Good afternoon, good morning if you are connecting from the U.S. Welcome to TotalEnergies 2024 results and 2025 objectives meeting. We are today in the city, in London. I hope that you will appreciate that we brought the sun in London today, and you will appreciate also the view. For the people who want to follow us live, you can connect on our website, totalenergies.com. The program today, we will start with the presentation of the 2024 results with Jean-Pierre, and then we will move to the Outlook presentation for 2025 with Patrick. The presentation should last one hour, and then we will move to the Q&A session where you will be, of course, able to ask all the questions you want. We have, as usual, a dedicated line for the people who could not attend, and we will bring from time to time questions online. We should be finished around 4:15 P.M., 4:30 P.M., but before to start our journey today, I invite Stéphane Michel, our President, Gas and Power, to come on stage to launch the meeting with a sequence on safety. Stéphane. Thank you, Renaud. Good afternoon, everyone. As you are aware, TotalEnergies is building an Integrated Power pillar, and like any other industrial activity, this new development is coming with new HSE risks. One of them is the risk of fire and explosion while operating our battery energy storage system, or BESS. In the industry, around 15 incidents happen every year. The most serious one was in March last year in Japan, where several firefighters were injured by an explosion. Within TotalEnergies, our last incident occurred in 2023, hopefully without injuries. But since then, we have worked on the design specification of batteries, and we have done so with our battery affiliate, Saft, which happened to be one of the top five BESS suppliers in the world. Thanks to their know-how, we've been able to include new innovative safety barriers that you can see on the slide, by adding early detection of thermal runaway to prevent the fire from spreading over, by adding as well a water fire suppression system in addition to the passive one, and by adding extra ventilation to avoid the risk of explosion. In addition, we are implementing now systematically a dedicated training for firefighters on how to fight a battery fire because it's quite specific. Thanks to all that, we are confident that we can develop our multi-gigawatt pipeline of batteries while protecting our people, of course, and by limiting as well the risk on our assets. Thank you. Jean-Pierre? While Jean-Pierre will be on stage, you have the first one, no? [Foreign language] sorry. That was for the battery, and that's a good transition for our result in 2024. The first one is on the result on the TRIR, as you can see on the left side of the chart, the fact that we are continuing progressing and we are actually in the lower, if not the best, of our peers in terms of comparison. That's one on the left part of our activity. And then you have the right part of our activity where we have introduced the comparison as well on Integrated Power TRIR, comparing our result to the one of the peers in that industry where you can see that we have been able to progress from above 1.5 in terms of TRIR in 2020 to 0.78. That's today something which is very at the leading edge of what is done in that industry of Integrated Power that has been realized by working on the technological risk, as I've just mentioned in the previous slide, and as well working on behavioral safety with two things. One, the way we operate our facility, and second, the way we build because we have a huge exposure to construction manpower. That was for safety. Thank you, Jean-Pierre. I should introduce in the room because you have our Executive Committee members, but you can identify them. So Nicolas is just there. Nicolas Terraz, Vincent from Refining and Chemicals, Bernard is next to Renaud, and we have in the back Aurélien and Namita, which are there. I think I did not forget anybody. Helle is in Japan, so she's not in London, but she's probably listening to us. So, Jean-Pierre, the floor is yours now. Thank you very much. It's a real pleasure to be here with you today to present the 2024 results and the main achievement of the year. So as you know, our strategy, balanced and consistent strategy, is anchored on two pillars. So oil and gas, mainly LNG on one side, and Integrated Power on the other side. We have made great progress in 2024 executing this strategy and anchoring free cash flow growth on both pillars, oil and gas and Integrated Power. So let's start with the highlights of the year 2024. On the first pillar, oil and gas, we started production at five major projects, so Mero- 2 and Mero- 3 in Brazil, in deep offshore Brazil, Akpo West in Nigeria, Anchor in the Gulf of Mexico in the U.S., and Fénix in Argentina. We launched four major oil projects, GranMorgu in Suriname, Atapu- 2 and Sépia- 2, and our two offshore projects in Brazil and Kaminho in Angola. We progress in Namibia, where we are working towards sanctioning a first oil development, but Patrick will give you more details later on. In LNG business, we reduce the risk of exposure to spot gas prices in accordance with the strategy we presented to you during the CMD New York in October. That means that we continue to successfully market our LNG volumes by signing several new contracts mid-term with Asian buyers representing in 2024 more than six million tonnes a year, mostly with an oil indexation. Secondly, we increased upstream gas integration in the U.S. by acquiring interest in dry gas assets in the Eagle Ford play in Texas. We launched also the Marsa LNG project in Oman, and we became a significant gas operator in Malaysia through the acquisition of 100% of SapuraOMV, which provides us LNG pricing exposure and a platform for future low-cost, low-carbon growth in terms of production. In summary, on this first pillar, oil and gas, we anchored our upstream production growth forecast of 3% per year through 2030 in a cash-accretive way, and we record a proved reserve replacement ratio above 150%, one of our records in TotalEnergies history. Moving now to the second pillar, Integrated Power, we were very active in 2024 in that business as well. You see on the slide some of the achievements of the year, the main highlights of the year. I will come back on that later, but very important, we reached our cash flow target to have a cash flow from operation above 2.5. We are at 2.6 in 2024, and I think, obviously, it's a very good achievement. Let's move to the figure. We believe that the company delivered once again solid results in 2024. In a softer price environment compared to the previous year, 2023, the company generated almost $30 billion, $29.9 billion of CFO coming from all the different businesses, and you see here the repartition of this cash flow generation segment by segment. First, E&P contributed very strongly to this performance with a cash flow generated in 2024 at $17 billion, benefiting from the oil project startup I already mentioned in my introduction. Integrated LNG business performed with a cash flow at $4.9 billion. It was negatively impacted by lower average LNG prices compared to the year before, low market volatility during the first three-quarters of the year. That impacted gas trading results. But on the positive side, you will see that the Q4 result showed LNG trading performance back to the level of the first quarter 2023. I will make a zoom on that later. Integrated power continues to strike records of strong performance through the year with high cash flow year- over- year, $2.6 billion 2024. Downstream cash flow reflects, in fact, the global weak margin environment, especially in Europe, with refining margins down by almost 45% year- over- year after the two exceptional years we benefited from in 2022 and 2023 in relation with the Russian crisis, and we suffered as well from operational issues on some of our refineries, especially in France and in the US. However, you can see that the downstream cash flow remained above $6 billion at $6.1 billion, demonstrating the resilience of the company's integrated downstream model. Let's move to the results themselves. So you see that we posted a net income, adjusted net income at $18.3 billion and an adjusted result at $15.8 billion taken into account, mostly in impairments we recorded in the course of the year on SunPower and the exit on some African exploration leases in South Africa in relation with our exit from these blocks, fair adjustments, and inventory variation effects. In terms of profitability, we had a return on equity at 15.8% and a return on capital employed at 14.8% in 2024, which makes TotalEnergies once again the number one in terms of ROI among our peers. In terms of investment, you see the figure. So we invested $15.8 billion. So in the range we gave to you between $17 and $18 billion. On the shareholder return side, we continue to increase the dividends with a distribution of $7.4 billion in 2024, and we executed the $2 billion buyback program per quarter, so leading to $8 billion buyback if you consider all the quarters 2024. Globally, that means that the payout for 2024 reached 50%. Very important to notice that this attractive shareholder distribution was achieved while keeping a very strong balance sheet. You see here the gearing we have end of the year at 8.3% or around 9.5% when normalized. Why? Because this figure, 3.8%, benefited indeed from positive impacts in the working cap for $1.5 billion. So in summary, we maintained fortress balance sheets while increasing the shareholder return in 2024. On the investment side, we remain disciplined in 2024, as evidenced by this figure, net investments being within the guidance $17-$18 billion, $18.8 billion for 2024. So we continue to be highly selective in the project we sanction or we invest in selecting low-cost, high-return, low-emission projects and projects resilient through cycles. Patrick will come back on that later for 2025. As you can see with the pie, TotalEnergies has a balanced growth strategy with one-third of the 2024 CapEx allocated to new oil and gas projects and $4.8 billion to low-carbon energy, mainly renewables, Integrated Power projects for $4 billion. We continue to be active with portfolio management using selective M&A to enhance, to high-grade, in fact, our portfolio. 2024 net CapEx consisted of $16.4 billion of organic CapEx, but also $4.6 billion in acquisition and $3.2 billion in divestment. So once again, that means that we continue to be very active on that side, M&A side. Previously, I described our focused acquisitions on the upstream side, sorry, and on Integrated Power. Our acquisitions are focused on key deregulated markets such as the U.S., the U.K., or Germany. I will come back later on that as well. 2024 divestments included in the upstream our exit from Brunei, so the sale of our E&P subsidiaries in Brunei. In downstream, the closing of a second part of a deal with Alimentation Couche-Tard with the sale of a retail station in Belgium, in the Netherlands, and in Luxembourg. And within integrated power, several divestments in line with our strategy to farm down our projects at COD when the production is ready to start. Just to give you two examples, so solar and battery projects in the U.S. that we closed last December and 50% of our interest in Seagreen projects, offshore wind in the U.K. Let's discuss each of the business segments in more detail. 2024, I think, showcased the depth of our portfolio, upstream portfolio, full of attractive growth opportunities that are translating into project sanctions, delivering high returns and robust reserve replacements. You have here the list of the main projects sanctioned in 2024, four main projects on the oil side and two projects on the gas and LNG side. These projects anchor 3% per year accretive production growth through 2030. Very important to notice that we have already derisked project costs by signing largely lump sum EPC contracts on those projects. The chart on the right-hand side of the slide highlights TotalEnergies' compelling investment case. We already have the resources to grow underlying production and cash flow that will ultimately support dividend growth and attractive shareholder returns. Saying that differently, no need for us to make large acquisition, large M&A to fill any potential gap. Given our consistent strategy, we continue to explore and develop the upstream business. We have maintained a strong and consistent proved reserve life index of around 12 years since 2018. You see here the index for 2024, 12.4 years. It was 11.7 the year before in 2023. I think it's clearly in contrast with some of our peers that posted a decline. That means that Exxon and TotalEnergies are leading the peer group by a wide margin in terms of portfolio longevity, with a key advantage in the depletion business and support cash flow into the next decade. Also, you have the figure for proved and probable reserves, which are now at 8.5 years. Saying that differently, we are not a shrinking company. We have been replacing reserves at a much faster rate than we are depleting them and at a faster pace compared to some of our peers. In 2024, our reserve replacement was a robust 157% of production, up from an already strong figure. It was 141% in 2023. The vast majority was done through organic growth, which translates into a strong organic reserve replacement ratio of 150%. These reserve replacement figures demonstrate clearly the depth once again of our portfolio and that we are successful to replenish it year after year. Let's move to integrated LNG business. As shown in the chart on the lower left, the results at the end of the year, so for the fourth quarter, were at the highest of the year and benefited from improved market conditions, so meaning more volatility, higher price. Adjusted net operating income increased 35% sequentially, and the results were back to the first quarter 2023 level at over $1.4 billion. It's the two blue bars you see on the chart on the lower left. This performance was driven by 6% higher hydrocarbon production for LNG, an average LNG price above $10 per million Btu, and ultimately, LNG trading results that were able to capture higher market volatility. Although this rebound during the fourth quarter, overall, full year 2024 results were negatively impacted by low gas price volatility due to the mild 2023-2024 winter, high stock level, particularly when at the start of the year, low demand, and limited trading opportunities due to globally a balanced global LNG market. What are our expectations or anticipations for 2025? As you can see in the top left chart, a colder 2024-2025 winter and low end of season storage is expected. The end as well of the Russia-Ukraine transit agreement, to use the pipeline to import Russian gas, is also a factor that will contribute to tighten the markets. Tightness in Europe should lead to more competition between Europe and Asia to attract or to capture additional LNG vessels, and it will result in increased arbitrage opportunities for flexible cargoes between the U.S. and Europe and Asia. This should benefit TotalEnergies, given our dominant regas position in the U.S. and our large position as an LNG exporter in the U.S. We are number one, as you know, in that matter. Moving now to Integrated Power business, 2024 was a continuation of our multi-year track record of performance in that business. It's definitely a growing business. You see here the progress that we made between 2021 and 2024. We have grown Integrated Power into a business that is yielding strong results. We are able to increase by nearly four times the cash flow over the period 2021-2024, reaching once again our objective to have cash flow in 2024 above $2.5 billion, and ROI increased from 7% to 10%. That was the target we set for the year. In 2024, the company further enhanced integration in deregulated markets through flexible asset acquisitions, so we acquired CCGT in the U.S. and in the U.K. throughout the year for 3 GW, and in addition, we increased storage capacity through the acquisition of a major player in the German battery market called Kyon in the middle of the year. We also have been active in consolidating our renewable portfolio. As part of our farm down strategy in Integrated Power and mentioned in the M&A introduction, we successfully farm down the equivalent of 1.2 GW of renewable and battery projects, resulting in $1 billion of CapEx being recycled with more than 10% return. On top of that, the company acquired VSB. It's a German-based renewable project developer with a sizable 18 GW pipeline, mainly in Germany, France, Poland, with a closing expected this year. In addition, in 2024, the company strengthens its differentiated market offering of clean firm power. For example, you have here two examples. We capture premium pricing through contracting three terawatt-hours of clean firm power to large industrial and big tech companies and through the acquisition of Quadra. So you see here the table. Operated Scope 1 and 2 emissions are down 36% compared to 2015, and at an absolute level, you see the figure. 1 and 2 on our operation or operating facility in 2024 were at 34 million tons compared to our target of being less, of having less than 38.8 million tons of CO2. In fact, reflecting here on two opposite movements, two opposite trends. On one side, a further decline in our operating oil and gas facilities, reflecting an emission reduction initiative undertaken over the last couple of years. And in the other hand, the impact of the integration of the new CCGT I mentioned to you, the acquisition we made in 2024, particularly in the U.S. and in the U.K. On the methane side, the 15% reduction targets we have to reduce the methane on our operation by 50% versus the level we had in 2020. This reduction target was achieved a year early with 2024 operating methane emissions now -55% compared to 2020 levels. We achieved this thanks to continuous decrease in flaring and fugitive emissions in particular in E&P. You have here the example of Gabon with the elimination of routine flaring two years earlier than anticipated. We will continue to reduce operating methane emissions, and we set a new objective for 2025 with a target of minus 60% compared to a reference 2020. To achieve that, you have different actions that will be taken. First, the decision we made last year to deploy continuous detection system across all the operated assets in the company. That means that in 2025, you see here the figure, more than 13,000 equipments for continuous methane tracking will be developed and deployed. Additional technological improvements will be implemented to further reduce methane emissions. You have here some examples to switch gas instrumentation to air or to replace flare tips. Last but not least, we reduced our life- cycle carbon intensity by 17% compared to 2015, which is better than our initial target of 14%. I think this indicator reflects, as you know, the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of energy sold, and which is, in fact, which matter in our industry. This indicator translates perfectly the evolution of our energy mix and the implementation of our strategy, more energy with less emission. The final slide for this section is the benchmark. The positioning, relative performance of TotalEnergies compared with our peers on four important metrics. The proved reserve life index, the upstream production cost, the ROACE return on capital employed, and the dividend per share growth. As already mentioned, our strategy has remained consistent, and it allows us to deliver strong results and to remain in the competition very well positioned. Starting with the upstream, our reserve life index increased, I mentioned to you already, from 11.7 years in 2023 to a very robust 20.4 years in 2024, world-par with ExxonMobil and ahead of the remaining peers, reflecting once again the depth of our portfolio. We have the resources in hand to continue to grow production and to grow the cash flow, the underlying cash flow for years to come, and once again, we do not require big M&A to do that. Moving to the cost, we have upstream production costs. TotalEnergies has consistently reported the lowest upstream production costs per barrel, with 2024 figure below $5 per barrel equivalent. This is, of course, a competitive advantage that we want to keep, allowing the company to be resilient even in a low-price environment. In terms of profitability, we are pleased to report that in 2024, again, TotalEnergies ranked number one in ROI among our peers. It's the third consecutive year that we achieve this performance, demonstrating once again that it's possible to be the most profitable major and to be a leader in the energy transition. On the dividend side, so it's the last graph, the dividend growth, the dividend per share growth, we are positioned number two at 25% growth over the last five years, which reflects our strong commitment vis-à-vis our shareholder. TotalEnergies maintained, as you know, the dividends between the COVID crisis. It was not the case of all our peers. Some of our peers decided to cut the dividend at that time. Our dividend growth is underpinned by the company's deep upstream portfolio, strong free cash flow outlook, and balance sheet with gearing once again at 8.3% end of 2024 or 9.5% after normalization. With that benchmark, I leave the floor to Patrick for 2025 outlook. Thank you, Jean-Pierre, for this 2024, which people say it's less than before, but the two years before were exceptional. It's for us, it's the largest results in the history of the company, so it's still a good year. In fact, again, I said that in 2023 and 2022, after the exceptional year, we were entering into a new era because the balance sheet was completely leveraged. The succession, in fact, of the last three years, it's easier for us to implement the strategy we have decided because we went in a world where we have more, I would say, capacity to deploy it. And that's what we've done in 2024. Jean-Pierre, I've said several times, we have a deep portfolio of plenty of good opportunities. What I will show you is that in 2025, what we want to do is not only to grow, but also to deliver additional free cash flows, which are the most important. That's why we have this; we selected this title, delivering an aggressive growth and resilient shareholder returns. That's the program for 2025. A few words about the markets. In fact, the oil markets, people told me, so the title, I think when you look at the figure, it's a little stable. In fact, this line is quite flat, in fact. Okay, it was flat in a higher way last year than this year, but in fact, we can say that with two different, in fact, environments, in 2023, still a very high increase of the demand because of the end of the COVID recovery in China. In 2024, the full year markets were more bearish about the demand. At the end, it's only 0.8 million barrels per day, but all the expectations on the supply side did not materialize, in fact, as it was anticipated, and finally, at the end, the OPEC+ has done a good job to maintain this price, I would say, above $70-$75 per barrel. I think for when we look to 2025, I expect IEA, not us. We have no forecast said + 1.1 million barrels per day of oil demand, which will be higher than 2024. By the way, it's more or less the average of a little less than 1% that we observe over 20 years. Good news from 2024, by the way, is that the increase of oil demand in India was as big as the one in China. So we have a new engine of oil demand growth in the world. India is moving to more infrastructure, more manufacturing business model than the one we had in mind. On the supply side, of course, 2025, strong supply from non-OPEC and the U.S. policy. The U.S. administration is willing to push this production up. So the U.S., the U.S., by the way, liquid production in 2024 increased by 0.7 million barrels per day. And when we spoke, by the way, about liquids, it's in fact more NGLs than oil because, in fact, most of the liquids production in the U.S., it's coming from the increase of the gas and all the associated NGLs. The oil is increased by 0.3. We plan for 0.2-0.3 for 2025. So that's to have that in mind. Of course, Brazil, and we'll come back, we will benefit from the growth in Brazil ourselves. Guyana as well. We are not there. We do not intend to be. We are next to Suriname. We'll see. The market, of course, will be a debate, I think, in 2025 between the U.S. administration and OPEC +. So it will be an interesting debate to observe. We have been a little cautious in the way we approach the year. We put all the results I will show you, all the forecast based on $70. We are more 80, but if I can do it at 70, I could do it even easier at 80. So you will have some sensitivity in the presentation. On the gas, it's quite different. I think last year, the year 2024, you know, and we had a very good, I would say, weather during last winter or mild weather. And in fact, we ended, we exited the winter 2024 with high inventories. And in fact, the full first half of the year, so first, I would say some quite low volatility in the gas markets, around $8-$9 per million Btu for TTF during six months because there was no really need to replenish full storages. The storage were high. And that, of course, did not help, by the way, the capacity, not only the price, absolute price was lower, but also a lower volatility, which did not help our gas trading to perform. For 2025, in fact, as you can see, weather in Europe, at least it's much colder. And you have another element of the, which is not only weather, but you have also the fact that now the transit through Ukraine from Russian gas has been stopped. So it creates another tension in terms of supplying gas to Europe. And what we observe is that today we are already at this stage, two months from only still two months before the end of the winter, at a low, we begin to have depleted quite well the storage. And it's reflected in the forward curve to second quarter 2025. The forward gas is at $16 per million Btu. So it's about $15 per million Btu. So we anticipate clearly, I would say, more volatility in 2025, higher prices. People could say there will be additional energy capacity. It's quite limited. In fact, when we make the map for 2025, we evaluate that around 20 million tons of new capacity coming on stream, which means 5%. So it does not change the fundamental trend. And you will see probably again more competition between European buyers, which need to replenish their inventories, and Asian buyers. So of course, you know, for us, there are two spreads which are fundamental: TTF minus Henry Hub. And then you have the JKM- TTF because it's the arbitrage. With the volumes we have in the U.S. or regas capacity in Europe, of course, we can benefit from more arbitrage when these spreads are going higher, but what we expect, we anticipate, again, we'll see for 2025. Two different environments clearly for gas, energy, and oil. Our KPIs for 2025, our objectives, I will speak about growth, but then, of course, growth is not enough. We need to deliver more free cash flow, and it's more volume, more energy, less emissions, and growing free cash. Globally, our energy production, when I compare the oil and gas and the electrons, will grow by 5%. We'll contribute to, I would say, a global supply to all the people of this planet, 5%, more than 3% growth on the oil and gas, and more than 20% growth on the electricity side. And we will reach more than 50 terawatt-hours. 50 terawatt-hours is halfway of the objective by 2030. And in fact, the electricity production from TotalEnergies will represent 10% of oil and gas production in 2025. So it's for the ones who want to see the transition is in March. It is. It is. It's reality. It's really becoming for me a sizable business. And I would say the achievements in the last five years have been quite, we are on the roadmap, and I would say quite a success. So that's the key. Refining, Vincent will do its most with his teams to have a better utilization rate. I will come back. LNG sales, about 40 million tons. We don't have new, I would say, LNG plants coming on stream. So we should be in the range of what we achieved, 40-45. And renewable gross installed capacity. We set this target of 35 GW by end of 2025 in 2020. I will come back on it. We will be there at 35. We have 26 by end of 2024, and we have exactly 9 GW, which are being built today, 8.9. So maybe 0.1 will miss, but which are being built. It's reality. It's not just an objective. It's a matter to deliver, of course, this capacity. Again, more and more, myself and the board, we attach more and more importance to the production of electricity because at the end, the results are more linked to the production by the gross capacity of renewables. Less emissions. Yes, we continue to make it part of the, I would say, our global agenda. We need to produce more hydrocarbons, but with less emissions. Our Scope 1 and 2, we set an objective less than 37 million tons. Of course, we can say it's not ambitious enough, but we have one difficulty we face. In fact, we have more gas-fired power plants in our portfolio that we acquired in 2024 in the U.K., in the U.S. We will run, and if it's colder in France, we'll have a higher utilization rate, so more CO2. What is important for us is also to see the decrease on the oil and gas operations to 35 million tons in 2024, 34 million tons in 2024, and to be to 33 million tons in 2025. The methane, we are clearly a leader on that part. I think it's a very, it's an easy way for me, for the oil and gas industry to have a real contribution to diminishing this greenhouse gas. It is in our hands. It's stop flaring. It's stop venting, things which are not high tech, I would say, close flare. So we have really embarked a whole company. And Nicolas is really very strong about it. He's a master of close flare all over the place, all over our installations, setting all these continuous equipments for detection of methane like for oil. And I think it's really, we want to be leaders, and the teams are motivated. And last but not least, because it's the marker of our strategy, our transition strategy of transition, which is the carbon intensity of the sales of energy. The word sales is missing there. We have reduced it by 17%. We want to continue to, we are in fact quicker than on our roadmap because we deliver the, of course, the electrons, which are, I would say, a decarbonizing part of our sales. But last but not least, all that because we want to grow the free cash flow. So we selected three indicators. I will give you some others in the presentation. Production costs less than $5 could be five, but not. So we don't need to have a big, I would say, cost-saving plan, but we are permanently maintaining. And honestly, the fact that we have been able for the last three years, despite the inflation that we face, to maintain this less than $5 is maybe not spectacular, but it is indeed. So other companies of my peers have engaged in large cost-saving plans. I think we've done it between 2015 and 2020. We have the benefit. And today we are strong with the team, are very efficient to manage these $5 per barrel. The CapEx, I will come back on it. I'm sure you will have questions, $17-$17.5 billion as a range. And cash flow from operations, more than $29 billion at $70. We've done $29.80 billion. So it's quite an improvement. There is some free cash, some additional cash flow. And the objective of my presentation, we tell you where it will come from, in fact, so that you can certify that all this balance of all the business model and the strong returns we intend to deliver to shareholders are in safe hands, which is true. So by the way, the CapEx first. It's true that we gave you a guidance of $18 billion, I think, in New York on organic CapEx. Today we came with organic CapEx of $17 billion, so reduction, and a global CapEx, including M&A of $17-$17.5 billion. Why? In fact, it's because we've done some few, we've done work, in fact. We have to be clear. All the growth-accretive projects will be developed as planned. There is no reduction on any of the nice opportunities we have in our portfolio. I'm completely on the line of Darren Woods from that perspective, no change. But at the same time, we have many projects. With Nicolas and with all that, with the teams, not to oversweat the team by continuing to invest in small projects, but focusing the world company to deliver these large accretive projects by the program. It helped us, I would say, in the upstream to find $500 million of small projects, which at the end, it's 50 + 50 + 50, but it's a sort of dispersion. Focusing because we know also, but we have a workforce and we cannot do everything at the same time. So it does not impair the global production profile that we have to deliver to you, but it's a question of streamlining, focusing the teams, being efficient in the way we spend our cash. The other decision we took to be more in the low carbon molecules, it's a little slighter. It was $800-$900 million in the report of $900 million in the report of 2024. It's only $500 million the budget. We drew some lessons and we consider today that it's better in some businesses like EV charging or biogas to have a leverage for equity. We don't see enough returns in all that, to be honest. In terms of allocation of equity of the company, full equity is not our priority. And we drew some lessons. That doesn't mean that we don't continue to do it, but we moved to some business models with less capital intensity. It's not major. On the SAF molecules, we continue. In fact, the budget, you know, we have this big project in Grandpuits with the Vincent team, which will end before year end. So it's the end of the project. So we have done the top. So that's why also. But $500 million, so low carbon molecules is reduced because we drew some lessons. It doesn't mean we will not continue the SAF strategy. It means that we are allocating our capital and our equity in the best way. So that's the reason why we came down to $17-$17.5 billion. We still have, in case of challenging market conditions, we have identified another $1 billion, which we could decide to arbitrate during the year. At this stage, it's not necessary. Power is at $80, $75, $80. So it's not a situation. So that's why I would like to, it's also true that compared to September, we continue to execute the lump sum EPC contracts. And a lot of them are largely lump sum. So we have security, I would say. We have a good vision for 2025 of what we will spend. If there were overrun, it's not in 2025, it's more in 2028. So I hope it will not be. So that's also why we are confident. And of course, it's a good work. It's an effort, but continuing to streamline even more when you have a large portfolio of opportunities, I think it's a good discipline. So I announced to you a growth of more than 3% for the upstream growth, oil and gas. In fact, you have here the list of the new projects, the new productions, which represent 150,000 barrels per day. What is remarkable on this chart is that six of the eight projects are already started. So it's mainly a matter of ramp-ups. We have two projects which have to come on stream, Ballymore in the Gulf of Mexico and Mero- 4 in Brazil, where, by the way, the operator is a little more optimistic than ourselves. So it's good. By the way, there are other characteristics on this slide. You have three gas projects, Fénix, Tyra, and Jerun in Malaysia. You have five oil projects. It's important for the next slide. And by the way, Total is operating four, Petrobras three, and Chevron two. So we rely on two of our big operators, but nice operators. So I'm quite comfortable with this figure of 3% because it's mainly ramp-ups and we are on the way to deliver it. Of course, it's more important. It's not only growing production, it's additional cash flow. And that's the good news and important news when we look to this file is that the growth of 3% of our upstream production, more than three, will be translated in terms of cash flow from operations by an increase of more than 8%. In fact, this portfolio of projects, of course, the portfolio in Brazil and in the Gulf of Mexico are accretive compared to. And that means that for the same amount of CapEx, in fact, more or less the same between the two years, organic CapEx, you will have an increase of $1.3 billion of free cash. 8% is $1.5, sorry, $1.5 billion of free cash, which will come from this growth, and I think that's a good news, of course, for that's why we have the board. We are confident in the return to shareholders and we have decided again to increase the dividend by another 7% and the final dividend by 7.6%, so that's, I think, important with TotalEnergies. Its value over volume, it's not just growing, it's also delivering more free cash flows. One of the countries in which it's successful from this perspective, which will contribute to this additional free cash, is Brazil. Brazil, in fact, is becoming in 2025 the number one country in our portfolio in terms of cash flow from operations. It's new. Maybe you did not notice, but in fact, since 2015, we have built a portfolio. Today, we will have eight fields producing 180,000 barrels per day. So it's a successful story. It's quite interesting, by the way, to build such a position. The average margin at $70 per barrel is about $35 per barrel. And so in Brazil, we'll continue to invest because we have two other projects that we sanctioned in 2024, Sépia- 2 and Atapu- 2, which will contribute to additional free cash in 2030. But the free cash formula in 2025 at $70 per barrel will be $1.4 billion, and $10 per barrel would add another $400 million. So it's a strong position that we have built since 2015. Again, we operate Lapa. Petrobras is our operator on most of that. And we had access to, when you look to the history of the cost of access to all these resources, it was in fact quite a good, quite a low countercyclical cost of access. We did not discover them, but between the deals we've done with Petrobras in 2015, 2016, then the TOR round where we participated with low competition, we managed to be. It's a good demonstration on how to build a strong position in a new country. We have also some exploration potential. We continue to look to that. The other country on which I want to touch a point because I'm sure we'll have plenty of questions is Namibia, so I prefer to preempt the questions. Our friends have made some decisions. In fact, we know, to be clear, we share the same partner and we have the data. We have some data sharing agreements between our friends and ourselves. So we can compare. It's true that we were probably, I would say, more lucky or stronger or better, but they selected a block where clearly the Venus discovery has better characteristics, petrophysical characteristics. The oil in place density, 10-20 million per barrel of oil compared to the adjacent discovery, which was less than five. It's a thick reservoir of 80m-120 m. The permeability is not very high. We'll come back on it, but it's 2-4 millidarcy compared to, I would say, less than one. So all that makes, in fact, the commerciality of this discovery is achievable. It's in our hands. We are working on it. That's why we don't make any write-off because in the country, we want to transform this discovery into production. So probably we have there the heart of the system on this eastern, on this western part of Namibia Orange Basin. So there are some challenges. That doesn't mean it's not challenging. Yes, the permeability is not high. There is a high GOR. Our GOR in our license is lower than the neighboring one, 500 against 700. So still again, that means that the challenge is in fact that you have, as we don't flare, I remind you, we don't flare, no flaring policy. We have to reinject the gas in the low permeability matrix. So that means that we cannot, the plateau on which that we will reach will be lower considering, but it will be a very longer plateau and a slow decline along the years. So we are designing today a project of 150,000 barrels of oil per day production. It's a very light oil, 45 API, which is good for its value, with a long shallow decline after the plateau. The other challenge is 3,000 m water depth and 300 km from the coast, but that's, I would say, not really impacting. I mentioned them because, but it's not really impacting. So our objective and we are to be able, I will not tell you less than $20 per barrel, but today we are confident we can reach $20 per barrel of development costs. And also, of course, to continue to minimize our greenhouse gas emissions, we target 15 kg of CO2 per barrel on this development. So on this one, the plan is to move forward. We apply the same ideas as on Suriname, taking FPSO with contractor standards, which have been quite efficient in terms of managing the costs. There are some ideas to optimize, by the way, even the design of the FPSO, the contractors. I don't promise you we'll sanction it before year-end. I know it's an internal objective. I'm more about beginning the first half of 2026, but it's an important, it's a good project on which we are working. So it's good news for Namibia and of course for TotalEnergies. Our neighbors in the north, we are not surprised by the results because the last well we drilled Tamboti was not good. So we are not surprised that the neighbor in the north did not make any discovery. It's quite consistent. We are in the center of this ecosystem. I would like to add that we have in fact some potential, continue to explore, and so it's not end-to-end. Venus is a focus of, I would say, the engineering and project teams. But we will drill, I think, during the second quarter. The rig is on its way, Marula, which is a big prospect. You can see it's south of Venus. We have another one on this block in Namibia, which is called Olympe on the next block. It's a different theme, but it might be, it's an interesting exploration to drill. We plan to do it either in the end of 2025, beginning 2026, because we would like to have a full campaign between Olympe and then continuing in South Africa. We took some positions on the Orange Basin on the South Africa side where we have two prospects to be drilled. One is called Volstruis and the other one Nyala. So the permitting process in South Africa is a little longer than in some other countries. The idea is that in 2025, 2026, to have a rig coming and drilling these three exploration wells. So an important year for Namibia for progressing on the project. On integrated energy, I will not come back on all the comments of Jean-Pierre. We explained to you that I mentioned it about the environment for gas price. Yes, we think we might have a better environment, not only absolute term, but also in terms of volatility if we maintain the performance of the fourth quarter. But again, we should, and the target is to come back to after a year where we are, I think, at $4.8 billion of cash flow to come back to target six, not more, but let's target $6 billion. And Stéphane and his teams are taking actions. 2025 is also a year for us where we have to progress a number of projects, energy projects, which will come on stream in 2026. It is a case of Energía Costa Azul in Mexico and North Field East in Qatar mainly. Nigeria LNG 2027 will be end of 2026, so little impact on the 2026 performance, but more for 2027. So that's also, as you can see, we have six energy projects which today are being built. And this is, of course, another part of the execution efforts of all the teams of TotalEnergies. Last but not least, a lot has been done in 2024 with this strategy of securing some long-term contracts with Asian buyers successfully. It has been done, six million tons, a very good achievement. We will continue to work on it because if we have opportunities, as we think that the market might be softened by the end of the decade, it's a good way to take benefit of it if we have some good contracts which are all long-term. That's for this one. A word about Integrated Power. On this slide, there are only some few figures. I would say, again, this year 2025, we will reach this electrons production will represent 10% of the oil and gas production. So I think it's a good block on our roadmap, halfway of 30 objectives. In terms of cash flow from operations, we say $2.5-$3 billion. We made $2.6 billion. We have benefited in the last, in 2024, and 2023, by the way, of some hedges which we had done because of the high electricity price of 2022. We don't have them in 2025, but we have additional productions. We have new gas-fired power plants. So we are confident we could meet again these objectives in terms of cash generation. It's not written, but maintaining the 10% ROACE, even increasing it, is of course on the roadmap of Stéphane and his teams. We are working, but I will answer questions. On the downstream, so it's clear that the landscape has changed. You have on the left the refining margin, the European refining margins, which for us is quite an important, I would say, API. The environment has changed in the middle of the year. You can see you have the in gray, the min and the max 2018, 2021, before which is a war. You have where we were in the last, you can see where we were in 2022, 2023, largely above, but it was, I would say, hysterical markets. We benefited from it. In 2024, we are back to a sort of normalization, a little low because $25 per ton is a break-even. So I prefer $35 per ton. As we are optimistic, we have made the budget and $35 per ton. But maybe if there are tariffs on Canadian crude oil, we could reach it. Yesterday, it was at 40, so it's not impossible. Sometimes you have some events in this planet which can help you. You don't control everything. But what we should do, that's why we have a target of $7 billion downstream compared to the $6.1 this year, because there was also some miss, to be clear, on the operational side, which we estimate a little less than $1 billion, I would say. But we hope and so his teams are really motivated to eliminate this miss, a very poor performance on Donges, which was not in fact running well. We are hoping that it will run again from March. We had some issues on the cracker in Normandy, not because of a cracker, but because there was a storage, there was an accident, a technological accident, independent of our will, but which affected us. This is all, so we are back to normality. Port Arthur as well is quite a challenge for years. We have change of management. We hope it will deliver better returns, so it's a matter of coming back, I would say, on fundamentals. Of course, discipline on costs, but also delivering the energy efficiency program should deliver $100 million. And of course, plant availability, so that's the refining. This downstream segment is helped, I can tell you, by performance of the marketing and the trading. The marketing is quite remarkable because we sold quite a large portion of our German, Dutch, Belgian networks. In fact, the cash flow from the marketing in 2024 is at $2.3 billion. It was exactly the same, but $2.3 with these networks. So we sold them for $3.2 billion. And in the meantime, I've seen no impact on the cash flow generated by the division. So it's quite remarkable, and I can congratulate the teams of Bernard. So at the end, you could tell me we would have done $100 million more, but I like the idea that we cash in these networks in an environment where we are not strategic assets. And at the end, we continue the performance. Trading is doing well as well. And that's why we target $7 billion, an improvement, but we have some good reasons. It's not just a margin assumption. It's fundamentally solving the operational issues we had and continuing to deliver on marketing and trading as per which are resilient. So all that gave us, and I will give you the math, but before the board of directors look at it, we have a growth in front of us, a growth of free cash flow. And I mentioned $1.5 billion additional free cash coming at $70 from the upstream growth in 2025. We planned $10 billion. So it's a step between 2024 and 2030. So it's a good step. So this, we are confident. We have a strong balance sheet. The board of directors for the third year in a row decided to increase the dividend by 7%. Here, it's not for the full exercise. It's paid dividend per year. So that's why you see 7.2. But it's paid in a year. It's a combination of two exercises and some interim dividends. So in fact, since for the last three years, we have increased the dividend by more than 20%. It's quite a good, I think, return to our shareholders. We have translated the euro per share because our dividend is denominated in euro, in dollar per share on this chart because we have some dollar investors. That's true, but they benefit from higher growth, by the way, at 1.1 in the last two years. 1.04, 0.5, it's a little lower. The average for U.S. investors on 2022, 2025, compared to 7.1 for a European investor would be between 6.5 and 7.8. I would say it's not, it depends on the exchange rate, but it's a strong also nice upgrade. On the buyback, it's a strength chart. I don't know if it's a Mondrian chart, but we have bars of $2 billion, $2 billion, $2 billion. I told you in New York that we want to maintain the $2 billion, assuming reasonable market conditions. The market conditions are very reasonable. So we maintain the $2 billion. I know there were some question marks among you after the third quarter results, I believe. But generally, when we announce something, we are consistent. We know what we do. And of course, it has been reinforced by the strong low gearing at the end of the year, by the end of the year. We knew that there will be a way to return this draw on the working capital. It's not, we will try to find a way to normalize it around the quarter. That's true, but it has some fiscal effects. 8.3% of gearing is low, but I remind you, we were at 7% in end of 2022, at 5% end of 2023, 8.5% end of 2024. So the track record under 10 is quite well established in this company. So we have some room, let me be clear, and that's why I can confirm that the intent is to maintain this $2 billion of buyback per quarter. We make some math. You have them on this chart on the left. At $70, we would generate, I will tell you, more than $29 billion. So we have, yes, a deficit and CapEx, of course, a lower CapEx is helping the, I would say, the balance. You have something like, I would say, $33 billion. So you have a gap of four. It represents 2%-3% gearing increase, less than 2.5% gearing increase at $70. At At $80, it's almost nothing. So in fact, considering the sensitivity, you have $1 billion. So it's an equation which I think is quite completely affordable with a strong balance sheet. That's why I confirm to you our intent to maintain this $2 billion per quarter. As I told you in New York, you have the sensitivity which did not change fundamentally on this chart. So, to finalize, to end my presentation, this is a chart we show you in New York, I think: more energy, less emission, growing free cash. We just introduced the year 2025 to remind you the framework in which we are to grow the energy production by 4% per year over the six years through 2030. We'll do it 5% in 2025. electricity should represent 20%. We'll be at 10% halfway in 2025, less emissions, and growing cash flow, which I think is very important. What is remarkable is that, as you can see, at $70, $12 per million Btu TTF and $35 per ton, which is more or less $10 per barrel, only different from 2024, we could deliver a free cash, which is the same at $70, but at $80. At $80, an additional $3 billion compare. Again, it's coming. That's a strong message I want you to keep in mind that we grow, but we grow for value, and we grow for accretive growth and additional free cash flows to feed the returns to our shareholders. The last slide did not change. It's very consistent in TotalEnergies. I strongly believe in the energy world, but consistency is essential in terms of strategy. To be resilient is important. We have, and it's a result of hard work for a very deep upstream portfolio. And you've seen it through this 157 renewal reserve after 141 last year, which will grow again, which will anchor the growth of our production for 2030. On energy, we have a good position, very well positioned with the U.S., European position to benefit from arbitrage. And this is what the teams of Stéphane are doing. Integrated Power, it's on the way, on the roadmap that we set. And I gave you all the elements of the financial framework to support this strategy. Thank you for your attention, and I will be happy to answer with Jean-Pierre and with all the executive committee members in the room to your questions. Okay, let's move on to the Q&A. So maybe Henry, yeah? Hi, thanks for taking my question. It's Henry Tarr at Berenberg. Just a couple. In Namibia, I think you mentioned sort of Tamboti, perhaps not living up to expectations. If you give a little bit more color on that, that would be great. And then just on the LNG business, what flexibility do you have this year in terms of sort of cargoes that are available to drive that incremental cash flow in integrated LNG? Thank you. Okay, Tamboti, Nicolas, you want to answer? You need to take a microphone. Otherwise, nobody will listen to you. So Tamboti, there was oil, oil pool. We performed a test of the well. Permeability was low, lower than Venus, so what Patrick explained, moving to the north. So the well did flow, but limited flow. So less good than Venus, basically. No, there is no commerciality, to be clear. So we cannot think to connect Tamboti to Venus. The game is over on Tamboti, to be clear. And in fact, it was a risk we knew because when we drilled one of the Venus well appraisal, we saw in the north some degradation. But we wanted to drill it because it was a sizable prospect. And in case, it could have been an additional. But the petrophysics are poor, I would say, are more in the same type of range, but what has been written off by some of our colleagues. So we know the limit in the north. We know the limit on the north and west. So we continue to look to the rest of the block. The one of Stéphane, you want to answer to the flexibility you have in your portfolio? Stéphane is there. You will have a microphone there. Yes, so the flexibility that we have in the portfolio is, as you know, we have a supply that is largely coming from the U.S. And those US volumes either go to Europe or Asia. And as Patrick mentioned, the spread between JKM and TTF should be quite volatile because of low stock in Europe. So we expect people to fight for that LNG. So we will be able to divert the cargo depending on the best market from that US position. When we have a long-term contract, generally, we are close to rediverse or divert the cargo with some profit sharing. So it's quite flexible. In fact, it's the advantage to be a company portfolio. And we have the regasification capacity in Europe, I remind you, 20 million ton to welcome, to take all this LNG. So this is the infrastructure is helping us from this point of view. Michele? Yeah, here. Thank you. Michele Della Vigna from Goldman Sachs. Two questions, if I may. The first one is on tariffs, clearly a very hot topic at the moment. You've got exposure to various parts of the U.S. energy value chain, renewables, LNG plants. Is there any area where you would see potential tariffs as being inflationary from your CapEx perspective? I'm thinking especially the value chain of the LNG plants, but also perhaps some parts of your downstream business there as well. And then secondly, on gas, there's a big debate about summer in Europe with potentially Germany forcing 90% inventories by the end of the summer. Do you see the market being able to do that or a potential repeat of 2022 with a hard competition on price with Asia? Under second one, I think it's clear. But for me, that's why my message. I think with the situation of European storage, if we are too aggressive to replenish our storage and we don't give them a little more time, and the situation is not exactly the same for Germany because we have more regas terminals today. In 2022, we were all afraid not to have. We were trying to put maximum storage because we had a lack of infrastructure. In the meantime, we have built. So we have bought some floating units in Germany. You have five million tons of capacity, but also in France, we have one. So we have more infrastructure. So I think the situation should be a little more. But if we go to rush, the only way to rush is to take the LNG from Asia and to pay more. And again, it could be inflationary. So we need to, so I think today, yes, we have a risk of that. I'm not sure it's not good for European customers. For European LNG player like TotalEnergies, it's not necessarily bad, but up to us to also, for me, the situation is not again because we have built some infrastructure. So the Europeans should take that into consideration. And not just because in 2022, we were super afraid. We had a lack of regas capacities on the continent. Today, we had some of them. Not everything, but we have more. And so it's still there. So that's the point. But yes, I think what's my message? I think there will be some, we could have higher prices, gas prices and tensions. Again, the spread between, that's why the arbitrage from the U.S., which even because of the Panama Canal is even more, that could be another element of the puzzle. On the tariff, we are entering a new world. I said that to the board yesterday. None of us have never worked in the world of tariff or tariff wars. It was the old world. We have built a global world with almost no tariffs. So we fought everything. It was easy to move. I mean, I think we have pragmatic guys, by the way, they are able to take decisions and to change their mind, which is good leadership when you are able to see that you could have some points. We could have some difficulties. It's true that you have some value chains, but it's true not only for refining or downstream. It's true for car manufacturing. A lot of spare parts are moving across the border between Mexico and the U.S. So you could have this type, which is a strand, which is not good news. You could have also some good effects for European refiners. If you have a tariff on heavy crude oil in Canada, you will benefit from it. So yes, you might have your effect. At the end of the day, I think my view is that U.S. administration will be pragmatic in the interest of the business people. It's fundamentally, it's a country where business is first, more than in Europe. In Europe, we can't shout, but they don't listen too much to us unless we take strong decisions. In the U.S., it's more open to that, including the president. So I say, let's say today you have a sort of, I think 2025 will be a little shaky. So let's be ready. But maybe it's the best for us is not to take too quick decisions in the wrong way, to observe what will remain really policies in place. It's the same, by the way, for the fiscal policy in the U.S. for renewable. But let's see what will happen in the Congress. Again, I was looking. I asked this morning to Stéphane to give me the map of the federal lands which are forbidden for onshore wind. Texas, there is no federal land at all, just to be clear. It's the Rockies. It's part of the federal lands. And when we cross in the history of the U.S., they went beyond the Rockies. So I mean, let's observe what will happen. I think the best, my view is that we need to observe, not to overreact, and to let these coming six months will give us more answers to many questions, to the enthusiasm at the beginning of the administration. But it's true that we might have to adapt. And we are not all what we have designed. The supply chain has been designed not only in our industry, but in all industries as a world with no tariff or very limited ones. So suddenly, if you disrupt it, you might have bad effects, but also maybe some good effects on the other side. So let's observe. But I take your point. And yesterday, I said to the board, we have there, we have to be able to be very adaptable and to react, to look at it. Okay. Okay. Martijn? Hi, hello. It's Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley. I have two questions, if I may. I wanted to ask you about Suriname. So Staatsolie in Suriname, in a recent bond offering, suggested a level of CapEx for the project that was perhaps a little slightly higher than what we sort of generally understood. And I was wondering if you had a comment on that, whether you're comfortable with the CapEx in Suriname. And the other thing I wanted to ask you is about trading. It's a bit of an open-ended question, but of course, trading was very, very profitable generally in the industry 2022, 2023, came down a lot in 2024. But it's hard to know exactly how much. Can you perhaps say a bit about how the earnings evolution of trading has been and more broadly what your ambitions are in that business going forward, how you see that business changing? Staatsolie, I don't know where. The budget is $10.5 billion, as we mentioned that in September, but there's no change at all. So I don't know. Staatsolie maybe is using it. They have a small production or to leverage some money, some cash. I don't know. So you have to ask them a question, but there is no change at all. There is no impact. I know we are very close to them and we are monitoring them. So no, there is no impact, no new elements compared to the budget we gave you. Okay. So from this perspective, obviously, on the trading, in fact, honestly, there are different things. We have been quite open to you about the gas trading. On the oil trading, in fact, it's true that it was an incredible year in 2022, but the year 2024 was a strong year, was a good year on our side. We don't see lower, but strong. In fact, nothing even higher than it was before 2022, than 2021 when I compare the results. So I think the teams have adapted. It's really linked to the volatility of the market. Traders, they complain when things are flat. They don't know what to do. It's flat. So we don't like that. When it's a little more rocky, they're happy. So for me, on my side, I'm not sure I'm competing with them, but no, but it's there. I mean, as we said, we are a strong contributor. We don't ask them to take more risk. It's up to them to manage their business. And if they do better results, they have a better pay. That's quite easy. So we have a strong motivation. Dierk, there, please. But on the oil side, there was no miss, to be clear. No miss. Hi, thanks for taking my question. It's actually maybe for Stéphane on Integrated Power, but there's obviously a lot of excitement around data centers and power demand associated with that. I was wondering if you could just give some of your perspectives on what you're hearing from the customers. What are they looking for? And in particular, could you just do a little compare and contrast across the regions you're in, U.S., Northwest Europe, and maybe Asia? Thanks. Stéphane might comment. I think several comments. First, on our side, our business model, Integrated Power, is linked to the combination of renewable and flexible assets. We strongly believe that this market, what we call the clean firm power, we managed to sell. We have been effective, and we sold 3.3 terawatt-hours per year at this stage to different customers, 25% to GAFAM, by the way. We begin to enter into this market. There is more to be done. The figure I gave you, it's when we sell as TotalEnergies, if I'm adding the Clearway sales, because we are also non-operated assets with Clearway, it's 7 terawatt-hours per year. We benefit somewhere from this market. But what we are looking at, we are not in the infrastructure business. Investing in gas-fired power plants, in a big part of data centers and gas-fired power plants, which is a sort of infrastructure with, I would say, a return, which is an infrastructure return, a sort of regulated business, it's not what we are targeting. What we want is to offer, and we have still some dialogue. We have dialogues with some hyperscalers about, do you combine renewables, gas-fired power plants, peakers, and batteries? The renewables, in fact, are lowering the cost because when we use renewable, it helps to lower the price at the end for the PPA. So it's a source of cheaper electricity. But of course, if they want 24/7 reliability, we need to combine it with CCGT, peakers, batteries. And this is a combination where we think we can not only have a reliable electricity, but also a cheaper one, which is honestly what they target. Of course, today, they want a lot of volume. They are all shouting that they don't have enough. But if it's expensive, I'm not sure they want to get it. The other points where we have, I'm listening to this concept which is coming in the U.S. about big data park, I would say, or huge park combining several gigawatts plus. In our dialogue, we were discussing with Stéphane again yesterday, or in our dialogue about with hyperscalers, they attach a lot of value to the reliability. And the reliability is not coming only if you have an independent, I would say, park, independent from the grid, but does not mean a reliable system. So some hyperscalers that we discussed with them are willing to have the connection to the grid as well. And the grid, not only, so it's a grid where you would be able, in case of unreliable supply from your own sources, to bring, to withdraw, I would say, electricity from the grid. It is more this business in which we are, this integrated business, taking benefits of the assets, but just building capacities as an infrastructure. But maybe Stéphane wants to add on my comments to give some complement to what I just explained. So yes, we look at it, but more in the dynamic of what we call integrated and clean firm power. Yeah, no, just to add on what Patrick has said, just on the geography of it, there is a clear focus on the U.S. first and notably in Texas, where we have a large presence, and as Patrick mentioned, where we can offer a blend of renewable, peakers, CCGT, and batteries. That's one. And we start to see an interest as well on some European countries, notably Germany, where we have tried to develop our presence. The good thing as well is that in the U.S., there is a clear focus on time to market. And one way to be able to deliver on the 2028 target, 2029 target, is clearly to use existing pipe and under-construction assets. Otherwise, that's going to be quite challenging to deliver on time. The other idea is that I understand that today, when you build some new farms, you try to have a connection in both ways. I know. That's not for tomorrow, but the day after tomorrow is that any project we do now, we try to preserve some land to be able to welcome that as under. And at the same time, we ask for the grid connection to supply the grid. We have to be able to withdraw the power. Because, as Patrick mentioned, they need to be connected to the grid for reliability reasons. And the idea that you can only build that on beyond the meter is probably not going to work. Chris, there. Thank you. Christopher Kuplent from Bank of America. Two questions, if I may, Patrick. I think you've been powerfully presenting how busy you are growing organically. But nevertheless, I wanted to ask you, where do you think today is it most attractive to buy rather than to build? Where do you see the biggest opportunities in the M&A market, considering your ambitions all the way into 2030? And my second question, I'm afraid someone's got to ask you about Mozambique. Your 2030 numbers you presented in October were including Mozambique. What can you give us as an update? Thank you. Okay. We don't need M&A. We have an organic growth. So today, again, it's not the right time. I think we can sell. We have a divestment program at $70, $80 per barrel. It's not the right time to buy. I mean, we'll look again, as you know, if we have continued to have opportunities for TotalEnergies in the US shale gas to continue to replenish. We have done two deals, but we need to have more. So that's remained clearly for me a priority. So if there are good opportunities, and I have teams today, we are looking around and trying to be imaginative and creative. You have some shale oil producers. We have a lot of associated gas with mostly negative value. So they might have a way to make a deal there. And we are working with some of them. So we'll see this remain. And we have today is quite low. So it's quite accessible, I would say, these types of things. Otherwise, honestly, I'm not, we don't have a big need. We are working on other ideas. On the Integrated Power, yes, we will continue to acquire, but it's more recycling capital because this year, Jean-Pierre, I said it's a good achievement. We sold 1.2 GW farm down, so recycling $1 billion. The target was more around 2 than 1.2, to be honest. So we have still, so I remember the internal targets. Okay, Jean-Pierre is nice, but he's fine with all his colleagues. But in fact, we were more targeting 2. We know what we missed. It was two countries on which we were almost closed, and finally, we had an issue with the buyer, so we decided not to close it. But so it's 2 GW/year, it's recycling $2 billion. This $2 billion should always. That's why we are already at the plateau in terms of CapEx in Integrated Power, even if we want to continue to grow. This one, for me, it's a matter now of the model must continue to recycle this capital to be able to grow the assets. That's fundamental. On this one, I would say it's quite obvious what do we target. In Germany, we need to target some one or two gas-fired power plants to maintain. Then we'll have the full value chain. That's clear. U.S., PJM, things like that. But again, today in the U.S., the gas-fired power plants, because of these hyperscalers, they are so expensive. We are lucky to go beyond. Let's wait. Let's wait and see. Today, it's very fashionable. It could come back. That's, I would say, this type of example. But it's not big deals. And by the way, Stéphane has already consumed quite a lot of his M&A acquisition budget with the VSB deal. So you know his. But it's a business where we can tell you we have a lot of ideas. We have a lot of ideas. But it's good for me because we can be selective and fundamentally on this M&A Integrated Power. More and more together, we know exactly what we want to achieve. And so we have teams are very enthusiastic, but solar in Ireland, I'm not sure it was the best idea of the team. So sorry for the Irish in the room. Nothing against the Irish, but some strange ideas sometimes. That's point. The question two, yeah, Mozambique is more important. On Mozambique, again, I met the president of Mozambique. It was not in the press, the beginning of last this week, last Monday. I've been there to discuss about what are his views. The good news, in fact, there is a huge continuity in terms of the security setup. The energy minister was already there before. He was not minister, but it was the head of the agency, defense minister. All that are the same people. So I would say continuity regarding these Mozambique LNG projects and the surroundings. There is a will of continuity. That's important. In terms of security, the agreements they have with other countries will remain in place. And they are dedicated, I would say, to bring the best they can to the project. We have, as you know, it's public. We had a debate with some export credit agencies. I think the one which will be solved quickly is the one on the other side of the Atlantic. I think I would be surprised that the President Trump administration will be against an LNG project they have approved, by the way, four years ago. So I think it's a question of weeks. So this is important because it was a big part of the export credit. It was an EPC, we said all that, but it was almost $5 billion. So once we have this piece, this financing is done, I would say. I would remind to some of the other export credit agencies, in fact, all of them, but two have approved. The other one that they have signed a contract and that we gave them a lot of money. So I'm ready to exercise all my contractual rights, not me, Mozambique LNG shareholders, because we are only 26% of it. Okay. And then on the project side, the question is to be able not only to appraise the security on Afungi, which is fine. On the peninsula where we're going to build, we have no doubt. Be clear. It's even better than it was before because everything has been reinforced. So I have no problem. It's more the security of the regions, again, which is more for me a question. So I would like we are looking to the reality and to see some improvements on this part. On the contractual side, they are all ready to start up again. The project is, we told you, around $20 billion. It's around $20 billion. So there is no change. So yes, it's true that each month which is going through, and we were not anticipating, to be honest, in summer last year, these difficulties with the export credit agency, in particular there, because there are no signal. Then it enters into politics, the politics mixed. We are victims. But it's back on track from my point of view. And it's a matter of weeks. That's where we are. Today, I think we told you 2029. If we lose six months, we 2029, 2030, but the idea is to be able to do the project, to launch the project. And that's the point. Lydia. In 2030, to answer precisely to your question, in our roadmap, it's three million tons of LNG. So precisely. So it's not minor. It's important. But we have other options to activate in our portfolio. So we don't have enough plans 2024 of Rio Grande LNG or 2025. So there might have, I mean, we have enough. The depth of the portfolio, the optionalities we have on the LNG side, okay, it may be Mozambique in the base case, but if not Mozambique, it might be something else. So from this perspective, I think we have some different cards to play to meet the. And again, it's more the value that I want to have and not just the volume. And we will not sanction. We are working hard on Papua LNG. I'm sure I will have a question of Papua. And we are in very good, I mean, I would say strongly unify our forces with ExxonMobil together to find new ideas, to relaunch the tender. And again, we are not desperate to make the project, but we are working hard to make it back on track. Acceptable CapEx to deliver some value. We'll see by, I think we'll have all the offers will come by September 2025. So we should be able to take decisions. But again, there on this one, the forces of the two companies are aligned and working together, which is good for us. Yep. Thank you. It's Lydia from Barclays. Two questions, if I could. The first one, just on CapEx, because if I think about the change from September, the CapEx side was probably the big change. So just going back to that, at what point did you go, actually, we need to take it down from 18 to that 17, 17 and a half? And just that point on the contractors and it being lump sum. Are the contractors still happy to do that going forward, and you're working with them differently, I think, and then the second one was just coming back to the downstream side and the operational issues that we've seen there. That obviously is unexpected. These things happen. But is there anything you're looking at that may be more systemic that you need to go back and look at some of the processes that you have in place? I will let Vincent explain what he wants to put in place about his availability of the plants. It's also true, to be clear, that we have old refineries, I will tell you, and I'm not a big fan to invest in plenty of new refineries, in particular in Europe. So we have also a question of reliability. It does not mean that we don't have a systematic plan, but Vincent will share with you his action plan that he's putting in place with his colleagues and his teams. On the first one, okay, it's not a big change. 0.75 out of 17. I know it's a big change. Yes, maybe you were surprised because you were all thinking that we'll go above. So you don't believe us. You should believe us. I've been CEO in front of you for 10 years. I don't think I missed a lot of things on this perspective. So should believe us first and not planning that we'll go beyond. No, we are, in fact, we've done our job. And again, I told you the truth is that there was something which was voluntary on these some low molecules where we begin to have our EV charging. We want to be more frugal in the way we allocate capital, I would say. Not the program could be developed, but the matter is a way. We finance all that. The other part is, again, to be pragmatic. We have a number of people. We cannot overstretch them because then it's a question of safety. It's a question of execution. And we had some subsidiaries where clearly, like Angola, they have a lot of things to be done. And so we look at the plate and we said there are maybe a little too much. So let's arbitrate. Let's focus on delivering Kaminho and the key matters and not because the guys or people, you have a bottom-up approach and then you try to be reasonable. So it came to that conclusion, but I don't see that as a, I think it's a good discipline, by the way. It's proof. But again, all the opportunities bringing additional cash have been preserved. So it's more looking. I know when you spend $18 billion to $5,500, it's not a huge management of exercise. It's a question to maintain the idea. And it's important because we have a free year in a row at $80, increasing some CapEx. You begin to discipline might be somewhere more difficult to obtain. The fact that we are having this debate, important. It's also true, be clear about the commitment to what we told to you in September to the buyback is taken into account by everybody. And that's part also of the margins we want to have. So you have an impact on us when you make some comments. We listen to our shareholders and to our investors, which is good. Okay. That was the downstream. Vincent? Il y a la question sur le downstream aussi. Yeah, Vincent, sorry. No, but so we have a clear plan on availability. Just to make it short, first, we have very good refineries as well, and we realize that sharing of experience is not fully implemented. To take a very concrete example, the refinery in the U.S., Port Arthur, is alone in the U.S., and we want to take the best of the best players in Europe and to help, for instance, and to be sure that it's implemented in Port Arthur, so we have changed the management. We have people coming from Europe, and we see already the plan delivering the first results. Second axis, in terms of organization, in what I would call the bad players, we see that very often in the maintenance, for instance, the people working on the more long-term improvements, they are cannibalized by the short-term when you have issues. So we need to ensure that these two teams, they are clearly separated and that these particular plants, like for instance, in Donges, they are not always fixing issues rather than working on the long-term. We have also realized in some plants that people could focus on these particular equipments of the refineries, which are bringing the best margin. Instead of looking at everything, to focus on the high-value margin units. And then last but not least, and it's very concrete and pragmatic, I think that digital today is ready to bring value. We have solutions and we can improve valorization, for instance, of the products in the refineries thanks to these tools. It's to make it short, but you have plenty of. But I think, honestly, Lydia, I looked to the chart that I put it again. When you have two years of easy profits, I would say, which came from the sky, our refineries, when I was running this business, I would have never thought I would have a ton of margins. I think it has also an impact somewhere. But it's why, in fact, at the end, it's back to fundamentals, back to the things which we are claiming. So it's no critics. It's just a matter of, again, it was very strong, very high results. You lose parts of these plants and you have a succession of events. But again, it's not a matter to sleep, now to react. That's the business. So it's not systemic. For me, it's a question of, again, putting back things in normal and I hope we'll get the results. Reasonably optimistic on this one. Lucas, here, please. Thanks very much. It's Lucas Herrmann at BNP Paribas Exane. Two of them, Patrick. Liquidity, US share. How have things moved? Where have you got to in terms of the intent to improve it? And second, I guess, it's just a reminder. I have this horrible feeling. I'll wake up one day. We'll probably know about it beforehand that Russia-Ukraine has been resolved. So it's just a reminder of what's the position in terms of legacy dividends, legacy flows that you could potentially recoup over and above, obviously regaining, control is the wrong word, but regaining access to the cash flows from existing assets. Thanks very much. Thank you. The first one, first is I will not introduce the debate. It's not a question of double listing. I remind you what we want to do is to have one class of shares, only one, which will be primary market is Paris. And these shares might be traded on both markets from 9:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., I think, in Paris and from 5:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. in New York. So it's a continuous listing of the same class of shares. That's why. And at the beginning, it's transforming the ADRs into shares. So I don't want to, people are using double listings. It's not a double listing. It's not two classes of shares. And in fact, fundamentally, the stock value and when the two markets are open at the same time, it's just linked by the exchange rate, in fact. Okay, that's the way it works. So it's not two double listings. It's one listing. It's more continuous listing, opening yes access on the US side to shares and not to ADRs, which are costly, etc. Where are we? We have been working hard. It's a lot of technicalities with Euroclear and DTCC, which are the two, I would say, transfer agents in the system. We have also some banks working with us. So the technical solutions have been found for all the issues. So we know if we could vote, we know if we could receive taxation. So all that is done. No, we need to go to the legal part. So we have entered into a new phase to translate into legal documents. So that means that we are working on it. We see there is a. I don't anticipate a blocking point, but all that has to be done. The good news is we know how to make this continuous trading on both markets, interacting. But we have to translate that into contracts, of course, or counterparties. We don't have only our topics to solve. So there are a lot of things. But our view is that our objective, it'd be clear, is to do it in 2025, maybe end of 2025. But if we don't do it in 2025, we'd be worried, but we cannot do that. But so it's clear. So let's see. We'll have some more visibility in the next six months. But technically, we know and we have found all the solutions to the technical questions we had, including the one, which is, for example, in France, when you buy and you sell a share, you have to pay 0.3% tax. That should be applied to the purchase and sales on the U.S. market. It's a small detail. It's not a small detail. So how do we implement that? That has required some, I would say, some development with different intermediaries, etc. But we have the solution. So we know how to secure that. So that's the type of things where we are. It's not big deals, but it's a sum of technical details. So we progress. And again, the board supports unanimously all this move. But again, it's a continuous listing of the shares, which are primarily introduced in Paris between the two markets. And then that's the point. Russia, I don't remember the figure anymore. I know we have around $1 billion somewhere. Somewhere. Somewhere in the system. To be honest, in my head, they have disappeared somewhere. I don't count. I mean, I don't know why, but I see your question. You are optimistic that we don't have any dividend from Novatek for almost one year. They are somewhere there. And there is a funny law in Russia, which is floating, that if you don't take your dividend after three years, you could lose them. So there are funny things. They could make one year. So it's not very friendly for foreign investors. But honestly, today, the point is that today, as you know, the situation, everything is frozen from our point of view. Yamal continues to work. And we continue to exercise the contract of Yamal works. For the rest, we'll see. Yes, we have the shares. The shares are somewhere, but I'm not for 2025. We did not integrate anything in our even more to the point that the question to me is when in Europe, when at which point there will be enough LNG capacity in the U.S. in 2027, where Europeans might decide they could get rid of the LNG in Russia. That's more the question. Again, in the meantime, the 100 days of President Trump would be, if he managed, I will applaud, which is not only TotalEnergies, but for everybody, I would say, more important than for us. That's where we are. Again, nothing is in all the figures you've seen. There is no Russia story, except the Yamal flows. But Yamal, as you know, as we don't hedge too much, we don't hedge Yamal. We have an issue when prices are going, when we are very low in 2024. The performance of Yamal, which was not hedged, was not as good as it was the year before. It's part also of what has impacted the. I'm not claiming that, but that's the reality. What has been the performance of the contract 2024, we are not as good as 2023 just because we are more in the spot. If the price is going back, it could be a. That's the point. Irene? Irene? Yes. Thank you. Irene Himona at Bernstein. My first question on biofuels, if I may. An industry that had its economics deteriorate substantially last year, a lot of your peers are canceling, withdrawing, impairing. There is some valid concern that we won't have the SAF capacity needed by airlines in 2030. So I wanted to ask because you've obviously converted a number of your units. What do you think needs to happen for that business to economically scale itself up over the next three or four years? My second question specific to the quarter, working capital, we've seen a systematic release of material amounts of cash in Q323, in Q424. So can we anticipate that happening in future? What is driving it? What is happening there? Thank you. Okay. Jean-Pierre, he's the expert of working capital. Try to help him. On the problem, first, I think on the SAF, let's come back to. There are different ways to produce SAF. There is the easy way, or easy way, the cheapest way, which is to go from lipids, I would say, those who call animal fats, different waste, palm oil, things like that. These ones are profitable. We need to continue to invest because we have this mandate. So you could have a short. Okay. Then you have other projects, which are honestly for me more critical, where we did not invest today, which are methanol to jet or going to SAF, green hydrogen. All that are complex, they are expensive. And in fact, they are not meeting the demand from customers because the airlines are complaining, but they want the cheapest one. And my view is that we can meet the mandates by 2030, 2035, just by remaining on the cheapest technology. So I understand why some people are canceling some projects, which seems to be on the high side of the capital intensity. And that I understand. On the other side, I think the difficulty is that it's a regulated market. So sometimes you have high, sometimes you have down. So in 2024, the HVO were quite low priced. Suddenly, you see a depression because there were too many because of the Scandinavian countries, which have changed their rules of the game. This year, in 2024, Germany is helping everybody because they have decided that all the inventories, which we had in our bio-quotas, have disappeared. So suddenly, you have a lack, and so the price is going up. So that's the difficulty of this market. And you have to navigate it. You have a nice way to make SAF, and that's the reason as to why you have some cancellation with co-processing. Because the airline industry has discovered a lot less, in fact, because it was, in fact, just a normative debate. Can we make some co-processing when you inject used cooking oil in a refinery? You produce kerosene. Can you make a mass balance in order to consider that what you have produced is a SAF? So it's not a real SAF, but it's a SAF by aggregation. And they have decided during in July last summer, but it's acceptable. Why? Because first, it's much cheaper. But by doing that, of course, they have pushed back the other big projects which are really delivering SAF. Real SAF, I would say SAF, like the ones we produce, are more expensive. But it's just because they were somewhere afraid that they could not have enough SAF, and they are cheaper. So I think the co-processing has taken quite a good space in the market. And so that's also why I think some of my colleagues have said, "Why should I continue to invest in your greenfield projects if I can produce these products just by combining in my own refinery?" So the game has changed. And that's the difficulty with these molecules, which are honestly very regulated. They change the way you accept the things. And so you have these markets. So that's why investing in CapEx, you need to be clear caution. You can do it, but on the most efficient projects. And so I'm continuing to be convinced that for us, it's not greenfield for sure. It's just transforming all the refineries, which become old and even not profitable in the declining European markets into biofuel. So for me, that's a good thing to do. Again, the condition to do that, and that's one difficulty, is to find a way to integrate the upstream. Because then there, that is a value in all these used cooking oil, animal fats. So how do you manage? We built a partnership with SARIA, this German company on Grandpuits. We are exploring with them of enlarging this partnership to more projects because the integration is a way to secure the valuation, not just to be the transformer of a feedstock, which could go high, and by the way, an outlet, which could go down. It could be completely squeezed. That's the economic difficulty. But again, I'm not so afraid. In fact, I think you have a game there. The airline companies, they are shouting. They have a lack of stuff because they want the price to go down to provoke the overcapacity. It's a commodity business. So in fact, in our math, when you make the markets, I'm more afraid to have an overcapacity than an undercapacity by 2030. And for them, the game is to say, "Oh, look, we have a lack." But you know the conclusion is that in Europe, we have to face another difficulty. Be clear. In Europe, I explained. I I discussed it with the commissioner in Brussels. Today we are accepting SAF, importing SAF from China, from Chinese, from China because the airline companies are feeling the lack. But when you import from China, which, be sure that they have all the, I mean, they are meeting all the criteria that we do in Europe, investing in Europe in the new units when you have the stuff coming from China ensuite, somewhere it makes a little sense. So all these, it's a big difficulty for me on these molecules. It's plenty of regulated elements, which makes the decision of investment not easy. But at the same time, let's move. So it's clear, it's a complex market, but it is a market, and which I think we have some good cards to play in this one. If we put together the integration, low CapEx and being serious, it will not be for us a major; it will be a source of revenue. I don't expect that to be billions of free cash, to be clear. But if it can help me to transform some losses into, like we have done in La Mède, we went from minus 100 per year to + 30, okay, it's fine. At the end, it's worth to make the investment just to, and because we have jobs, etc., etc. So that's fine. That's the objective. Working capital. So how do you avoid to make it? It's good to make it by the end of the year, but I know that we have some systematic issue about fiscals. For example, in Norway, we pay in March, so we have a big draw. Big chunk of taxes have to be paid by the end of the first quarter. For the rest? No. There is no cash belonging to the company outside the company, particularly for upstream. But I mentioned to you during my speech that we benefited at the end of this year from exceptional elements, mainly tax elements. I will just give you one example. We are supposed to receive the bill from the German authorities in relation with capital gains tax we generated when we closed the deal in Germany end of 2023. We are supposed to receive the bill during the course of the first quarter. We haven't received the bill. There is no permanent peril. So we received the bill, but we will pay in the first quarter 2025. Having said that, it's clear that the objective is to try to normalize these flows, to be clear. I'm on the same page because I would prefer to see that as a normalization. But I think there were some lessons that have been drawn by the different my colleagues in order to normalize it. Okay. That's part. Look. On that side. But you can consider that by the end of each year that you will have more or less a stable situation. In your models, in your math, consider that we are able to do it. We've done it for three years in a row. We know to do the recipe, and we can repeat it. Okay? Okay. Thank you, Renaud. Doug Leggett from Wolfe Research. Patrick, you talked earlier about $70-$80 oil is not a good time to buy things, but it might be a good time to sell things. In your 3% growth target through 2030, what have you assumed? What are the criteria? And I think of a couple of examples as you're expanding your margin. You still have the U.K. The U.K. has a windfall tax. You have Libya, and it's growing, and it has a 93% tax. So what do you think about the things that are offsetting your margin expansion, and what's your criteria for disposals? My follow-up very quickly is on Suriname. You talked about exploration in Namibia. You didn't talk about the exploration plans in Suriname. I wonder if you can elaborate. That's true. Good question. Second one. Both questions are good. No, we continue to divest some assets. To be clear, we are in 25, we have planned to sell Nigerian assets onshore. So it's on its way to be closed, so it will be done. It's going to present $800-$900 million of cash in. So it's a big deal. U.K., we have worked on it in different ways. We try to find a way to combine fiscal losses with our tax bill. We were not successful. We had some few issues with some partners. But we are continuing to work on this one. And I'm very open, to be clear. It's not a question of barrels. If there are opportunities to save $1 billion of taxation, we'll do it. Value is more important. Libya, no, Libya, I disagree. Libya, it depends on the path. Libya, I think it's a long-term position. And there is a lot of oil to be developed, not with the present terms, but they have negotiations today. So we are working on it, and I think we can improve the taxation rate in Libya heavily because it's a country where it's very easy to develop because per barrel is nothing. It's onshore, huge amount of oil. So I will not forgive this position because the contracts today are high tax, but they will have to be improved if Libya wants one day to develop its reserves. That's the debate we have with them today, with the authorities. So it's a matter of continuing. So the UK, I see a little future, to be honest. And by the way, it's a country where, sorry, I'm in London, but we'll not explore in the UK because what happens to our friends where they have explored, made discoveries, and today they have a debate who have the right to develop. It's just for me, it's not possible to put some exploration money in a country where I'm not sure to get the development license. I have to go to courts. I'm just observing it. For me, I prefer to explore in countries where I'm convinced I will get the development if I'm making a discovery, which is normal rule of the game. Suriname, no, we have some exploration, but we are completely focused on, yeah, completely focused. By the way, I think we plan to drill one well in the Block 64, which is another block. We have two things. In the way we discussed with the authorities, what we call the development area of Krabdagu. In fact, the development area is covering all our discoveries, all the trends, and it's within the PSC. And so if we want to explore, to appraise, we'll offset the cost on the production. So this part, we have secured, and we have some leeway because I'm sure we'll have to come back on some of the discoveries we've done to better appraise, to reconnect, etc. So there is some potential. And then we have another block where we are interested to explore, we'll drill this year. So we didn't mention that, but we have taken also, by the way, it's not public, but two blocks in two licenses in Nigeria, the Niger Delta recently in a round. It's a very Niger Delta in Nigeria. There was no exploration during 10 years. We managed to reopen the box, and it's one of the most prolific deltas in the world. So there are still things to be explored. So Suriname, it's more, the block 64 is not the same trend. So it's, I would say, more frontier exploration. But then we have to come back on what we have already discovered and appraised. Matt Lofting. Thanks for taking the questions, Matt Lofting at JPMorgan. Just two quick ones. First, Patrick, I wanted to follow up on the comments you made earlier on trading and just ask specifically on integrated LNG or gas trading, if you can share a sense of the contribution that you've embedded into 2025 cash flow and financial targets, given the comments you made earlier on the gas market, perhaps, for example, relative to 24. And then second, 35 GW of renewable capacity in Integrated Power for this year. Strikes me that that's incredibly impressive delivery on a target that was set five years ago, given the global backdrop over the course of the last five years. When you think forward, though, for the second half of the decade, has the company's view on the pace and best sources of growth changed at all, given the inflation and the supply chain challenges that the industry continues to see in some segments, at least, of renewable generation? Thanks. Okay. In fact, the improvement you have going from $4.9 billion to a target of six in integrated LNG cash flow, I would say part of it will come from absolute prices, which are higher, but I would say consider that there is an improvement on the trading gas of $500 million. Coming back to levels which were more in line. That's the, and again, I say that under the eyes of Stéphane, who is approving, so it's fine. As to the level, but that's the idea. Again, that's an improvement that we expect. So part will come from, I would say, the volumes, which are being developed. We have a little more volume, but also part of this trading back to more volatility. And again, what we observe on the market beginning of 2025 is giving us stress that this should be achievable by our teams. Maybe we'll do more. We'll encourage them. On the 30 GW, 5 GW. Okay. We have a large pipeline of 70 GW. It's the US, Brazil, India, Europe, I would say, but key markets where we think we can deploy. My question for me is what is more important is, again, a sizable business going to be 50 terawatt-hours, 100 terawatt-hours by 2050, more than 100. I think it's very important that we have a sizable business and we are tracked because we are investing $4 billion per year to develop it. But again, renewables is a big part of it. We have this magic figure of 100 GW. We have the pipeline. Do we want to develop all that? It will depend, of course, on the value of all what is coming. There are permanently opportunities, and in fact, we can find a partner. By the way, honestly, the growth capacity for me, if I'm investing in growth capacity in Ireland, I will have a big number, but not a lot of results, I can tell you, because it's running only 11% of the time. Solar in Ireland makes volumes. It's not very expensive, but the result is not there. So be careful about the volume ID, in particular in the different markets. Where I think we have, where I'm convinced there will be a continued growth, will be the U.S., for sure. And some big countries in Europe, like Germany and others, will be clear where we have a good chance to continue to grow. So I'm optimistic that we'll have a segment which will produce more than 100 terawatt-hours by 2030. Renewable capacity, the gross one, let's see how it's going, knowing that we have also some partners. We are growing it. India will represent, I think, 15 GW, 15 to 20 GW, but all of them are not equal, I would say. And that's the type of things. So again, we will continue to invest in Integrated Power. We have this $4 billion per year as a matrix, which we will maintain. The way we split it between the, I think the batteries, for example, will be more important in our mix that we're aware when we said the one of you, we need more batteries. It's quite clear to us. But battery is also a way to make to enhance the profitability and the returns on renewables and gas plants. So that mix is moving, and we are adapting ourselves to these conditions. Kim. Hi, thanks for taking my question. Firstly, I wanted to ask a quick follow-up on Yamal. In the past couple of months, the U.S. and the EU have sanctioned a carrier shipping LNG from Yamal. Is this affecting your ability to offtake cargoes from Yamal at all? Secondly, on U.S. offshore wind, I think you said back in November that you're pausing your U.S. offshore project called Attentive Energy, and you said that's a four-year pause, so I'm just curious whether that's reflected in your low carbon CapEx figure, and then just curious to hear your thoughts on your involvement in projects that are exposed to, at the mercy of political winds that can shift every four years. Thank you. Okay, that's life, but the concession is for 50 years. No, but clearly, that means that yes, we don't spend. By the way, the teams, we had 50 development teams of 50 or 60 people in New York. They will be down to five, so it's very active, and I'm not sure. I think it will come one day. It's a matter of let's be patient again on this one. Again, a year of development in offshore wind is around $30 million per year. If it does not fundamentally change. In the meantime, we have taken more license in Germany, where I don't expect this type of change of policy to be. I think it will go through even if there will be a change of chancellor, but a change of a government majority. I don't see a change on this strategy or this policy. Yamal, I'm not sure. I don't remember. It was only Aurélien is the expert or Nicolas. For Nicolas. For me, I didn't see any impact on Yamal on any sanction. I've seen some impact on Arctic 2, for sure. But by the way, Arctic 2, we don't invest and we are not there. On Yamal, I have no idea. I don't see Stéphane. No, I don't know which cargo you are thinking to, but we have no impact on Yamal from our side. We didn't see it. But Aurélien, you want to take a, maybe you can answer, but I don't have that in mind. I can tell you we monitor the Russian sanctions every two weeks. So we have a permanent sanction. I was going to say for the last three years, we've been monitoring every two weeks. Every two weeks. We two weeks. We spend 30 minutes on this topic. So there's no sanctions. There are sanctions affecting Arctic LNG 2 and the value chain of Arctic LNG 2, the supply chain of Arctic LNG 2. So that, yes, correct. And actually, we declared force majeure and taken the consequence of that. But not on Yamal, not at all, actually. And the ships are not under sanctions for Yamal. You have another question, maybe? No, it's okay. Okay, thank you. So maybe we can take a question online. We have one person and we'll go on the phone. Okay. Hi, it's Anish Kapadia from, excuse me, from Palissy Advisors. I had a question around your net debt and interest costs. So when I look at the reported net debt versus when you add back some of the other items like the hybrids, the leases, the factoring of receivables, your net debt is then a lot higher, potentially $30 billion plus higher. So just wondering if you're still, when you think about all the other claims on the assets, you're still comfortable with that debt level increasing. From an interest and financing cost perspective, can you give a sense of what the increase in financing costs is in 2025 in terms of the combination of traditional debt, hybrids, and the factoring of receivables, just given you've been re-terming your debt at a higher level? Thanks. Does it work? Yes. We benefited from very low cost debts because most of the debt was fixed between the interest rate increased. To give you one figure, it's largely below 4%, the cost of the debt we have at present time. And hybrid, it's something completely different. We decided to make some liability management regarding hybrids. But at present time, we consider that as the long-term component in our balance sheets. So that's why we decided to renew, to make some liability management and to renew the tranche that is supposed to mature next in February, in fact. It's what we did during the first quarter. But honestly, most of the debt is fixed. So we do not see any strong increase this year compared to the previous year. No, there is no increase in our planning for 25 or the scope of debt. And I don't see an increase of the debt. And again, I can accept what we said about the potential impact of the $3 billion that we mentioned. Okay, we have to go to maybe the phone. Paul Cheng. Paul, go ahead, please. Hello. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, loud and clear. Hi. Thank you. Patrick, I think you haven't talked about the AI adoption. Do you believe that AI adoption will be an important factor for you in terms of driving down the cost and improving efficiency over the next, say, two or three years? Where you see is the biggest opportunity, if that is the case, and how much of your investment is going to be? The second question is, sorry, just one second. The second question is that the U.S. administration, I know you're saying that we should watch and see, but clearly that they become less friendly to some of the renewable. I think ideologically that they are less friendly to the renewable energy and that they want to promote more drilling in the onshore and also offshore Gulf of Mexico, supposing that will make more leases available. Does it change in the way that how you may want to allocate your capital, especially in the Gulf of Mexico? And also that for the U.S. renewable power business. Thank you. Okay. On AI, Vincent gave some hints. I don't know if Namita is there. She wants to have some complement on it. What I can tell you is that we are; it's important. We will establish in the organization of Namita, which is called OneTech. We will have a specialized line reporting to her about all these digital and AI, I would say, tools. We strongly believe it's a way to not only work with us to be more efficient. Does it deliver in the next two, three years? I'm not fully sure. It's programs. We will develop what we call a digital plant program in order to digitally look more systematically. We are thinking to make some strong investments. We have discussed today with some companies in order to be able to connect all the real-time data which are in our different plants, either all the refineries or the FPSOs, in order to connect them and to develop some reverse modeling for Advanced Process Control. We strongly believe that there is a lot of things to win with Advanced Process Control via APC. In our industry, we try to mimic the physical equation, but it's difficult, and it's difficult to adapt. There is obviously a very strong improvement potential, very high, if you can make based on data reverse modeling, very accelerated and changing conditions. It's an obvious way. These ones, we have decided at the end of the year, at the executive committee level, to invest in this segment, to make these connections across the company, and to invest, including in terms of developing these, I would say, AI models. That's clear. Does it deliver quickly? I hope so. But it's clearly on the top of the agenda. In the OneTech organization, we'll be directly reporting to Namita as an individual, I would say, line. Not today, it was in different segments, different divisions. We want to regroup and to have a clear leader and to drive this move to AI and digital. On the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, it has always been part of our agenda. You mentioned this year. I mentioned that there are two projects, Ballymore and Anchor, which are where we are contributing. But it's true that we decided to give up five years ago on one project because we didn't see the way to develop it in a profitable way. And we are not operator. We became non-operator. But we can be completely on the way to, I think, that there is still some good exploration potential in the U.S. And we have some discussions with some potential partners to invest in Gulf of Mexico exploration. It's something on which we are ready, but more as non-operator than operator because spending a lot of money to establish position, it's not really the best way to optimize our cost. On the renewable, okay, I know, and I listen like you to the images or to the slogans. Having said that, if I'm just to remind you that during the first presidency of President Trump, the solar, for example, was still supported in terms of fiscal support, not at 30% or 40%, but 20%-24%, which honestly, for me, is an acceptable level. So I mean, it's a, and I will be, I think the debate at the Congress and the Senate between these congressmen and the administration will be interesting because, again, in many of these states, which are also Republican states, they see some interest to develop these renewables. Remind you that the grid infrastructure in the U.S. is not so strong. So they need to, it's a way also to complement it. So I mean, I'm optimistic about the fact that it should not impair dramatically the way we envisage a future in the U.S., not only renewables, but gas power plants, which of course are encouraged, or batteries. I remind you that we made the investment in Clearway before the IRA. Then the IRA came, so it was a sort of additional profit to our investment. And the investment we've done in Clearway is in line with our expectations. So we are fine. It was even better, big thanks to the IRA. If we are back to previous terms, it does not, it does not fundamentally change the way we see the development of this power. But again, the world is not only renewables, Integrated Power. And the last investment we've done in these gas plants are really quite profitable. So there are ways to, electricity demand fundamentally will grow. So the question is, how do you meet this electricity demand in the future years? And all of these data centers, hyper-scalers, they want that to have tomorrow. It will take a little more time, but we, so it's a good business when you have a strong demand. It's worth to continue to find ways to invest in it, just fundamentally. We have Henry there. Henry, and then we have Bertrand on the phone. Yes, hi, Patrick. Yes, thank you for the update. Just one question coming back to the organic CapEx guidance and the move from $18 billion-$17 billion, because if we go back to the October presentation, you're also expecting $18 billion next year in 2026. So just wondering to what extent the changes that you've put through for this year are kind of structural and can see again similar organic CapEx in 26, or whether the lower spending on some of the smaller projects that you talk about sort of an impact maybe on some of the. You have to wait for September. Year by year. It's a good question. Again, you can take 17, 18 if you want for 26 instead of 18. Not sure it changed fundamentally the attractiveness of the share of TotalEnergies, but very few. Okay, so we can take the Bertrand question online. Yeah, of course. Bertrand, go ahead. Yes, hello. Two questions left on the LNG side. The first one on your LNG strategy, the idea as you highlighted it in October is to convert Henry Hub into Brent when it comes to your LNG offtakes. $3 Henry Hub and Brent $80 per barrel works perfectly, but it works less so at $4/MMBtu Henry Hub and Brent $70, and it does not work at all at $60. My concern is not obviously for 2025, given current LNG dynamics and high spot LNG prices, but it's more beyond. How do you intend to mitigate an outcome where you will have much higher Henry Hub than you had anticipated? And the second question is more very short-term on the LNG. Last year at $7-$8 per MMBtu, we saw a surge in India LNG spot demand, Chinese LNG spot demand. Now that we are at $14-$15 per MMBtu, do you see a reverse impact and LNG demand destruction in Asia? Thank you. No, but again, we have a view on this market by 27, 2030. The reality of this LNG market is that there will be some increase of capacity of 100 million tons, so 30%. It's a reality, and maybe it could drive the Henry Hub high, but it will drive the energy price low. So the best protection is to move to Brent because, again, on the oil, I would be surprised to see the oil establishing at $50-$60 for long by the end of this decade. At $50 per barrel, you don't have a lot of shale oil producers investing. They are already disciplined at $70, so at $80, and the decline is 20% per year. So I think the fundamental of all these oil markets is stronger than what could happen on the LNG one. If the Henry Hub is much higher, what we answer that we need to bring on TotalEnergies side is to produce more in the U.S., to have more U.S. gas production. That's the best protection for me. That's why we have made two deals, and we continue and answer to our friends, but it's part of, for me, fundamental. We need to fill this gap in our portfolio to have more exposure to domestic, to shale gas, to gas, because to face the situation where you have exactly what you described, higher Henry Hub price and lower LNG. That's clear. So this one, I agree, and we intend by continuing to do what we've done in 2025, continuing to stack some different opportunities in order to reach more or less 1.5 Bcf/d. Demand destruction at higher prices in China and India. I would say the country which surprised me in 2024 is India. In fact, India has increased its demand. I saw the figure this morning, 28 million tons in 2023, with a price which was not so low. In fact, they are buying; five years ago, I think the same answer would say $5, $6. Today, they bought at $10 more or less during the year, and an increase of demand. So India is investing in some gas infrastructure. What will be the reaction of 15, 16? But again, 15, 16 maybe is for a year, but demand destruction, no. Cautiousness, yes. And I probably it will be a good incentive for these buyers to go again to Brent, which I think is they are more confident and less volatile, in fact, from gas. Do you want to add something, Stefan, on this one? No, as you just said, Patrick, India was very strong last year. And so far, based on what I see from January, we don't see a sharp decline of India consumption. So we have to wait for a few months to see if at 16 that starts or not, but yet, that's not the case. They will be reactive if the price remains 9.25. Is it structural? My answer is no. Any last question? Okay, you are ready to run. You had a question. I stopped you because Bertrand was coming. So Lucas, if you want to. Lucas again. If you want to ask your last question, to be the last star. I've got to stand up. It was just a follow-up question. It was simply, why do you factor out of interest? Why do you use factoring as a process? What's the logic in terms of debt factoring? It was going back to Anish's question earlier. Was there a particular logic to it? It's a decision made. It's not a decision made by the holding level, corporate level. Okay. Business by business. We are a centralized organization, operational. We just control that this remains cheap. If it's not cheap, we say no. We control the cost. Okay, any last word maybe, Patrick? No, thank you. I thank you for all your attendance first. I don't know. Renaud loves to go higher and higher in London. I don't know if there is a message for the stock price maybe. Yes, it should go higher and higher. So I don't know if there is another one to visit next year. Personally, I was in one last year for me was a little better because I had a view this year. I had a view on two industries. Okay. But maybe there is a third one. So again, thank you for having attended. I think honestly our case is quite simple. And the year 2024, this last quarter, I've reinforced all the fundamentals. And I don't think you would have a lot of surprise or negative ones in 2025 from our company. Thank you. The presentation by Aurélien on March 27. It will be a one-man show by Aurélien and a Q&A. So for once, we want to attend on the sustainability and climate report. Aurélien will then run on 27 afternoon, I think. Thank you.