, the one of Suncor begin to reach a level where we felt comfortable enough to go to the board and to say to the board, "Look, we have this offer," which again, CAD 5.5 billion-6 billion. At the same time as we're working hard and we are ready, I spent a week, last two weeks ago, I went to Toronto in order to meet some stock exchange management team. We are working hard. We had a good view of what could be expected from one side, you know? You have a clear alternative, yes. Clear alternative, then we, the alternative, right? Of course, we were to push. It's our job, you know, to push the price up. I think at the end of the day, again, I prefer Suncor to management to comment on their motivation to make the acquisition on their side. On our side, again, we, I think, approve this process without organizing a bid process, just being very, I would say, determined to make the spin-off, which created an alternative opportunity. Like, by the way, I met several shareholders after our last event in London. Some of them were expecting a possible outcome from this nature. I mean, it's, that's what I can say. That's what we've done. Okay. That in the past, a lot of time you guys comment on that what is the trading, result or the trading environment in the quarter, and you haven't mentioned anything in the Q1. We just assume trading result is more or less average and nothing, spectacular or in the upside or the downside in the Q1? Exactly. You understand. You understand. Very spec- when it is spectacular, we warn you because in the swaying statement, if we say nothing, as I said before, that means that it's very good, but nothing spectacular. That's very good. Thank you. The next question is from Henri Patricot of UBS. Please go ahead. Yes. Hi, everyone. Thank you for taking the question. Just one left for me on biofuels. We've seen some high targets from the EU in recent weeks and including this week on SAF. I was wondering when I look at your 2030 targets, you mentioned, you know, 10% m arket share with 1.5 million tons. Are these numbers, could these numbers go up both for the overall market size and for your own capacity, or do you see too much of a constraint when it comes to feedstocks? I think, yes, you're right, with 10%, but the volume was 2 million tons, which was, I think, the target, 2 million tons of SAF. There is Europe on one side, there is the U.S. on the other side. I think we have a plan. We are working in order to develop different units, either in the U.S., where the IRA is, by a way, giving an interesting framework. There is a plan to develop a project around Port Arthur. We have other plans in Europe, like Grandpuits, like La Mède, but we are looking to other opportunities to develop. It's an attractive market. Having said that, as you know, the constraint is more on the feedstock because you need to find, I would say, the circular economy. You need to use either waste or second generation. Today the constraint is more on the feedstock, but we are, I think our colleagues or people are the... Reaching this target of 2 million tons per year by 2030 seems to be positive. No, is that true? Huh? Or maybe 1.5 if I'm. I don't. Okay, we'll see, but don't worry. We are, I mean, we are working on it. Thank you. What should we do? The next question is from Giacomo Romeo of Jefferies. Please go ahead. Yes. Thank you. First question is just trying to understand a little bit the rationale that led you to increase the overall payout as a result of the Canadian divestment rather than committing to a fixed payout. The other question I have, it's more general. It's around the emerging legislation in France, and I'd like to hear your thoughts about the tightening the investment criteria for Article 9 funds and explicitly to exclude investments in fossil fuels. Just trying to understand whether you are any sort involved in discussion with the government in trying to make any changes here. It's obviously, Total in our screen is the most popular name for Article 9 funds investments in oil and gas just trying to understand a little bit, your thoughts here and whether you are engaged in discussion with the government. Okay. On the first question, no, I think it's again, I explained why the board. We planned the spin-off. It was announced to our shareholders, so that means that there was a sort, there was a distribution of a dividend in kind potentially to our shareholders, so it was a form of commitment. We don't do the distribution in kind. Strongly, we had the feeling to respect our word, and so it will be done through either, I mean, a distribution through the payout, a cash payout to through either buybacks or special dividend. That's the point. I think it's quite logic. We translated it at this stage because we prefer to observe what will happen during the year by giving you guidance on the payout, a positive one, I think. It's more than 40%, at least 40%, so I think it's positive. I think that demonstrates that the board is really committed to the return of share to shareholders, like we said last year. The second question, Article 9. No, that's a debate. I'm not sure that exclusion will make the progress of the transition, in particular, because I'm convinced by player like TotalEnergies are very well positioned to accelerate this transition. If people wants to exclude, they exclude. The only argument I have for them is that you are different for safe fuels company. You are the one who are in transition, which we can demonstrate. You know, I'm not a big fan of taxonomy, to be honest, because all that is just specification. I've observed that in some countries, like Belgium, they make some caveats on the rules saying, stating that if some companies are really serious about the transition, then, it's, they have to be considered. I'm more in favor, I would say, an investing class philosophy than a banning philosophy. This is what we repeat. I think it should be more encouraging. If it's not Article 9, will be Article 8, and I think. There are also, I would say, from, and I'm not, I think investor point of view, might be willing to have a pure, category of, I would say, very clean, assets, okay? It's a question for me more of organizing the marketing to investors than really a question of regulation. I think, there is a confusion to try to regulate the transition or to organize the transition through financial regulations. I'm not sure it's the best way to do it. Again, on our side, this does not affect our strategy, which is very clear and we'll maintain the course. The next question is from Jason Gabelman of TD Cowen. Please go ahead. Yeah. Hey, thanks for taking my questions. I wanted to go back to M&A for a minute. Last year at your Analyst Day, you talked about an interest in growing your U.S. LNG integrated gas footprint. I'm wondering, as we try to figure out the use of proceeds from the oil sands asset sale, if that's an area that looks attractive to you, either moving into the upstream gas, further into upstream gas in the U.S. and or partnering on an LNG project or two there. My second question is on Kazakhstan. Some news out of there regarding a potential lawsuit, related to recouping costs from the Kashagan project, which you have an interest in. I was wondering if you could provide some comments around that, where that lawsuit sits, potential liabilities, arising from that lawsuit. Thanks. On the second question, I have no news more than what you learned. I mean, it seems that the government of Kazakhstan wants to reopen all discussions. You know, it's not the first time, about the cost recovery from Kazakhstan. I think my feeling is that the five IOCs are really united, we'll face and we have a contract there, again, we will, of course, fight in order for the contract be respected by all the parties. That's my only comment. I have no other view on it. On the first one, I mean, again, don't consider because we divest, we have no choice to spend the money tomorrow. I mean, we are... We can be, we can also, well, I commented already, I think last, during our last investor meeting, that it's true that we are looking to see if we can more integrate those various position, the U.S. position. The price of the Henry Hub is quite low, but people are still dreaming of the price of last year, you know, so let's be patient. Things are possible. You know, you know our area of interest. Our area of interest are not simply, but I repeated just before, it's good oil, it's LNG. It's also, renewable downstream. We are looking to different opportunities in order to create value from the global portfolio. Thanks. Gentlemen, there are no more questions registered at this time. Thank you very much. Jean-Pierre has given you all the figures. The results were good. Thank you to all the teams, and thank you for your questions. See you soon to all of you. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the conference call. Thank you all for your participation. You may now disconnect.