Good morning, good afternoon if you are connecting from Europe. Welcome to TotalEnergies Strategy and Outlook Presentation 2025. We are live from Manhattan in New York City. You can also follow us live from our website, totalenergies.com. The program today will start with the Strategy and Outlook Presentation with Patrick and the Executive Committee members for a bit more than one hour. We will then move to a Q&A session where, of course, you will be able to ask all the questions you want. As usual, we have a dedicated line for the people who could not attend the event. We should be moving to the lunch around 11:30, 11:45. The lunch is just next door. Your table number should be on your badge. Remember that this afternoon, starting at 2:00 P.M., we have now our traditional roundtable sessions. You should have all your programs with you. In case, just ask. I think we are now ready to start. As you know, safety is a core value at TotalEnergies. We are always starting our meeting with a safety moment. I invite now Namita Shah, President, OneTech, to join me on stage for a sequence on safety. Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. I'd like to use the safety moment this morning to talk to you about how we can use technology and technological innovation to reduce the exposure of our people in high-risk situations. As many of you know, a lot of our work involves entering into confined spaces like storage tanks or the hulls of our FPSOs to do regular investigations on asset integrity, and in particular with respect to corrosion. Technological advances have happened over the past three years that we have combined to try to expose the risk that our people have while entering into these confined spaces. As you know, drone technology has advanced significantly, and drones are now smaller, lighter, and more easily maneuverable in confined spaces. Camera technology has greatly evolved to be able to take high-resolution images in places where there is probably not enough light. Artificial intelligence has evolved to be able to interpret images that we take via our drones in these confined spaces. Let's show you a video to show you exactly what I mean by what we've done. Safety is one of our core values, and we continuously explore innovative digital solutions to reduce our team's exposure to operational risk. One powerful example is the use of drones. It helps us avoid the time our teams spend working at home in confined spaces during inspections. On our FPSO, inspections are carried out every two and a half years. We have developed an innovative approach to transform the way we do inspections thanks to the Hull Digital Inspection Project. It is a remote inspection and digitalization process that begins by sending a drone equipped with high-resolution cameras and LIDAR sensors into the water ballast tank with no man entry. The drone pilot remains safely outside of the tank. The drone navigates the confined space according to a predefined flight path, capturing detailed video footage and building a comprehensive 3D model of the tank structure. The captured videos are analyzed by an automatic process for corrosion detection, and the corrosion spots are automatically located in the 3D model. This set of tools based on AI allows our inspectors to identify the exact location of corrosion defects without physically entering the tank. Our first test was conducted in December 2023 on Jérôme's FPSO in Block 17. More recently, we ran another test in Block 32 with further improvement, including the ability to perform integrity measurements. If any unusual measurement or image is detected, a visual inspection is then promptly conducted to confirm the observation and initiate any necessary corrective action. Thanks to Hull digital inspection technology, we have reduced the time of a single tank inspection to less than two days. This approach not only enhances safety and data quality, but also delivers a 45% cost reduction compared to traditional human inspections. It's a major step forward in making inspections smarter, faster, and safer. As you may have understood, while it might not completely eliminate the need for our people to go into confined spaces, it greatly reduces the number of times they need to go in by using remote technology to do the first scans and then to identify the very precise locations where people then need to go in to conduct further investigation on corrosion. Just to continue on safety, you can see that on the slide, the safety journey at TotalEnergies has been one of continuous improvement. Whether we want to follow it by the total recordable injury rate or the number of events of primary losses of containment, the improvement that we have made versus 2015 over the past 10 years has been significant, and we continue to work to reduce both of these incidents. We can definitely say that we are among the best in class with respect to our peers. As you know, our objective remains zero fatality. Unfortunately, we have had one fatality in 2025 where we lost someone in Angola as a result of some drilling casings that were not properly secured on one of our supply vessels. Two people were injured, and one of them succumbed to their injuries. He was 51 years old, he was married, and he was father to a young son. Our objective will continue to protect our people and diminish their exposure to high-risk environments, and technology is definitely one of the ways in which we want to push forward to be able to achieve our zero fatality objective. Thank you very much, and I now hand over to Patrick. Good morning, everybody. However, in New York or wherever you are. I'm happy again to welcome you to the Executive Committee of TotalEnergies. You have four colleagues on the scene, which will contribute to the presentation this morning: Bernard Pinatel for the downstream, Nicolas for the upstream, and Stéphane for the LNG and integrated power. In the room are present not only Jean-Pierre, our CFO, and Namita, but also Aurelien Hamelle, our Strategy and Sustainability President, as well as Vincent Stoquart, our Refining and Chemicals President, who will participate, all of them, to the roundtables. I don't participate in the roundtables, so I know they will work this afternoon while we have our fun. The only person who is not there today because she just joined the Executive Committee, we'll have the opportunity to meet her, is Catherine Remy, who is now in charge of people and social engagement, and also of global services in the company. We'll have the opportunity to meet her next time she will join us. We are happy to be with you for this traditional Strategy Outlook of TotalEnergies. Before we engage and enter into the presentation itself, some few introductory words. We probably surprised you last week because the board, as we have made a press release with the decision of the board regarding the shareholder returns. We've done it voluntarily in advance compared to this presentation because this presentation is about the strategy, is about the assets, the operations, and we were thinking that we did not want that presentation to be only about buybacks and other elements, which are, of course, very important for you. We don't minimize shareholder returns, obviously, but we thought it was time to answer to what we observed. In fact, you know, in the end of July, we made the decision at the board level to maintain our buybacks at $2 billion per quarter for the third quarter. The market, the early shares did not react very well, so we have to listen to what the market thinks. The net debt increase was denting, I would say, the shares, so we decided to listen and to adapt ourselves, to adapt as well by providing you with a scheme, and I will come back on it, where somewhere buybacks are linked to the price environment, not only the oil, but also the refining margins, but also petrochemicals, and also the dollar euro exchange rate, which has an impact on us because the dividend is expressed in euro. Obviously, when you have a $1.2 per euro instead of $1.1, it's an additional almost $800 million for us to allocate to the dividend in dollar. For the benefit, by the way, of our U.S. shareholders, which are looking today to a higher increase of the dividend than our European ones. I will come back, of course, on this, and I'm sure we'll have questions about the return to shareholder scheme. The board also insisted, of course, that priority is given strongly to the dividend. You know our long history. We'll come back on it. Today, I want to insist, in fact, more and of course, for this presentation. The way we execute our strategies, the two words I want to use are consistency. We'll not be surprised. It's not a revolution. There are some few evolutions, but we are considering that our differentiated strategy and growth strategy will deliver results. It's beginning to deliver results from 2025 with an increase of production of more than 3%. We have a trajectory on which we will come back, which is even comforted compared to last year, as almost 95% of the production expected by 2030 is already sanctioned and under construction. We'll come back on it. The other word I will use is efficiency because we are, of course, progressing in the way we execute our strategy. We can do the same growth, but with, I would say, less CapEx and OpEx. We are implementing a cash-saving program of $7.5 billion. Same with less, but the idea we control, as you know. Why do we do that? We do that because we have some uncertainties about the environment in which we are working. The price of oil is $10 lower than last year. It's still $70. It's still a good one, but there are some few uncertainties, including on the macro environment, etc., which we think is good to anticipate and to take actions. In the company, since I'm CEO, I always say we must be strong on what we control. It's what we control in this business. In particular, it's the, of course, the use of our assets in order to deliver production and refine productions, but also what we spend. That's why we will introduce that. Big news is that we can do with around $16 billion guidance of CapEx. That's the part. Consistency and efficiency. The other objective this morning, I know that you love 2030, but sometimes you prefer to know what will happen tomorrow morning. We'll give you some more. I received some messages, which, of course, we take into account. For this presentation, we intend to give you some middle points, 2027, 2028, 2027, so that you have a shorter-term perspective on the way we intend to deliver. Everything is not back-loaded. You will see that most of the free cash we intend to deliver will be half of the free cash. In fact, we intend to deliver the $10 billion additional free cash by 2030. Half of it will be delivered in the first half of this 2024-2027 journey. That is the other important message I think we will go through. No revolution, but some evolutions in terms of how we could deploy the model in a more efficient way. The other message, by the way, is that yes, we are consistent with our differentiated strategy, including the diversification in electricity because we progress as well on this one. You will see that we can reach our objective of growth, more than 1 tWh. We've also less CAPEX. Stéphane will come back on the way we are, I would say, focusing our strategy on some key major, I would say, markets in Europe, U.S., Brazil, and streamlining what we do in renewables outside, I would say, of these key markets. That is the global message today. Our objective, of course, is to maximize the free cash flow despite this more uncertain environment. The environment first, just to come back on the fundamentals, which drive the strategy. On the oil markets, we continue to believe that there are strong fundamentals supporting bullish prices, I would say. Even if on the shorter term, we see some uncertainties. The shorter term, you know it as well as me. We have quite an abundant supply because in 2025 and beginning 2026, we have some non-OPEC supply growth coming from the U.S., from Brazil, from Guyana, and others. We have also in these markets, the OPEC+ countries, which are willing to maintain a certain level of market share, which are unwinding their voluntary caps step after step, slowly but surely in that direction. Quite a strong supply. The demand at the same time, because of the, I would say, economic uncertainties, the trade tariff, in particular in Asia, is, I would say, more softened. It's quite soft. In the demand side, you have also an element which has to be taken into account. It's the stockpiling from China and potentially the U.S. SPR replenishment, which takes place. We also know that the enterprise is going down. U.S. shale oil production is quite reactive. That's the short term. We can see on the chart that we have some six quarters in a row of, I would say, inventory builds, even if global inventories still are at, I would say, 60 days, which is not so high. The fundamentals on the oil market for us are positive because, in fact, with non-OPEC surplus supply growth, we don't see it beyond, I would say, 2027. We see most of it will be down. In particular, if the price is softening, we know that the U.S. shale producers' decline is higher. If there is low, it's generally when the price is lower, the CapEx is also lower. It does not contribute to fight the natural decline. The IEA just discovered again that there is a natural decline of 5% - 6% per year. That's a fundamental of these oil supply markets, oil markets. I agree, even they increase it. I was using 4% - 5%. It's 5% - 6%. That means that the challenge is even more. The other trend, which is supportive of these oil markets, of course, is that what we observe everywhere in the world is that from the demand side, there is a slower shift to low-carbon alternatives because customers are prioritizing affordability. This is very clear everywhere. Despite the governmental policies in Europe, in the U.S., we observe that trend. We are, I would say, quite bullish on the oil market on the medium term, even if on the short term, we could face some uncertainties. Having said that, price is still quite stable, in fact, at between $65, $70 pbbl, even $70, I think, today. On the gas markets, we observe two phenomenons on this slide that I want to comment. The first one on the left is, I would say, back to normal, a sort of normalized volatility. It's quite clear that 2021, you can see there's on a yearly basis, the evolution of the European gas price, the TTF, along one year. You can see the range of, I would say, the evolution of TTF in 2021, 2022, 2023. 2022 was exceptional, but 2021 was strong, and 2023 still was strong. In fact, what you observe in 2025 is more back to normal, which, of course, explains that we don't have these exceptional market conditions with high volatility, out of which a trading business was, in fact, quite, I would say, easier to make very high margins and very high results. We have a back to normal that we have to take into account. Even if in the absolute price in Europe, in particular, we have, I think, an average price in 2025, $12 per million BTU. The forward is still around $11, $12 for the next two years because, in fact, we still see, I would say, quite a tight supply. We will see the beginning of new energy capacities coming in the market in 2026, but some projects are delayed in that business. We are quite confident to have, I would say, to benefit from the for 2026 and even 2027, some absolute good price, even if the volatility is lower. In particular, in Europe, you observe the political debate about banning Russian LNG from 2027, not more from 2028, which, of course, will add somewhere some tension in that market. Having said that, beyond all these projects of LNG projects, to which we participate, by the way, in some of them, and in Qatar and the U.S. will come on stream. From 2028, there is no doubt that we'll face a wave of supply of LNG. We experienced it, and this is a chart on the right. We experienced it, I would say, almost every 10 years in this business, and we are quite high. It's a very cyclical business. When the price is high, people are planning new plans. As soon as the price is softening, we stop taking a FID of new plans. We'll have to absorb this wave. It took generally two, three years to absorb it. It's generally, of course, lower prices are fostering demand, in particular in Asia. The gas to power, I would say, the coal-to-gas switch for industry in Asia is encouraged by a lower price, and the elasticity to the price is quite high. We are optimistic that we'll be able to absorb the industry, market will be able to absorb this wave of supplies. We plan 6%, 7% of demand increase per year. You can observe that it was, in fact, higher than that when the price is lower in the previous two waves. That's the situation that we have to take into account in the planning. Bullish, I would say, on the oil, a little more cautious on the gas. Again, we have no doubt that these lower prices will foster demand and will absorb these new energy capacities. The cycle will come back again. On the power side, I will not comment long because Stéphane will comment that slide, just to tell you that, in fact, it's continued to grow more than 3%. It was 3.4% last year. We announced 3.7% for 2025, according to statistics. It's driven by a lot of things, including digitalization of the world, not only decarbonization. We need to have, in fact, more capacities, including a lot of flexible generation. Stéphane will come back on it. These fundamentals are there, are strong, and they are supportive of the, I would say, of the strategy that we have in electricity. I told you we are facing potentially some uncertainties in the short term. We need to keep agility. We decided to put in place a plan to take actions in different points of view in order to deliver the free cash flow growth that we have announced and to maintain the strong shareholder returns, but also at the same time keeping agility, keeping a healthy balance sheet. At the center of this slide, we, of course, want to deliver, and we have the portfolio of core accuracy projects. We want to deliver the growth. There is no way for us to, I would say, renounce that growth. These projects are good. I mean, all are very resilient. As you know, we sanction a project in upstream if we have CapEx plus OpEx lower than $20 pbbl. There are low break-even. We are already, it's not only a growth for 2030. We are beginning to deliver that growth. We'll come back on it in 2025 and confirm in 2026. The 4% per year energy production growth, oil, gas, electricity for 2030 is confirmed. We'll do it by being more efficient from, I would say, cash spend. We have a capacity after in the portfolio, and we'll come back on that to streamline the CapEx. The guidance was $16 billion- $18 billion. It will go down to $15 billion, $17 billion, even $16 billion in 2026, just to show you that we're not just, it's not just a word, but we are executing the plan. We have also on the OpEx over the next five years, I would say, $500 million per year of OpEx savings in the different businesses, I would say, upstream, refining and chemicals, marketing and services. The only one which is still growing is, I would say, the electricity business where we are more growing than even if we are serious about OpEx. The last pillar of this action plan is to adapt or to adjust, I would say, the shareholder returns, in particular on the buyback price. Again, the board considered that the dividend is sacrosanct. I was surprised by, we were surprised by some comments in July that maybe the dividend could be at stake. In fact, we've never been at stake during 40 years, even during the COVID. This dividend is really completely secured. It will be fueled by, of course, buyback, but also by cash flow growth, as we've done it in the last three years. We also want things to be what means the healthy balance sheet, maintaining the gearing lower than 20%. We plan that to have it more around 15%, but in order to give a guidance, which we didn't have until now, this is what we will, what I would say, the guidance given to you, and adapting the buybacks. In $70 pbbl, which is our environment today, it's a reality. In fact, at the end of the day, this year we'll make cash flow from operations more of $27 billion than $29 billion as planned. The difference is coming from one side on the fact that we're expecting a bit higher volatility on the gas price environment, which is not the case. There will be a difference in terms of cash results from the, but Stéphane will come back on that on the gas business. We have also downstream margins, which are under pressure, I would say, on petrochemicals. Refining margins are better in the second half of the year, at least the third quarter, but the first half was quite, in fact, quite, I would say, very low. We are in these downstream markets facing some overcapacity somewhere globally in the world. That's even if you could have some support, for example, for the diesel today because linked to the Russian disruptions, I think it's a normal, it's an environment we need to take into account. That's the action plan. Coming back to the fundamentals of the, I would say, the next five-year business plan. First, growing energy production. This slide is almost the same as last year because we are still there. We are the oil and gas. We are big in oil and gas, I would say, growing this production by 3% per year. It will be the case in 2025. It will be again the case next year with this, obviously, a very good portfolio of accuracy projects. Nicolas will come back on that. On integrated power, the business model is confirmed and will deliver as well more than 1 tWh, which is more or less 20% of the energy production by the end of the decade. A global growth of 4% per year of energy production. We'll do it. We've, I would say, less CAPEX. This is, I think, the important update of this presentation. We are revising the guidance CAPEX by reducing by $1 billion, so $15 to $17 billion, but $16 billion as an average and $16 billion in 2026. It's not down this CAPEX. It's a net CAPEX. The M&A part is almost neutral, in fact, on the period 2026-2030. In 2026, there is $1 billion more divestment than acquisition. We'll come back on it. That's important. We have a flexibility in case of very low prices to go down to $14 billion if we need to do it, like we've done during the COVID period, by the way. Again, the important point there is that we can deliver the growth with an average of $16 billion. You can observe that on the low-carbon businesses, we are allocating $4 billion per year, mainly to integrated power, $3.3 billion- $4.5 billion as an average. We'll come back on it. The revision of the guidance, I would say, is half on the low-carbon business, half on the oil and gas business. Nicolas will come back, so I will not insist on this one, even if I'm insisting on one major point, which is 95% of the 2030 production started up or is under development, under construction. It's not just figures. You can see that the pre-FID ones are quite light on the top of it. When we say it's accuracy projects, you can see that this project will deliver at $60 pbbl, $25 pbbl, compared with our base portfolio of $15 pbbl of cash flow from operations. It's not only real figures, which explain why we have an increase of a quicker increase, by the way, of the cash flow from operation and the free cash flow at the end, as we maintain the CAPEX for the period. It's cost-efficient. Again, these holes of less than $20 pbbl for each project, and upstream OPEX would be maintained under $5 pbbl. It's diversified in terms of geographics, thematics. When we look to the world, where I would say there are a lot of more tensions, geopolitical tensions, I think our answer, which is to have a diversified geography, is from this perspective, offering some way to manage these geopolitical uncertainties in our portfolio. The LNG is also growing quickly. We are strong. We have, you know, ourselves, we're around 40 million tons in 2024, 30 million tons coming from our equity or supply portfolio, 10 million tons from the spot business. The base of 30 million tons will grow to 45 million tons in the period over the period. You have the list of the projects, and some of them will be put on stream. You can see the beginning of the increase by 2028. ECA, the Qatari NFE, Rio Grande Train 1 to 4, NFS in Qatar, Mozambique LNG. On the second part of the period, we'll have Ruwa's LNG in Abu Dhabi, Mozambique LNG, and Rio Grande Train 4 that we just sanctioned. A word about Mozambique LNG. We are moving on. Everything is ready. In fact, we are remobilizing on the ground, but we have the last piece of the, I would say, of the decision to officially lift the force majeure is that there are discussions of government to Mozambique will approve the updated development plan because we need to update it with a new target in terms of starting operations. It will be 2029 that we plan to start up the operations. Of course, updating the budget with the impact of the force majeure. That is currently being assessed, and we'll move, I think, very quickly on that. On the security side, we have been, I would say, reassured by the strong commitment of the government of Mozambique, including with the government of Rwanda. It was an important agreement signed by both countries in the end of August, which is considering what we were considering on the ground. We know that on our side, we have moved to what we call the containment mode, which is, in fact, that the peninsula of Afungi, where we'll execute the project, which is a very large peninsula, is completely under control. All the contractors working and all employees working for our projects will be in this peninsula, working, living, transporting, and will be able to have a secure construction phase. We assess that, of course, with our colleagues of ExxonMobil as well, and we are aligned in close cooperation on the fact that we can restart the operation quickly. That's for this one. Having said that, on this portfolio, not only we have, I would say, an increase of our production and the development with very competitive U.S. supply, in particular Rio Grande and 1 to 4. We have also, and Stéphane will come back on it, worked hard, and we installed that last year in order to, as we are more bullish on the oil and potentially on the LNG spot price, linking, transforming our unreal supply into oil link sales. I think we signed for almost 8 million tons of contracts. It's quite a big effort. We are fine. We are also, as you have observed, and we made a new announcement this morning, continuing to, I would say, reduce the exposure to the unreal by integrating upstream gas value chain as well in order to, in case of hike in the unreal, because a lot of oil LNG exports will be protected from this risk. That's an important piece of our future free cash flow. Integrated power, our message there is that we can do the growth by, again, streamlining CAPEX. We plan $3 billion- $4 billion. In fact, and Stéphane will come back, we consider that now we progressed and we can see what are the markets where we can deliver not only the growth, but also the profitability. You know, the objective is to reach 12% return on capital employed. These are markets where we can really integrate the value chain, like the U.S., Aircode, PGM markets, like Europe, Germany, U.K., and over France, potentially other countries. Stéphane will come back on it. That's the best way to end on the other ones. Having observed many markets, we know what we want to do on some markets, and we intend, in fact, to streamline some renewables countries, and then divesting them in non-core markets. The key point there is there is a logic in all that is the gas to power. We need more gas to power. That's the logic of the integration within the company. We need more flexible energy to cope with the intermittency of renewables, and we need also to accelerate battery development. Stéphane will come back on this presentation. We confirm that we'll be net cash positive by 2028, and that then this business will contribute to the dividend. That's, I would say, the most important slide from an investor's point of view. Growth is good in terms of volumes, but at the end, it's value, which is important, in terms of free cash. On the left side, you have what we say, the reinvestment rate, which is how much CAPEX do we plan to present as a percentage of our cash flow from operations. You can see that, yes, today we are in 2024, we are reinvesting almost 70%. If we go down to 50% and then 45%, which means that we have more room to, in fact, return to shareholders. In terms of absolute figures, there you have an intermediate point, 2027. The growth of the free cash between 2024 and 2030 at a normalized price, which is $70 Brent, $8 per million BTU for the gas, is around $10 billion. By 2027, at midpoint, we will deliver almost half of it, let's say, $4 billion- $5 billion. This free cash is coming from one side, of course, from the CFE for growth itself, but also for the fact that we have streamlined the CAPEX for $1 billion. That's, I would say, the figure you keep in mind. I will come back on it, but there is more room to return to shareholders in the coming years. Life does not stop in 2030 because there is, you know, in a company like an oil and gas company, we know that we have to prepare the future and to anticipate. I'm very proud that we have this company that's been able to maintain this reserve life index of above 12 years of proven reserves. I think we are only two companies among the majors who managed to do it. I'm proud to be at the same level as the large number one in the industry. It's fundamental. We continue to develop valuable optionality in our portfolio. We have Namibia, to which we progress on the first development with Namibian authorities. We have also in our portfolio some, if we are so keen on Mozambique, it's because we know that there will be additional phases beyond this phase I, and we will work to make it in an optimal way. We have the Papua LNG options. We are looking to some Canada Pacific opportunities. We have also established a base in Malaysia, and you've noticed that after the first acquisition, and I think Nicolas will come back on it, we have been very active to grow this portfolio, both on exploration and on DROs, in order to grow this new hub. Exploration, by the way, I just mentioned exploration. We'll continue to maintain these exploration efforts. $1 billion in exploration appraisals since 2015. We're almost stable. I think it's important. Our teams have been quite good, like discoveries with Surinam in Namibia. They paid, I would say, these efforts. We have been quite active to renew our portfolio of licenses, either in Nigeria, some new license, the first licenses acquired for 10 years in the Niger Delta. Here, U.S. offshore, where we want to invest together with Chevron and Congo, Surinam as well, and more frontier prospects in Nigeria, Indonesia, Liberia. That's also preparing the future. On the integrated power, the pipeline does not, if we have a large pipeline, but life does not end by 2030. We consider that we'll continue to deploy the strategy from 100 tWh, 120 tWh by 2030, probably to go to around 150 tWh by 2035 with the capacity and the progress of a better understanding of these markets and to continue to deploy the, I would say, the capital for the benefit of shareholders. 2030, what is important for all the execution of all this strategy, it will be my next last message, is of course our people, because our people are at the end, I would say, of the human success of this strategy, of the execution. I prefer people than human resource. Personally, it's our people. We are recruiting, continuing to recruit, and the company is attractive, I would say. We have more than 150 applications for each position open. We are recruiting all over the planet, more than 40% women, by the way, on our recruitment, including in electricity, where we are considered as a very serious player and we attract a lot of talents, but also in oil and gas. The business model of the company remains attractive. Even we have engaged employees. You have the last survey we've done, 2024, 2025, at the worldwide level. We are very proud. You can compare to the benchmark of the oil and gas benchmarks given to us by the people who are making these types of surveys. They are trusting that they have a good confidence in the strategy. They are engaged. That's very good. That's, I think, part of really the art of the success. Not only they are engaged and happy, I would say, but they are committed shareholders. They are spending, I would say, they receive more like $600 million of dividend per year, global owner shareholders, our employees' shareholders. They reinvest more than $500 million of it in the company every year. In the last 10 years, we moved from 5% of employee shareholding to almost 9%, 8.9%, and with annual capital increase. I think it's a good demonstration of that trust. It's, I think, the best way to align interests of shareholders and employees, this, I would say, employee shareholding that we promote actively. I will not be longer. I will give the floor to Nicolas, which will speak about oil and gas. Thank you, Patrick. Good morning to you all. Let me now focus on our upstream business. On us, Patrick, just share with you, we can consider our target to grow our production by 3% per year to 2030 in a cash-accuracy manner, and thanks to our pipeline of projects that is particularly rich. The growth is already visible today. We've entered this growth trajectory. We'll grow by more than 3% of production this year in 2025, thanks to the ramp-up of the projects that we started last year, MERO3 in Brazil, Ankor, but also thanks to new startups that we've seen this year in Brazil with MERO4, and again in offshore U.S. with Ballymore. The growth this year is also supported by the acquisition in Malaysia that Patrick mentioned, and that I will comment a bit further on by our position, the position we took in the U.S. shale in partnership with Lewis and EOG. Next year, it will continue. Next year, we expect again to grow our production by more than 3% with basically three key startups. The first one is the first phase of our integrated gas growth project in Iraq, the first phase of the Ratawi, in fact, oil field development, expected to start in the first quarter of next year. The second key project for next year is NFE in Qatar, which should start up mid-2026 for the first train. The third one, which is rather towards the end of the year, is our major development in Uganda. I will come back to that. For the remaining part of the decade, the growth will continue with more to come, both in oil and LNG. In oil, with production from the projects we sanctioned over the past couple of years, Suriname, Grand Mouguerre, Cameia in Angola, Sepia Atapu in Brazil, and the second phase also of our Ratawi development project in Iraq that was launched just a few days ago. Semeini LNG with further trains in Qatar, NFE and NFS, Mozambique LNG, and Ubeta. We also have a few promising pre-FID projects that can support our upstream production, which are indicated on the slide, IMA in Nigeria to supply gas to NLNG and Kronos in Cyprus. More importantly, and moving to the right part of the slide, we are growing for value. We are growing in a cash-accuracy manner. When we look in 2028, we committed, you know, that the growth of our upstream production would generate a growth of cash flow from operation by more than 8% based on the same price deck as 2024. This is outpacing the production growth, and we are well on track to deliver that and to generate a higher cash margin per barrel in 2025 compared to last year. By 2030, the cash flow from operation of upstream is expected to increase by $5 billion compared to 2024 based on the same price deck. Even using a lower gas price assumption at $8 per million BTU, more conservative than what we had last year or this year, in line with our macroeconomic expectations that Patrick outlined just before, this cash flow growth, you will not wait until 2030. By 2028, we expect to generate $3 billion of additional cash flow compared to 2024, again at $70 pbbl. Going into a bit more detail on our projects, you can see here the list of our 18 key upstream projects. You saw the same list last year. We have added two projects in that list: Ratawi phase II in Iraq, launched a couple of weeks ago, and Ubeta in Nigeria, which is an integrated project to supply gas to NLNG. In upstream today, our focus number one is to deliver those projects to support our production growth and cash flow growth, the one I just showed to you before. We operate about half of these projects. The other half is operated by third parties, but all of them by robust operators. A year ago, when we were here, only two of those projects had started. Today, three additional of those projects have started: Balimor, MERO4, and Phoenix. Next year, we expect, as you see on the table and as I mentioned just before, three major startups: Ratawi phase I. Ratawi phase I will increase our oil production from Ratawi field from 60,000 bpd to 120,000 bpd. The project is well on track, and we expect to start in Q1 2026. I have to say that the successful execution of this project, which was launched, in fact, two and a half years ago, so it's a project that will be delivered in less than three years, is a good demonstration of the ability of the company to deliver projects even in remote locations such as Iraq. The second one in the table is our project in Uganda, a major development, 230,000 bpd of production. Progress today, you can see that 60% for the upstream part, 70% for ECOP pipeline. I was looking just before that meeting with welded 950 kilometers of ECOP pipeline, and we are doing about 5 kilometers per day. Given the size of the project, today the plan is that we're going to start train one next year and train two in 2027. Train one, second half of next year. We'll need a bit of time, about two months, to fill the pipeline and the terminal before first export. We expect production and cash from that project in the last quarter of next year. The third one, which is key for next year, is NFE in Qatar, well on track to deliver first LNG mid-2026 for the first train, which will be the first of four trains that will all be producing before mid-2028. As I mentioned, we are doing that not for production, but for value. I'm moving to the graph on the right, which shows the upstream cash flow from operation in billion dollars. You can see in the bars the dollar pbbl for our oil assets and gas assets. What you can see is that we're adding volumes with margins in dollar per barrel, which are significantly higher than our existing portfolio. In oil, our current portfolio generates cash flow from operation of $22 pbbl at $70 pbbl price deck, and the new projects deliver above $40 pbbl, so almost double the existing portfolio. In gas, our current portfolio is at $12 per BOE CFFO, and our new projects, those in the list here, will generate above $15 per BOE. We have a strong portfolio, but also a clearly accuracy portfolio with higher margins. This portfolio, in fact, now, if you look at this chart, will represent about 1 million barrel equivalent per day of production in 2030, and not far from half of the cash flow from operation of upstream. This portfolio, moving beyond the projects, is sustainable, resilient, diversified, as Patrick mentioned. Sustainable because we managed to maintain and even increase our reserve life. This was commented by Patrick. I would just add that last year, our reserve renewal ratio was above 150%. This helped us to, it's behind the uptick in reserve life that you see in 2024. We managed to do that because we kept our focus on oil and gas. We continued exploring, discovering, developing, and also capturing attractive opportunities through M&A. Second, I can tell you, it's another area of strong mobilization of the upstream teams in the company. We are keeping a strong drive on our production cost to keep them at the lowest level amongst our peers. Last year, we delivered on our target, which was to keep our OPEX below $5 per BOE, and we expect to stay at the same level. This year, we are working every day to offset inflation, basically. As I explained to you last year, we are working on lean operations, and particularly on leveraging AI and digital to unlock efficiency gain. You have probably seen our recent partnerships with Cognite to deploy an industrial data platform across all our sites, all our operated assets, and with Emerson also for advanced process control, which are all designed to foster efficiency gain and to further improve our industrial performance and decrease our cost. We are also working, of course, on our supply chain and to adapt the structure of our affiliates, and particularly our mature affiliates, to adapt the structure to the evolution of the activities. Diversification, you see here, basically, the geographic split of production of various companies in 2024. This diverse portfolio protects us against uncertainties, as Patrick mentioned, related to geopolitics, but also to supply chain or fiscal regime. As an illustration, the five largest producing countries for our company represent only 50% of our overall production, which is actually the best position among the group. Let me now share with you two focus on two areas where the company is strong, and two areas that will be important in delivering this cash flow growth to 2030. The first one is Middle East and North Africa. It is one of the regions where we believe we stand out compared to our peers, with not only a strong historical presence, but also very large developments ongoing currently. This region, Middle East, basically, is a great combination of low-cost, very long-lasting oil assets, such as our assets in the UAE, in Abu Dhabi, and in Libya, very well positioned on the merit curve, very resilient, ensuring the longevity of operations. Second, LNG projects with a long plateau, low cost, which are well positioned on the merit curve with operation of over 25 years, among the most competitive LNG suppliers globally. Third, and a bit particular, our contract and our project in Iraq, which is based on an innovative contractual scheme for the region, and which is enabling us to capture a price upside. In the Middle East, our target is to increase our cash flow from operation by $2.5 billion between 2024 and 2030, based on the price of 2024. This will be coming a lot, in fact, from the LNG developments in Qatar and our gas growth integrated project in Iraq. This demonstrates that MENA is, so I am talking here about free cash flow, that MENA is not only a place with low-cost, long plateau production, but also a place where we will be able to generate significant free cash flow. The second focus I wanted to share with you is deep water, a strong area of the company. For us, deep water is assets and projects in West Africa, of course, Angola, Nigeria, Congo, but also in offshore U.S., in Brazil, and now in Suriname. The company has been recognized for its experience, expertise in deep water for many years. I think our recent exploration successes in Suriname, in Namibia, demonstrate that deep water opportunities are still there, and that technical expertise is a key driver to unlock those opportunities. The key characteristic of those deep water assets is the contracts, generally production sharing contracts, which are attractive with high margins and the ability to capture very largely the price upsides. Our growth in deep water is based on the developments we've seen in Brazil, in the U.S., in Suriname, but not only. Also, it is going to be based on our ability to capture and benefit from profitable tieback opportunities around our existing assets, particularly in Angola, but also in Nigeria. In the future, in Suriname, you saw that we just started two tieback developments in Angola, Begonia and Clove Street. These projects, of course, benefit from a ledge in our existing processing capacities, and hence a very low marginal cost and they are highly profitable. This portfolio of deep water developments will deliver an increase of free cash flow of $3 billion in 2030 compared to 2024. You can see, if you look at the right part, which is the free cash flow at $50 and the orange, which is the free cash flow at $80, I think it illustrates pretty well the price upside of those deep water assets. Now, a third focus is on Malaysia. Let me share with you quickly the status of our development in Malaysia. We entered in 2024 as an operator acquiring SapuraOMV, 40 CFOs of reserves, a brand new development, Jerun, that started in the second half of last year, a production of 50,000 bbl equivalent per day for the company, low cost, low emission. Also, this acquisition of SapuraOMV for us was the acquisition of a platform for future growth, coming from both development of existing discoveries and future exploration. Now, this year we've materialized, I would say, step one of this growth ambition in Malaysia. We acquired 12 blocks, interests in 12 blocks in partnership with Petronas. Those 12 blocks, they are a combination of discovered gas resources and exploration opportunities. We have two blocks holding 40 CF with a potential development named Kenyalang, which is expected, in fact, to be launched to feed Malaysia LNG from 2030. This development of Kenyalang will basically double our size in Malaysia with another 50,000 bpd equivalent of production in company share. Of course, we certainly work to unlock more through exploration. We are just setting up an exploration hub in Kuala Lumpur to be close to our stakeholder and partner, Petronas. All this is a good illustration also of how we can leverage on a partnership, on a strategic partnership with a company like Petronas, our operator capability, our exploration and development track record, to establish a new profitable position. Emissions. While growing our production, we are continuously working to reduce our emissions. You see here our scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions for oil and gas, not only upstream, but also refining and chemical. What you can see on the chart is that we've reduced the emissions by 36% last year compared to 2015, through energy efficiency improvement, through a very significant reduction of our flaring, through electrification and use of renewable power when it's possible and when it makes sense economically, and through the optimization of our processes, our operations, our equipment, and all our assets. In downstream, with the gradual usage also of green hydrogen in our refineries. Let me, I went a bit too quick because methane is an important, very important area of focus in the company. On methane, we have the target to reduce our methane emission by 50% in 2025 compared to 2020, and we achieved that target last year, in fact, with one year in advance. Now we are tightening the objective. This year, we expect to achieve a reduction of 60%, and we've maintained our target to reduce by 80% our operated methane emissions in 2030. One point of significance I want to mention is that we've decided to roll out a very large program of permanent monitoring of our methane emissions on all our operated sites. Currently, we're installing a methane emission detector and equipment on all assets, all sites, more than 13,000 of this equipment, so that we'll be able to detect immediately any methane leak, any fugitive methane emission, and react and fix it. Last, we are certainly committed to eliminate routine flaring. We're almost there. It was done in Gabon last year, and we're on track to reduce also our overall flaring by 90% in 2030 compared to 2010. By the way, all our new projects are designed for zero flaring with a closed flare installed and incorporated in the design. I will now hand over to Bernard for the upstream part, downstream part. Thank you, Nicolas, and good morning, everyone. What I would like to do now is to show you in the next few slides how downstream is going to generate and contribute with one additional billion dollars of cash flow from free cash flow to the company targets in a new, more challenging environment marked, as Patrick explained, marked by overcapacities in refining and in petrochemicals. First of all, in downstream, you remember we continue to execute a strategy which consists of aligning our refining footprint and oil product sales with the upstream production level. By doing so, we progressively build a more balanced integrated value chain, and you see that we are well on track to be balanced by 2030. Over the last few years, we have done already quite a lot. We have reduced our refining capacity by 15%. We have reduced our product sales by 30% by concentrating on the most profitable part of the portfolio, and all in all, we will be on target by 2030. How do we grow these cash flows by business segments? I will come back on this, but in a nutshell, in refining and chemicals, after the recent years where we have enjoyed, I would say, very good margins, we are back to a so-called new normal environment with overcapacities, as I mentioned. The keyword there is, of course, going to be the asset optimization, restoring the excellence in our operations in refining, concentrating on growing our most competitive assets in petrochemicals, which are the ones benefiting from the cheap feedstocks in the U.S. or in the Middle East, of course. Of course, we keep rationalizing our European footprint. I will come back to this in a few minutes. Regarding marketing and services, the priority is to keep, of course, improving our margins with a strategy of value over volume, which is paying off, and I will come back to this as well in a few minutes. All in all, for all our downstream activities, we keep a permanent focus on the cash savings in our operations, in our support functions, and of course, we keep a permanent approach being selective in our CAPEX spendings, like in the EV market, where we adapt our spendings based on the actual market dynamic. I will come back on this as well. All. In all, at the end of 2030, downstream will contribute by $1 billion of free cash flows to the company target. Let's turn to refining and chemical. First, our European operations. Here the priority is to take the best from our assets. As Patrick explained, we do not control our environment, but we control what we do, the way we operate. It means that we need to keep improving our assets availability, and we are progressing on our utilization rate, which is up compared to last year. It means also delivering cash savings, of course. We are streamlining our CapEx to focus on mandatory turnarounds and cash savings. For example, we're extending for three more years the energy savings plan, which we started in 2023, with a target of generating an additional $100 million of annual savings and reducing the CO2 emissions by 1 million tonnes. Of course, we are working on reducing our fixed costs through the digitalization of our operations and by improving the efficiency of our maintenance processes, for example. In petrochemicals, we also have some work to do. The market in Europe is facing an oversupplied petrochemical market. Here we have taken action, as you all know, by announcing by the end of 2027 the closure of one of our two steam crackers in Antwerp, in our Antwerp refinery. The second area where we need to adapt is, on a worldwide basis, the petrochemical market, where the net capacity increases faster than the demand. I've just mentioned the action we are taking in Europe, but we also adapt by investing, redeploying in regions where we can benefit from a competitive production base, namely the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. In this region, we can access cheap feedstock, cheap energy costs, which put these assets in the top quartile in terms of the industry, in terms of competitiveness. In this region, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, we can leverage our large integrated platform. You know that we have a large platform in Port Arthur in Texas and in Jubail with the SATORP refinery in Saudi Arabia, where we are progressing well on the project Amiral, and you see that we are today, as of today, at 50% completion rate, with a startup expected by the end of 2027. All of these projects are done in partnerships to benefit from what I would call a low-equity approach. For example, with SATORP and Amiral, we do it with our colleagues from Aramco. The third market where we also need to adapt is the market of bioproducts. This is a growing market, but facing two challenges. The demand is largely dependent on the regulation, which may change. These bioproducts are more expensive to produce than biofuels. We must address these two challenges in a pragmatic way to stay flexible and competitive, and this is what we do by leveraging our existing refining capacity to benefit from a low-cost, low-OpEx basis. I would like to spend just one minute on the co-processing example, which is a good example of this pragmatic approach where we produce SAF in our existing refineries by incorporating the biofeedstock into the jet fuel processing units. We produce a blend with up to 10% of SAF, which is more than enough, by the way, to fulfill the European mandate by 2030 and even beyond. The beauty of this co-processing process is that it's a very competitive production pathway at marginal cost and requiring a limited upfront CapEx. It's a good example, as Patrick explained a few minutes ago, how we can grow without spending too much CapEx. This is our priority to increase these co-processing capacities, and we are already able to produce SAF by co-processing in our Normandy and Antwerp refineries and tomorrow in Loena. When it comes to producing pure SAF, the other choice we have made to be competitive is the retrofit of our existing refinery into biorefineries, as we have done in Named or Grand Prix tomorrow. You know that by doing so, our CapEx intensity is, of course, much lower compared to the large greenfield projects. I'm sure you have all in mind the latest announcement of these large greenfield projects being postponed or even canceled. A last comment on the feedstock. In Europe, we have secured a competitive source of feedstock through partnerships with Saria, which is the leader of the animal fat collection and which is our partner in our joint venture in Grand Prix, and the same for the Yuko, where we have struck a deal with Quadra, which is the European leader of the collection of Yuko, with a 15-year supply agreement. If we turn now to marketing and service, which is also a steady cash flow generator, as I said a few minutes ago, our strategy is, in one sentence, it's a strategy of value over volume. You see on the chart, on the right-hand side, that we are able to grow our cash flow despite the reduction of our sales volume. A good example is last year, where we have been able to generate more cash flows than the years before, despite the divestiture of our retail network in Germany and in Benelux. To grow these cash flows, we build on our strengths on the three main business segments that you see on the left-hand side. On retail networks, we concentrate on the geographies where we are the leader. It means in France, where we are number one. We leverage our network to grow notably our non-fuel revenues: shops, food, wash, car services. In Africa, where we're also the number one, we keep growing on the continent, enjoying a growing demand. We exit the countries where we have a marginal position, and the latest announcement we've made were Brazil and Pakistan, two countries which we left last year. Lubricants. So lubricants, it's a good business, a profitable one. We want to boost this business and to do it, we have changed this year the branch organization, moving away from a regional matrix structure to create a dedicated global lubricants business unit. This business unit is organized by end markets to be more focused on the high-end applications. By doing so, we also have been able to streamline the marketing and services branch support functions. On the EV field, we have also a very pragmatic approach. We adapt our deployment and CapEx spendings on pace with the EV market penetration. We allocate our CapEx in priority to the fast charging hubs, whereas we streamline our CapEx for the slow charging points segment, the so-called industry charging. We are doing it by developing a low-equity approach with partners and leverage, exactly as we do for our renewables project. As you see through these few examples, the downstream segment is adapting in a pragmatic way to market conditions which are changing, evolving. We execute a clear roadmap in order to deliver by 2030 an additional $1 billion of free cash flows. Now, I would like to leave the floor to Stéphane. Thank you, Bernard. Good morning, everyone. I will go first through our integrated LNG business, starting by our portfolio. As Patrick explained, our LNG portfolio is going to grow by 50% to reach 60 million tonnes in 2030, and this growth is going to come from our own production and the expected increase of our third-party uptake and spot activities. This growth will enable us to strengthen the three main competitive advantages we have. The competitive advantage of our portfolio, first, is size. With 60 million tonnes, we will keep our 10% worldwide market share. Second, the diversity of our supply, with notably 40% in the U.S., will stay pretty stable, 20% from Africa, 20% from the Middle East, both increasing, and the rest coming from Asia and Europe. The third main competitive advantage is the flexibility of our sales. If I look at it from a production side, we can decide to take our U.S. production in Europe or in Asia, as you can see on the dotted arrow, depending on what is the best market. If I look from the sales side, as Patrick mentioned, with the 8 million tonnes we signed in Asia recently, we are covering more than 70% of our sales with a long-term oil index contract, mostly in Asia. We can decide to serve those contracts either by our own production or from the market. If I try to summarize our LNG portfolio, what we have achieved is actually transforming Henry Hub in Brent, while we are keeping the arbitrage opportunity between TTF, the European index, and the JKM, the Asian index. If I move now to the U.S., as the U.S. is going to be our largest supply region, we are going to grow in the U.S. our production by more than 7 million tonnes, essentially from two competitive projects, Costa Azul on one side and Rio Grande on the other side. Why I say they are competitive: Costa Azul because it's located on the Pacific coast, so well located to supply Asia, and Rio Grande because the liquefaction fee is very competitive. At the same time, we know that our U.S. production and the U.S. supply, and by the way, as well, our CCGT production exposes to Henry Hub price, as you can see on the right chart, for nearly 3 BCF per day of gas. Hopefully, we have worked on that to reduce the short exposure, and we've done that in two ways. The first one was when we sell gas in Asia, when we sell LNG in Asia, to blend the index on which we sell by coupling Brent and Henry Hub, reducing our Henry Hub exposure. That's one. Second, by integration with our upstream portfolio. You have seen this morning that we have had actually another acquisition in Anadarko Basin from Continental Resources. With all that, we are able to lower this Enriab exposure from 3 BCF to 1 BCF before this morning, and actually even a bit less than 1 BCF. We are going on to try to continue to manage that exposure. I move now to the tradition in terms of cash flow, and you can see the increase on the left side of our sales, on one side, the blue bar, and of our cash flow from 2024 to 2030. Actually, it could have been 2025 because 2025 is going to be quite close to 2024. As Patrick mentioned, we were hoping for a more volatile year, but it has not been the case. If I look at that growth, we have a 70% increase of the cash flow, which is above the 50% increase of volume because it's going to come from projects that are more competitive. We have made the distinction between what is coming from upstream, the growth of our production, and what is coming from our end-to-end portfolio. As you can see, the large part of the growth is going to come from our top-tier LNG upstream projects, which are already under construction and should deliver production by 2028, 2029, and 2030. A smaller part from an enhanced portfolio. As I explained, enhanced portfolio by that, I mean better supply coming from the U.S. and more flexible sales in Asia that we have been able to sign in the last two years. That's for integrated LNG. I will move now to integrated power, starting by the context and coming back to the slides that Patrick has shown, with two main ideas, two main trends in the power market. What do we see? First, growth. 3.3% growth per year in the last 10 years, and a trend that will continue, with strong drivers for that: data center, digitalization, decarbonization of industry, and EV rollout. In our market, it pumps or air conditioning. What is interesting is that the market we address, U.S., Europe, Brazil, India, and a few others represent one-third of the worldwide demand. They are going to grow as well by more than 2%, as we see data center pushing demand, notably in the States, but starting in Europe, and as well EV penetration. On one side, growth. The second main theme is volatility. Volatility is increasing in all those markets, and with volatility, the price of flexible assets. Why is volatility increasing? Because renewables are developing fast, and as we all know, they are intermittent. Second, because in many markets, we decommission flexible assets, notably coal, as it is the case in the U.S. and in Europe. We are more depending on weather. We are more depending on, I would say, heat or cold wave event. Just to give you one figure, seven days out of 10 now in Europe, you've got a price difference between the lower price in the day and the higher price of the day, which is above EUR 50 per mWh. That was one day out of 10 only five years ago, just to give you an idea of how volatility has progressed. That's exactly what we want to address with our strategy, to focus on key deregulated markets where we can deploy our integrated model. There are three countries we have chosen to do that, two main zones: U.S. on one side, Europe, and Brazil, and they should represent 70% of our production. Why is the U.S.? Actually, it's not the U.S. It's ERCOT, PJM, and CAISO because there are free markets, fully deregulated, where demand is growing fast, more than 6% in Texas, and that's going to continue, where you have a strong demand for corporate PPA and where we can deploy our full model with a strong base of assets, renewable on the other side. By the way, we don't have any problem to continue to develop that pipe at least until 2029. We have as well CCGT assets, notably in Texas and peaker in California, and we have battery in operation under construction. That's for the U.S. Europe, where here you have strong support through the CO2 price for flexible assets and where we have already a strong base of flexible assets that we want to continue to develop, and where we have as well a nice renewable pipe, notably in France, in Spain, in the U.K., and in Germany, with the acquisition we made last year. On Europe, it's clear that there are markets on which we want to focus, notably Germany and the U.K., because there are countries where power prices are very high and the demand for flexibility is important as well. Short comment on Brazil. Low-cost renewable, the best wind and the best hydro in the world. We are number one thanks to our partnership in Casa dos Ventos, and we are convinced that we can grow there a very profitable business. That's the main focus, 70%. We have, I would say, two other zones: oil and gas countries where the idea is through our renewable activity to support our oil and gas production, to support ENP in their discussion with those countries, or to help them, like for example, Qatar, Iraq, Libya, or to help them to decarbonize their consumption, like in Argentina. There are a few countries where, because of the specificity of the market, we can reach our target of 12%. That's not countries where we are going to deploy our integrated model, and I can state India or South Africa. We want to divest all the other countries, and we want to do that by monetizing our pipe in the most efficient way in the coming quarter. I finish by the cash flow. As you can see, we are generating $2.5 billion in 2024, should be pretty much above $2.5 billion, should be pretty much the same in 2024, 2025. We plan to grow that. One point, you are asking for more details. We have split that cash flow between two different activities. One is production. That's really what is coming from the sale of our electron in renewable and CCGT. That's one aspect. The second aspect is what we call sales, which include trading and our retail activity in Europe. We will publish that breakdown from now in the next quarters. As you can see, we are generating the $2.5 billion, roughly 50/50. Those cash flows are going to grow for production with the volume. We plan roughly to double that and at a slower pace for trading and retail. With all that, we should be above $3.54 billion in 2028. As Patrick mentioned, given the level of CapEx, that activity will start to contribute to the dividend in 2028. We should reach up to $4.5 billion by 2030. At that time, we will have a return on capital of 12%, which is equivalent to the return on capital of upstream oil and gas in a $60 environment. Obviously, you don't have the upside to oil, but at the same time, you have the advantage that that return on capital is completely immune to the oil cycle, contributing to the company resiliency. You could even state that there is some potential upside as it will be a bit sensitive to power price. With that, I've finished on integrated power and over to Patrick. Thank you, Stéphane. By the way, I think it's an important message, this one. Part of the differentiated strategy on electricity is clearly bringing us more resiliency out of the oil and gas cycles. I think, and we didn't claim that before because we wanted to demonstrate that the model is successful, that we can continue to deliver. The more we progress in that business, the more we are, I would say, confident that we reach this level of free cash soon and of return on capital employed, so we can claim it. By the way, again, I was looking to the return on capital employed of the major companies and of the third quarter. We were number one with more than 12%, and some of our peers were lower than that. I think this resiliency has to be an advantage for the future of this company. As Stéphane showed you, we begin to give you more insights on the model by giving you from now the split. How do we manage to make this cash flow and these returns? I know people are asking questions to themselves, so we'll split between production and sales. Step after step, more because we are more confident on this capacity to deliver. I want to summarize the investment case of TotalEnergies as a conclusion. First, again, more energy, less emissions, delivering superior free cash flow, and we have increasing shareholder returns. That's the fundamental message. The low low less emissions were described by Nicolas, but I want to insist that, in fact, we are not we are managing to, with this strategy, in particular, to lower the carbon intensity of our sales. We will reach minus 25% by 2030, probably more, in fact, with the ambition on electricity. Even if, as you've seen in the presentation of Stéphane, there is more gas to power flexible assets, but it's a reality. By the way, I'm a bit more comfortable between an oil and gas company to be more integration between gas and electricity in the execution of our strategy. This additional free cash of $10 billion. At the same time, what do we do with it? Again, I'm coming back to the decision of the board, I'm repeating that we are using a strong word, sacrosanct dividend. It's a guaranteed. It has been the one we've demonstrated for 40 years. It will grow. It will grow, of course, because we have growing cash flows. The payout above 40%, I would say, is a bottom. It's full cycles, but it's a floor. That means that we will apply it at $50 pbbl. When I will have a question at $50 pbbl with this floor, buyback will continue, $1 billion, $1.5 billion, depends on the environment. The other message is that it's not a target, 40%. In fact, when I'm looking to the guidance we gave you at $70 pbbl and what we will apply on the fourth quarter, $1.5 billion of buyback, applying that through 2026, the payout will be more in the range of 45% - 50%, so reaching 50%. That's, again, it's not a floor. It's a protection, this 40% for full cycle for all shareholders. By the way, the dividend, when you calculate it in U.S. dollars, is more than what we mentioned, that this 25% will be 11% increase. At the same time, we need to maintain and preserve the balance sheet. This is the second message that we are, and we received the message from the market. We took it for ourselves. We have this new guidance for 2026 in terms of buyback. At $80, we maintain the $2 billion per quarter. We've been in an environment at $60, $70, and an exchange rate of dollar per euro will move, will give a range, $0.75 billion- $1.5 billion per quarter. Just a comment for you. $0.1 per euro costs us $800 million. We express the dividend in euros. When we move from $1.1, which was the case last year, to $1.2, where we are today, the allocation to the dividend in dollars is an additional $800 million. I commented already the $50 pbbl case. Of course, we gave a guidance only for 2026 because with the growing cash flow, we've seen some figures for 2027, we will rescale these buyback levels according to the delivery of additional cash flow. It will depend, of course, on the energy price environment. I don't want to, we didn't want to give, it's not a guidance for five years. It would be very strange from us. It's for 2026. Then we will adapt this guidance to price environment and, again, to the cash flow growth that we will deliver. This cash flow growth is coming there, by the way, just on the next slide. This is an important one. We made it on 2026, 2030, so five years cumulative cash flow from operations. The first column is at $50. At $50, by the way, we would apply more capital discipline, so you have a little less CapEx than at $70. I gave you the range before. At $70, this $80 billion of generation of free cash flow, we can see that there is quite a lot of free cash available above the capital investment earned dividend of 2025 dividend over five years. There will be space to increase the dividend, to make a net debt reduction, and to come back to higher share buybacks. You have even the figure at $80 pbbl. It's an additional $15 billion. You have also, at $50 pbbl, you can see that, in fact, our breakeven is clearly, post-dividend, is clearly lower than $50 because we have some cash available, but if we are maintaining the 2025 dividend equal. You have also, on this slide, the sensitivities would not change compared to previous years, $2.8 billion of $10 pbbl. By the way, for those who were asking why do we have a spread of $3 billion potentially between the $70 case and the $60 case on the buyback, the answer is just this one. At $70, at $10 pbbl, we have a difference of almost $3 billion. That's coming from there. If I have summarized the cash allocation, I would say first the dividend. Again, the first priority, sustainable, secured, full cycles. I can only insist it will be a future growth will be fueled by share buybacks and underlying cash flow growth. The board will take decision, of course, in February 2026. We'll see where the price environment will be, but it will be supported, obviously, by the buyback drill performed in 2025. The CapEx, we gave you new guidance, $14 billion, $17 billion full cycles, $16 billion next year. The balance sheet, maintaining during a band under 20%. We expect, with Jean-Pierre Sbraire, to have by the end of the year to be next to 15%. That's as planned as it was normalizing by the end of the first half. Surplus cash flows, we gave you the new guidance for the buybacks, the way we will execute buyback in 2026. That, I would say, this scheme is updating now. We've, again, strong commitment that the cash payout will be above at least 40% full cycles. The last news, which is important for us, of course, which has been confirmed by the board last week, we initiate officially the process to the SEC. In fact, we make the notification is to convert these ADRs into ordinary shares on the New York Stock Exchange. There are different reasons to do that. First, we can do it in 2021. It was not possible 30 years ago. We introduced the ADRs in 1991. You could ask yourself, why did the European companies not do that by that time? In fact, because by that time, the accounting system was not the same. There were differences. We were not in IFRS. It was not recognized. All that has been done. In 2021, you have a lot, I would say, of digital capacities to move shares from Paris to New York during the nights, etc. It's blockchain. It's not papers, all that. There are a lot of evolutions. We have done quite a team's work quite, I would say, efficiently in less than a year with different players, Euroclear in Europe and DTCC in the U.S., NYSE in the U.S., and Euronext in Europe to make it possible. Probably the company is paving the way by doing this transformation of ADRs into shares. Why do we do it? We observe an evolution of our shareholder base. You can see that this quarter, by the way, more than 50% of our institutional shareholders are on this side of the Atlantic. In the meantime, in the last 10 years, we've increased quite a lot. Again, the company employees, 9%, and the individual shareholders as well have increased their share from 10% to 16%. We have 25%, I would say, of individuals, which, of course, are generally quite stable. We like them, like all corporations. We have also to adapt to institutional shareholders, and you have the split there. The second idea is that ADRs, and just a figure we dig into, the cost of ADRs today for ADR holders was around $12 million per year. The cost of holding the same shares will be $2 million- $3 million per year for the same holders. We eliminate that cost, which was limiting some interest for the ADRs. We earned that without any additional obligation for us because, in fact, in the U.S. system, securities are covering ADRs as well as ordinary shares. The obligations, and all we have, and many questions about it, all the obligations we had under the ADR schemes are the same as ordinary shares. For us, it's reinforcing attractiveness, and we hope to attract additional AUM, I would say, to the ordinary shares. It will be only, so it's not a double listing and all that, forget. It's a one single class of TotalEnergies shares, just extended trading hours from Paris, 9:00 A.M., to New York, 10:00 P.M. from a European point of view, with shares transferable from one market to the other market. There will be absolutely no impact for all ordinary shares listed on Euronext, which remains the introduction market. I think it's a move which demonstrates our appetite to continue to attract shareholders where the market seems to be more inclined to oil and gas, which is this side of the Atlantic. I hope that we'll continue to work, of course, hard to convince European shareholders to maintain trust in the company. That's the last slide to conclude. I think through this presentation, I speak about consistency. I speak about resiliency. I would say I see your capacity of adaptation. The example which was given to you by Bernard about this idea that we make co-processing instead of new greenfield or brownfield biorefineries is a good example. The other example he mentioned, to adapt our EV deployment to the reality of the market, this is what I think is important for us. Part of the streamlining CapEx is also just to observe at which pace this energy transition is taking place and to cope with, I would say, the I mentioned that we see more the affordability part of the equation was more important than just the sustainability part for many customers. We need also to adapt this transition strategy to the reality of the market. It's also true, by the way, on integrated power. The adaptation which was described by Stéphane is just the reality is that investing only in renewables is more intermittent. If we don't have in our portfolio all the flexible assets to capture this volatility, it will make little sense, in fact. That's also what we are willing to do by adapting our transition strategy to the reality of the demand and to what the customers want in order to continue to provide reliable, affordable, and sustainable energy. This slide summarizes, I would say, the investment case. I will not be longer than that, but we'll be happy to answer to all your questions. Thank you. We are moving now to the Q&A, so raise the hand. We start maybe at Doug. If you have a question, please. We have Mike coming in. Thanks so much. Thanks for all the information, gentlemen. Good morning. It's Doug Leggett from Wolfe. Patrick, you've mentioned a couple of times that the market appeared to be sending a message with the share price given what happened to the balance sheet. My question is, to get to the 15% gearing level, is that then a level you're comfortable with? If the oil price did end up being higher, what gets the first dollar, the balance sheet or the buyback? That's my first question. My follow-up very quickly, could you address incremental asset sales that were embedded in your production targets specifically? I think there was some speculation recently about the North Sea potentially exiting there. Thanks. Just to be clear, we didn't set 15% gearing, but lower than 20%. We are comfortable with lower than 20%. There is no impact if we are at 15%, 16%, 17% on the scheme I described to you. We both consider that less than 20%. Again, I think we'll play, according to Jean-Pierre and his team, we should land around 15%, 16% by the end of the year. We are comfortable. We look at it. If we were reaching more than 20%, which we are, with the guidance we gave you, we don't anticipate that, to be clear. We have some margin, and this is a point. Of course, we have to execute the CapEx program as it is, the $16 billion. All that is consistent. The balance sheet is a priority. This is what message I received. You know we test the market. We have a clear answer. The balance sheet is a priority. We are comfortable with that level, which will position us in a competitive way compared to our peers. Divestiture, what is planned? First, we need to execute divestiture this year, and then we'll continue to do it. In the plan, acquisitions are balanced by divestment. We continue to rotate the portfolio. In this year, most of the divestments will come, by the way, by Q4. The proceeds of the divestments, have you noticed during the year, we have decided, and it's part of streamlining the CapEx, that when we had participation or non-operating interests in projects like Bonga or Gato Dumatu, which was not fitting, in fact, with our less than $20 pbbl, we decided rather than continuing to contribute with 10%, 15% to just divest the asset, not to be a problem for the operator. That's two divestments we've done, and we'll have other examples of that. We have just made another one in Norway, a small one, where again, it's very mature. It's not fitting with our best allocation criteria, CapEx allocation criteria. We decided to divest when it's not fit because, again, we have a large portfolio. We don't need to, it's not a question of marginal barrels. We prefer to stick within the guidance we gave, and we consider it's the best way to have a reliance portfolio in the future for the coming years. Of course, part of the divestment is also the recycling of capital on the renewable side, which is important. This morning, we have announced that we have in the U.S. made with KKR. It represents almost more than $1 billion, globally $1.2 billion, if I remember well. It's quite big. It's a way to recycle the capital, and it's part of the capital guidance and the business plan. That will continue because, in fact, on renewables, as we have reached, more or less, we will continue to divest 2 GW per year. For the timing, this market, I know there are some doubts, but we are quite successful with the assumptions that we can farm down 50% with good returns. We will have done it in the U.S., in Greece, and in France in 2025. For 2026, we have the same type of program to continue it. That's what is embedded in the plan. On the upstream part, we will see when we, you will see what we'll do when we will announce it. I don't want to give more details today. Okay, Lydia. There are discussions. Thank you for the presentation. Just to continue on, to be clear, the divestments that we plan are in the growth figure. We are in the numbers. We are planned, just to be clear. Thanks. It's Lydia from Barclays. Just to continue on the growth theme, if I go back to where you started the presentation, it was really that you can do the same or more with less. Can we just go through a little bit more detail as to how? Is it the technology is enabling more cost savings? Is it just that there were things you went, this isn't going to add to return? I just want to understand a little bit more how. The other bit was, I think, fascinating when you showed more of the geographic diversification of the upstream business because that is different to where the peer group is. In a world where U.S. shale oil probably isn't growing as much, do you think that's actually much more important than where it might have been for the last decade? Okay. First point, I think there are two sources of this $1 billion. One is clearly on the low carbon business. You've seen it. It was $4 billion-$5 billion. We said $4, $3 billion- $4 billion. Why? Because first, two ideas. Again, co-processing, there is less CapEx on biofuels than in the previous plan, just because we have a technology, a way to do it. Let's do it. Let's not be stubborn. EV, again, it was $200 million per year. I think today it's more $100 million, $120 million. We adapt the pace to the customer demand. There are a few ideas there. On Stéphane's side, it's just that now we know what we want to do in which geographies to be more focused. In order to, we will be able to deliver the same, I would say, in terms of cash and in terms of growth and cash rather than just continuing. That's an adaptation. We progress on the understanding, and we streamline, we focus the CapEx. That's $500 million, I would say, there. The other part is coming from the oil and gas. Again, decision to divest from marginal non-operated interest where there was some CapEx in the plan, where we consider it's better to focus on the core assets without impairing, by the way, fundamentally the trajectory. That's the other part, I would say. The $1 billion is coming from these two parts. It's also, I would say, maybe a little more efficient. There is no, I mean, it's not a matter of technology there. I would say it's more a question of choice of portfolio of assets. Maybe, unless I'm wrong. No, you're right. Okay. No, but you can compliment because I don't know everything about it. You are right. The technology is more on the OpEx, I would say, where we expect. We have a strong push. We are investing, by the way, quite heavily in these data platforms with Innovation and Emerson, with Cognite now in upstream. I think it's time to really organize the company today. Until now, it was bits and pieces, some pilots. Now it's time to move quicker. We have to invest in programs to have the data platforms and to be able to deploy tomorrow AI in a more smarter way, etc. This is a big effort, which is investment, but also it will contribute to the efficiency on the OpEx side in the future. I think the second question was about diversification. Honestly, it's for me something which is important. I consider that in that world, the world is completely changing. It's a world where fundamentally politics are more important than economy. For a global company like us, it's a huge change. We need to see that. I think we are living the era from the First World War. The idea that the global world is good. No, it's, and we want it or not, it's a reality. It's a reality not only here in the U.S., but it's a reality in many areas and regions. Of course, that means from this perspective, having some diversification and optionality, I would say diversification optionality is very important in the portfolio. People could say it's more complex. Yes. It obliges us to be even more local, to be next to local stakeholders, which is a good strength of this company. The way we are deploying our people in the company in different countries, we have people there in order to be very local. I can tell you what we have just achieved in Iraq is quite impressive. In less than three years, to have been able not only to confirm the contract, but to sign all these EPCs. It was quite a challenge. It's possible because we have a capacity to be very close. In fact, all these stakeholders, our teams are there. That's a strength in this world, which is more spread. That does not mean that I don't want to invest in the U.S. It's part clearly when we said that we have this unreal exposure to Maxwello, that means investing more in shale gas here. We will study, we have made already three JVs, non-operated JVs. We will see if we could accelerate on that in the coming months. I would say my view is that it's becoming an interesting asset of the company, this diversification and having optionalities in different countries. Okay, we go to Chris. Chris. Thank you. Chris Copeland from Bank of America. Patrick, I'm going to try and be lazy and ask you to do my job, which is upfront. If you think back last year, 12 months, a lot of things have happened. You just mentioned comments on global politics. What else is standing out to you where we'll meet again today, 12 months later, where you think the most significant changes have occurred in what you're presenting? As an observation, this is meant as a compliment that I think most of what you've presented today is very similar to what we heard 12 months ago. Maybe you can think about whether it's project news, whether it's politics, or whether it's commodities. While you're thinking, maybe from my end, I asked you last year, what do you feel more bullish about, $80 Brent or $8 TTF? You said $80 Brent. Do you still answer $80 Brent? No. You know I'm always wrong on commodities. I think a part of the change clearly has been, and I've seen some comments after my comments of the fourth quarter results, that people were considering that the market was considering I was more bearish, but I'm just observing what happens. Honestly, there has been a big push, and I would not have bet one year ago that the OPEC countries would have unwound their voluntary cuts. For me, we were in a world where we need more $70 pbbl, $80 pbbl to balance the budget. We are doing it for different reasons. Politics, by the way, clearly politics are interfering today in our world of commodities. It's a reality. Commodities on both sides. On one side, you have clearly the U.S. president wants the oil price to diminish to have a good gasoline price for these midterm elections. On the other side, you have the Russian war, which is, of course, fueling in the overtrend. It's very difficult for us to assess it. That's why, by the way, the trading business is more complex today because you have some elements which are not just market led by supply and demand, and I would say what you could expect of rational behaviors. You have other elements in the world. This is a more political one. That has changed. That has also changed. It's the reason why we take actions, because I want to be sure by anticipation. I'm not sure we'll see the price going down, but I want to take actions before. It's not so easy in an oil and gas company when you are in a $70 pbbl, $80 pbbl environment to say to our colleagues, okay, we need to be focused on that. It's also part of what the leadership of the company should do. Again, I'm not betting on that. I just say we observe, and I observe that this tariff war has an impact on the, I would say, macro environment, the demand. Look, I was not anticipating one year ago that the dollar could be weakened. It's weakening, and maybe it's not the end of the weakening. It has an impact on our balance of dollars and euro dollars. I mentioned it. Maybe we'll be at 1.3 next year when we meet. It's not impossible with the pressure on this part of it. This is a world which has changed from this perspective, more short-termism and more politics. That's what we need to take into account. Having said that, coming back to your first comment, the fundamental of the strategy should not change. That cannot change. You know, we have a very strong portfolio of projects, so we must find a way to execute them, coping with this uncertainty. I think that's why we are consistent, and we want to inject today, I would say, some elements of being more resilient in case of a commodity price. These markets are not a reality. I must also confess that I'm very short-term, and I'm observing the cash flow, which will generate in 2025 at $70. We are planning 2029. We'll be more on $27 billion. I need to manage that. That means that also we have to fix some issues. I know Vincent is there. He could speak about it. We have two assets which are not delivering what we expect. Donge & Porter first. He's working on it. He managed to fix what was happening in the cracker in Normandy. It's done. It's behind us, but we suffered a little in the first quarter, first half of the year. I think we are taking it. We have also some work to be done in terms of our own efficiency. That I would say my comment. Renaud, if I may, just one quick one. How worried, I know we're talking about 2030 today, but how worried are you about the buildup of more LNG coming into the market from just adding up all the permits, the FIDs post-2030? I am a little worried, but to be honest, I'm observing that. I was quite happy, in fact, with the previous freeze in the U.S. today. It's a little accelerating quickly. I'm a little surprised that all these projects will find markets, I mean, off-takers and financing. Maybe it's not fully done, to be clear. Let's see. I can tell you with Stéphane, when we launched Rio Grande Train 1 to 3, to find, of course, we were the marketers, so we know. Even to find the financing in the U.S. for a $10 billion project financing, we had to work hard. I'm waiting to see if all these projects which are today authorized, they seem to find quite a good appetite of marketers, I mean, of off-takers, despite the risk that people take. There are probably some politics behind it. We see some Asian players clearly off-taking because it's part of the tariff drills. Let's see if they all find the financing for all these projects. That's the next step. Having said that, on our side, that's why we have decided to sanction Train 4, but we will not participate in Train 5. Jason? Because again, the clear advantage, and it was mentioned, as we were aware, we made a deal two years ago with Next Decade Rio Grande. We are also a shareholder of Next Decade. It gave us an advantage of the liquidation fee. For us, it's just fundamental. Sorry. Thanks. Hey, Jason Gabelman from TD Cowen. Thanks for the time. I wanted to go back first to the cost cuts, and it was an impressive jump in guidance. I think last year you got it to $500 million cost cuts. This year you're getting to $500 million per year. I'm wondering, one, if there's any inorganic component of that or if it's all organic. Given you have highlighted several times that upstream costs are already below peer, shall we assume most of the cost cuts are coming in other parts of the business? I have a follow-up. Thanks. For me, last year, what we told you, it was $500 million for E&P, but there was also a program for refining and chemicals part, including, I would say, some energy savings. Can you remind the figures that we had? We extended it from 2027 to 2030. For me, it's not just extension of the OpEx efficiency program. Maybe you can comment, Nicolas and Vincent. For exploration and production, we had $500 million over three years, which is what we have showed last year. Now we've extended that to 2030, you know. 1 billion. Which gives more, $1 billion. 1 billion. There is a refining and chemical program. As Bernard Pinatel told you, we are beginning to work, he has worked on his side to support services in M&S, and we intend to extend that to different branches. The $2.5 billion are calibrated, will be delivered year after year. The idea is around $500 million per year. Thanks. It's mainly organic, to come back to your question. Great. Thanks. My follow-up just on Namibia, which I think last year you had hoped to get started up by 2030. Now it seems like it's pushed out a little bit beyond 2030. Can you just talk about what's going on on that project and what you need to see to get Venus over the finish line? I would say it's possible by 2030. It depends when we'll be able to take the sanction. Namibia is a new country to oil and gas. We are working with the Namibian authorities to progress. We have given them a development plan, which needs to be approved. We are, by the way, working with the contracting industry, and we are beginning to receive some interesting offers, which confirm the budget around $10 billion- $11 billion for these projects, which is to deliver more or less. We have a debate with no on the, just to clarify where we are. Because of the low permeability of the field and the necessity to reinject gas, it's limiting our capacity of plateau production to 150,000 bpd, despite the fact that we have more or less the same reserves that in Suriname, 750 million barrels of oil. At the same time, in fact, we need to extend. This plateau could be much longer. We have a discussion about extending the license in order to have a good profitability for the projects and to recoup at 150,000 bpd. We need a longer period, obviously, than in Suriname. We have 750 million barrels of oil. We are making a plateau of 220. I mean, it's quite obvious. It's just a matter of math. This is a debate, but a discussion we have with the government. In fact, today it's new authorities, new to oil and gas. We need to give them time to understand what we are requesting in order to launch these projects. We are working. I cannot be, it's just the beginning of a discussion. The authorities would like that project to be on stream by 2029. That means that we should be able to take the FID in the coming six months. We'll see if we can achieve it or not. It's very important that everybody, all parties will be comfortable and trust each other if we will launch such a project of $10 billion in a new country. Are we in the case of Suriname, where we managed to expedite very smoothly, thanks to very trusty and very counterparts, and I would say in Statsoli and all these guys, or will it be longer like in Uganda? It took five years, I hope. It will be more the Suriname case than the Uganda case. We'll see. That's part of our business. Again, clearly, we are able, TotalEnergies, to launch the first deepwater projects in Namibia in good conditions if we get a common understanding of the conditions to reach it. Michele? Consider it's an upside for 2029, 2030. It's not in these production lines. Patrick, two questions, if I may. I wanted to start with the dividend, and congratulations on the best track record amongst European oils. Last year, I think you were indicating a 5% growth. This year, it feels like there's two competing forces. On one side, there's the huge confidence on growth, 4% per annum plus the buyback. On the other side, the 10%+ appreciation of the euro versus the dollar clearly has taken a toll. I was just wondering how you think about those two competing forces in effectively setting the dividend per share growth for this year and in the coming years. Secondly, I wanted to come back to the gas market. There as well, there's two competing forces. There's relatively low inventories going into this winter, but we also have the startup of incremental exports, at least from the U.S., starting this winter, and it compounds with Qatar from the second half of next year. I was wondering how you're thinking about the risk-reward, maybe a bit more volatility than what we've seen in the past six months. Also, when you think the oversupply in the gas market brings us to kind of below mid-cycle European gas prices, is it still 2028 you're thinking about or that date has moved? Thank you. Okay, many questions. First, honestly, the board has worked hard. In two days, reviewing the strategy, managing to land on something which is a strong scheme, repeating on the gearing, on the buyback. I must praise them. Honestly, on the dividend, we postponed the debate later. Having said that, it's clear that we have a differentiation compared to the others. By the way, most of us made a lot of benchmarking. All our peers are at 4% growth per year. I don't know if it's, so if we make a difference, 5% is not bad. We'll have bought back 5%. There is the debate about this euro dollar, which honestly is 1% more or less. It doesn't change so much. My view, we'll have the debate beginning of the year. I don't know if we'll be at $70 pbbl if we are still there. I think this idea of 5% is probably the right one. It depends where we'll be on the energy price. You know, sometimes short-termism also affects the boardrooms. It's a matter. I'm confident, and again, we are confident on delivering this cash flow growth. This is a driver. We have adapted the buyback. I'm not sure we should adapt everything. We want to keep that differentiation, I think. We'll see. I cannot commit for the full board before February. Honestly, I think the debate on dollar euro was more important on the buyback level. It was taking on board $1 billion extra rather than the dividend. I don't see that debate on the same intensity, just to answer your question. On the gas, we can speak with Stéphane. I would say 28 years, I think 28. I don't change. I don't move forward. I don't move forward because these projects are, I see some slippage there and there. Also, you have this decision of the European Commission. If it's confirmed that they want to ban the LNG from Russia from 2027, that means 20 million tons. You have to find there. It creates a tension, not optimizing all the flows like it is today. We'll see where this LNG will go. I think it's an important, it's an element of the puzzle. 2026, honestly, I would be surprised to see there are not so much, so many tons. You have 30 million tons, according to my records, which come in the market. Not so big. It could be absorbed quite easily. 2026 with this tension, with again all these news about Ukraine, Russia, which continue to disturb the market. I'm maybe at the forward, say 2011, 2012, we are there. I think we are a little more volatility. My traders will love it, but I'm not fully sure, to be honest, when I look to that. Now, what the best way, a comment we should do, which is important, and which explains as well one of the difficulties we face from the LNG business, the arbitrage that we had. You know, the U.S. LNG was very well located to make an arbitrage between Asia and Europe. In fact, today, most of the flow is going to Europe. There is not much arbitrage possible between the Asian LNG. The GKM and TTF is often closed, which of course impacts. In fact, on the first order, when we'll see that we are analyzing the results of the LNG business, this arbitrage which was open, today it's completely closed because most of the flows are going to Europe. That is a new thing, something we need to think about. Will it remain or not? I think it's not clear, but this is important to understand when we analyze the results. That's what I can comment to you. You have a question? Yeah. Please. Yeah. Thank you. Victor Swishchuk with Letko Brosseau in Montreal, Canada. My question is on the buybacks specifically. Since 2021, you've spent, if my numbers are correct, $33 billion in buybacks, including this year. I'm curious how you look at three things. A, why are you doing it? Two, how do you assess its efficacy? In other words, how do you know that the money you're spending is money well spent? Three, how does it fit within your countercyclical narrative that you apply to acquisitions? Thank you. Why? There were two fundamental reasons to make buybacks. The first one was, consider the share price is quite, it could be higher. It's a dry time. It's better to buy back shares when the share price is low than high. The second was an economic calculation, which is quite easy. We borrow bonds at 3.5%, and we serve a dividend yield of 6.5%. From a pure economic point of view, company point of view, buyback shares, you can make the math. It's quite at $53 or even $60 per share or $61 or euro per share. It's attractive. Having said that, is it efficient? Not really, because I didn't see the price. I mean, no, the share price went up and down. I'm not sure it's efficient from a pure, no, but it's not efficient from a pure share price point of view, but from a saving, I would say, from a dividend point of view, it's efficient. Because with this policy, we managed to increase the dividend by maintaining the, I would say, what's another objective? We managed to increase the dividend and the cash out from the dividend has been stable. In fact, for you as shareholders, it's efficient, I think, because you've seen an increase of the dividend without having a higher burden. We have the dollar euro rate today, but let's put that aside. Is it fitting with the contract stick egality? Again, we were historically, you know, it's a 2022 which was exceptional where suddenly we've seen a drop of our giving ratio lower than 10%, which gives some margins. I think if you read what the, and you probably read it, I'm sure, the press release of the board said we want to maintain some flexibility, agility, and maintain some capacity, which means, yes, we could have the situation and we have, but we don't have so many, our portfolio is good. Contract stick egality acquisition, we don't have so many targets, to be honest. We have one, which is U.S. gas, shale gas, because we need to manage this exposure to and rehab. Again, that's part of the, I would say, of the equation. That's the reason why also we have decided to adjust this buyback scheme to introduce a price element in the scheme like we propose in order to adapt and to keep some flexibility in the balance sheet. Yeah, but you know, I know it's a permanent question, but you know, it's again, yeah, okay, I understand. A share could go down if there is a price going down and then you will have to buy less. Yes, I know, but it's, you cannot do everything at the same time, you know. The priority today is the dividend, and we are strong on the dividend because when I discuss with our shareholders, they all praise that. Second, we have a nice portfolio of projects, so let's make the CapEx $16 billion. We are efficient. Between the balance sheet and the buyback, the balance sheet, we want to keep the balance sheet. Irene, please? Thank you. Irene Himona at Bernstein. When I compare your slide 11 on CAPEX with the equivalent slide last year, it's clear that the whole of the CAPEX reduction, the $1 billion, is low carbon and most of that is integrated power. I had a series of questions on integrated power, if I may. First of all, can your existing portfolio or pipeline actually deliver the targets without any additions? What happens to those targets if you're not able to find and add CCGDs? That's the first question. The second question, in oil and gas, obviously we talk of Brent and TTF, and as we saw today, that drives CAPEX and distributions. What power price should we be thinking about across your portfolio, which will be behind the 10% returns improving towards 12% over time once we add trading, etc.? Finally, can you clarify whether your Indian interests are included or excluded from the power targets? Thank you. Okay. I will begin. Stéphane will complement it. No, your assumption that it's not only low carbon, it's $500 million. Last year, I integrated Provast 4, we said 3 - 4, so 3.5, it makes $500 million. You don't have the $1 billion. In this guidance for CapEx, it's net CapEx, let's be clear. We have organic CapEx, but we still have M&A within the portfolio, within this guidance for integrated power. We have the room, at least in CapEx, to make the acquisition we need to do in order to have more flexible assets. It's embedded. I would say you have more or less an average of $1 billion per year, I would say. It will not make $1 billion per year because it's not linear. We will see the way the opportunities we might have. Last year, we are... this year, we acquired the West Burton. Last year in the U.K., we continue to study different projects in Germany, obviously, and in other countries. In the U.S. today, it's quiet because CCGTs are expensive. Suddenly, we were countercyclical, so we are quiet on this side. On this side of the Atlantic, we'll see. Let's be a little patient. You have $5 billion embedded in this guidance for CCGTs. I mean, I think there are enough opportunities to be able to execute that, I think. Just to be clear, it's important, of course, it's part of the strategy, and I think Stéphane has been quite explicit. We need to do that. On the other side, on the renewable part, I consider we have almost all what we need to have. Now, we made an acquisition in Germany this year, so it's not a priority, to be clear. We might look to reinforce our trading house or trading capacities as possible, that might be a pair. Renewables, we might be opportunistic more in terms of pipelines, but not big and large acquisitions. I'm not today. I mean, as soon as we see, we see there are good opportunities. The U.S. might be a good opportunity area, by the way, because today we see the valuation of this type of assets diminishing in the U.S. under pressure of the administration or just... What power price drive 10%- 12%? That's for Stéphane this one. Actually, the power price assumption is to stay at the current market level. The improvement of the rotation from 10 to 12 is not linked to any improvement of the current market level. If I take the European level, you are at, let's say, EUR 80 per mWh in Germany as a reference. We need to go market by market, but Texas is around $50 per mWh. The improved overall ratio will come from the growth of the portfolio, as I've shown. If you look at two metrics, one which is net result per terawatt hour, as the prices are not moving, actually, it's slightly improving, but not that much. You have the capital employed per terawatt hour, which is improving along the next five years because we are growing, we are amortizing assets. There are pipes that we bought that are coming on stream and that will clearly help to decrease the capital employed per terawatt hour. That's where it's going to come from. We are clearly benefiting from a higher return on capital of the flexible assets, which are clearly contributing. In fact, we have quite a number among the capital employed. There are some unproductive capital employed today in the denominator of integrated power, which will be activated with the development of pipelines, just to clarify. We are at 10% with part of some burden in the capital employed, which will streamline. India, yes, it is not growing, even diminishing. In fact, we have this in our position on India. We have this famous, we have too fast. We have the shareholding of Adani Green. We'll see. It might evolve. We were at 20% or 90%. Initially, it was in our plan, it's more keeping 10%- 15%. Again, it's not primarily that. We have the famous JVs we have together. We don't intend, today we are fine. We have no growth there. Adani Green could grow, but we have no growth. India, yes, we believe in that market for the reason which was mentioned by Stéphane, which is the low repeat. Yeah, low cost, low cost renewable and high growth. Why it is not an integrated market is because the flexible assets are coming from coal and we don't do coal. That's as simple as that. We can focus on renewable because it's, as I said, low cost, high growth. At the same time, we do it through Adani, which is a self-financed company and today generating enough cash flow to free this growth. Just to clarify my comment, we invested $2 billion in Adani Green. Today it's worth $6 billion- 8 billion. If I was able to sell a quarter of my shares to recoup my $2 billion and to be neutral, I would be very happy. We are looking to opportunities. Again, let's be clear. Adani Green is a very good company, growing. It is just that we are looking to what are the financial interests of TotalEnergies, and we support Adani Green development. One more question on integrated power. Can you just quantify the strategic review in terms of, you know, percentage of capital employed or sort of some sort of context for how big it is that you're trying to scale down? Secondly, Canadian LNG came up, as CAPEX came up a couple of times. You know, what are you trying to achieve as you look to build out that business? Do you think you need to back integrate into supply like you're trying to do in the U.S.? I let Stéphane answer the first one. On the second one, no, we don't need the same. I mean, our view on the ICO index is that it's low for long. Very long. You don't need necessarily the same integration. We don't see a... and the capacity of export from Canada is not at all the same as what is happening on the Gulf Coast in the U.S. The tension we could see in the unreal because of all these transmissions, et cetera, on the system in the U.S., we don't see at all the same. We don't perceive the same tension in Canada. In Canada, you know, it's just an idea. You look to the map, you see that the Pacific is... the trip from the Pacific is shorter from Canada to Japan, Korea, or other customers. You don't have to go through the Panama Channel, which is becoming an issue, you have, today, compared to where we were. It's the idea, okay, we are strong on the Gulf Coast. If we want to continue to grow in North America, maybe it could be good to see. If we have opportunities, we have taken... it's an option today. No, we invest... we have taken some percentage in Western LNG. I don't know if this project will come, will go to end, we'll see. It's optionalities, which from a pure geography point of view. Again, we have a very cheap source of gas in Canada. We studied if Canada could be an area of shale gas in Canada to invest, including, I would say, edge opposition on the Gulf Coast. It's not a good edge because there is no link between both. ICO could remain low while NREF could go up. We don't see that interest. We still look at it, different opportunities. We concluded it was not the right way to move forward. We have two different topics. Sorry, I will take one question online. No, maybe if you want, Stéphane should answer the first question. Yeah, no. On the first question, we are taking less than 10% of our capital employed and perhaps closer to 5%. That's not really the point. The point is that it's first an interesting portfolio that we can value because there are a lot of projects that are under development and which does not translate in capital employed but which translates in value. That's one. Second, we want to do that because, as in the other branch of the company, we want to focus so that we can lower our costs. Today, we need to decrease the number of countries where we are, which will be part as well of why we are doing that. Okay, we take one question online. Matt Lofting from JP Morgan. Matt, you can go. Thank you for taking questions virtually. I hope you can hear me okay. Two questions, please. First, I wanted to ask you about the $10 billion underlying free cash flow growth target 2030 on slide 15. I think the headline is very consistent with what TotalEnergies showed 12 months ago. Clearly, though, you're now framing lower costs, more efficiency. I wondered if you could summarize the main areas where the pathway or the route to that $10 billion growth has perhaps changed from what was presented in the past, and in particular, any areas where divisional CFFO that you're assuming is perhaps now more conservative than in the past. Secondly, on the downstream business, how satisfied is the company with underlying performance? I think you mentioned earlier a lower CFFO contribution to this year's expectations. There was perhaps a similar dynamic in 2024. Outside of Normandy, what areas of the portfolio need to be further addressed? Thank you. Okay, on the first time, in fact, we are, to be clear, there is no growth of trading in this plan. It was the case last year. There were some assumptions, but we are conservative on the trading assumptions we consider. We keep it stable through the cycle, through the years. We are more optimistic about the volume, etc. Just to be clear, that has eliminated part of the CFO, which has been replaced by less CapEx somewhere. Otherwise, for the rest, I would say integrated power is maybe a little lower than planned in terms of CFFO as well. It's still, to be clear, net cash positive by 2028, but the target in 2030 is lower than it was, just to be completely transparent with you. That's the two areas. Also linked to the fact that we streamline the CapEx. All that is quite consistent. We reach our targets. In terms of production, the value will be different. On the downstream, I'd mentioned two other assets where maybe Vincent can comment, two other assets of today where we have a concern. One is Port Arthur in the U.S., where clearly we are not at all at the level we were expecting. The cracker, petrochemicals, the cracker is fine. Not the polymer side, but the cracker is okay, but the refining has difficulties. The other one is Donges, where we have invested. We are waiting to start the investment this next year or this year. Maybe Vincent, you can comment on these two assets. What are your plans to have a better efficiency on both of them? Yes, so first on Port Arthur, we had issues with a specific equipment, which we call the reformer, producing gasoline. We are currently in the big turnaround of the refinery, so we are fixing the technical issues. It should start in two weeks' time, and we should be in better shape in Port Arthur, I hope. In Donges, before the end of the year, we will start this big project in order to get gasoline with less sulfur, which is an issue in Donges, that we produce gasoline which is not anymore on spec for the European market. We have to export with a big discount. The new unit will produce gasoline with less sulfur that we will be able to valorize. Here again, about the reliability of the plants, we have an action plan, and the team today is delivering on these items where we had reliability issues. That's the two main sites where we had issues. If you look, the refineries north of Europe, Antwerp, Germany, Netherlands, they are, as a matter of fact, producing very well, and in September, they have captured the good margins. I must also say that something in Europe which happened, which is a reality in the figures, you know, we had suffered a huge inflation in Europe in 2022-2023, which was translating in wages. We like it or not, but that's the reality of what happened in our European companies. In fact, when I look to the figures of, I would say, the salary mass, you have almost an increase of 15% in the next three, four years, which we have to absorb. It's also part of why the break-even of the refining system has almost increased by 10%. There is another element in refining in Europe, which is the CO2. We should never forget that today we pay, and in 2026, we'll face less free quota allocation for refineries in Europe. That's the reality of what happens. When you combine this increase of inflation on wages plus the CO2 impact, that's why I'm trying to advocate at a European level, maybe we should make a pause on this CO2 price because we are completely disconnected from the rest of the world. At the end, we have increased the break-even of almost $10 per ton. I mean, in the plan, what we were thinking of $25 per ton moved to $35 and maybe $45. We have really a question of managing the costs of these refineries, and finding ways to continuously be more productive is not so obvious. It's just the reality of the figures at the end. We have this, and I know that one of my colleagues is very strong, and I'm happy that the U.S. CEO is supporting the poor European CEOs because maybe they have more impact outside their internal CEOs when you go to Brussels. It's good to see that, yes, there is a question of competitiveness in Europe for heavy industries and for industries. It's true for chemicals, it's true for refining. I'm not sure the European leadership is taking that into consideration, but at the end, we'll have to take actions, which might be difficult. Shutting down a cracker in Antwerp is part of the answer, and we'll see if we need to do more in order to cope with the situation. That's a question of European competitiveness for heavy industries. Paul, there is. Thank you. Paul Cheng, Scotiab ank. Patrick, two questions. First, you're saying that in your presentation and also in your paper remark, you are actively reloading the upstream portfolio because you want to grow beyond 2030. If we look at your upstream spending, why is this the right number? Should it be higher, or is that being constrained either by the desire to keep the balance sheet to be better, or is it by the organizational capability limit, or by industry capability limit, or by just simply the opportunity set? I'm trying to understand how you're coming up, this is the right number and not somewhat higher. The second question is that you have said, I mean, the world becomes even more political and that it impacts your business in a big way. If we're looking, and you also say that the volatility is lower going forward, with that, how does that impact the way you manage your trading operation? You say you expect the trading result will be relatively flat over the next several years, but based on what you said, should it be actually lower in your trading result going forward? Thank you. No, I didn't say there will be a concern. I said the assumption is that we didn't take any benefit from growth. I mean, they are working hard to make it better and they have increased. Again, we don't see, should it be diminished? I'm not yet there. Even if in the year, in fact, in what we plan, I'm under control of Stéphane, but for me, what we expect from the gas and energy trading is more or less in 2025, same result as 2024. We were hoping to have a better result because if you remember, the last quarter of 2024 was quite good. We are hoping to have this trend. We were planning on the trend of the last quarter of 2024. We are optimistic. At the end, it's the same type of results, which is higher than what we were doing in 2019. We should not, in the meantime, we have progressed and same on the oil trading. I'm same on the oil trading. I'm not yet there to think that it could diminish. What is also true is that you have more competition in trading. In fact, that's true. I'm observing that landscape. After the financial crisis, the banks have exited this commodity trading, most, a lot of banks. At the end, on the oil trading, you didn't have many players. The three European majors, some few trading houses, I would say five, six, seven players. Then the results attracted many people. We see national companies moving to trading, Aramco and NOC and others. You see also, by the way, some U.S. colleagues who want to make more trading. You have more people in the same basket. I would say that's probably an impact as well on the capacity to grow. It's an observation. Upstream. No, I think upstream again, it's not a matter of, I mean, we have a normal... We have been first to be able to grow by 3% per year in a market which is growing globally by less than 1%. Oil and gas, 1% is quite a challenge. I remember. To think that we could maintain, I don't know if we maintain 3% - 3%. I remember figures when we were 20, 15 years ago, we were speaking about 5%. We never made the 5%. It's back to where do we want to invest in which type of project. The only constraint we have is the one which I tell you is strong. If we want all these projects to be less than $20 pbbl CapEx plus OpEx or less break-even, lower than $30 pbbl. This is a constraint. This is a question of resiliency in terms of low cycle. This is what we confirm. I would say what we are demonstrating is that we can grow at 3% having that constraint. I think, does it limit? Yes, that means you will not see TotalEnergies investing in certain fields. We have exited, for example, oil sales in Canada because we are thinking it's not fitting with this criteria. Can we continue to grow with this constraint? I think, yes. Again, we never, at the Executive Committee level, stopped a project and refused to allocate capital if the project was fitting with this criteria. We are not constrained by the absolute number of CAPEX. I think it's fine, but we just, if projects are fitting the criteria, we move on. We move on. We are good on oil and gas, and we can appreciate the capacity to have the... Today, again, I consider that the capacity of the company to grow by 3% on oil and gas is quite a strong proposal of the investment case of TotalEnergies. Maintaining it beyond 2030, I think, is a challenge, but we'll continue to work on that. There is a question there for a while. Please, go ahead. Yeah, yep. Okay, thank you. It's Mark Wilson from Jefferies. It's kind of related to what you were just answering. You've got a remarkably consistent reserve life index over the last few years that you show yourselves versus peers. The first question is, what do you feel has contributed to that? Is it the geography of your assets, the efficiencies you put in? Is it exploration or even M&A? The second question is, given the growth that you're projecting, the 3%, where do you feel that reserve index will be higher or lower by the time we get to 2030? The answer is quite easy. It's a permanent focus on that parameter. An oil and gas company, I mean, maybe because it was part of my previous job when I was at the head of the strategic growth in E&P during five years. For me, it's absolutely essential to keep an eye on this reserve life index. There are three things that I did when I became CEO. First, LNG is good because LNG, if you build an LNG project, you have very long, you build an LNG project on a very long plateau. If you can identify good reserves, long reserves, that's good for helping your reserve life index. That's why we are working hard on Mozambique. It's not only that project is beyond. LNG is a good, from this perspective, it's contributing to it. Second, exploration, yes, don't abdicate on exploration. I mean, keeping $1 billion. I remember we reduced the budget from $1.5 billion to $1 billion and we are more efficient, so it's part of it. Then having access to discovered, what we call DROs, discovered resource opportunities, either by being the Middle East, obviously, is part of it. When we decided, I think the first decision I took was to maintain, to extend this concession in Abu Dhabi, yes, and Iraq. You go where you find long reserves with a cheap cost. It's fitting with all the criteria. For me, it's essential. Even if we have a strong transition strategy and we are strong on building this electricity business, we never defocus on oil and gas. First, this is, again, most of our shareholders are buying shares of TotalEnergies because it's a nice oil and gas company. Delivering results. First, it's where the cash is coming from. Even if we laugh from electricity, it will come from 2028 and which will fit. The organization is focusing on that. By 2030, the objective is to maintain these 12 years, 11, 12 years. It's just a question of continuing. The life continues. We'll continue to look for more opportunities in the different geographies. We went to Brazil because these giant fields, they have a shorter life, but at the end, it's also contributing. I think really for me, it is one major criteria of the sustainability of the oil and gas company in the future. That's why we are focused on it and we'll continue. We have Lucas. We deliver, up to us. We have Lucas here, please. Yeah, thanks very much, Lucas Hermann, BNP. I guess we've got to the stage in proceedings where the questions become a little more abstract, but two, if I might. Stéphane, the first to you, just battery. Is it more important now or less given the way that the strategy is moving? Does that mean that, you know, the level of spend or the intensity, etc., the capital intensity of the business in ways increases because it's not so much built out of power, it's also built out of storage? The second, sorry, is around LNG and project financing. I mean, there's a lot going on in terms of liquefaction growth, and maybe it's to you, JP. I'm just reminded of, you know, when Yamal came on stream all of those years ago, and I think we were all expecting, this is a modeling question, but we were all expecting, you know, quite a lot of cash flow. What happened in the end was we got quite a lot of cash flow, but an awful lot of the cash flow went to pay down project financing. It's just to understand with projects like Mozambique, for example, when we come to think about the cash flows into the future, how much initially is going to be absorbed by, you know, the project financing associated with the many liquefaction projects that you're building out. I said it's that stage where it becomes a little more abstract, the questions that is. Alors, the batteries, you can go to batteries? Yeah, batteries are more important because we see that especially when you have solar production in a country, that's a very useful tool to play the energy arbitrage. In the plan, we are planning to grow battery. We have a nice pipe in Texas. We acquire as well 4 GW of pipe in Germany. We scaled 18 months ago and we are deploying that. On the other, and it's really included in the $3 billion - $4 billion CAPEX. What is interesting with batteries is that you can clearly apply the same capital-light models and for renewable. We are actually on it where you told the battery, you give a guaranteed revenue to the battery and you are able, one, to leverage with non-recourse debts the battery and, second, even to farm down. We have currently launched a process to do that with a lot, a lot of interest on the subject. We will basically apply the same model to the battery than to renewable. To be honest, on the second question, I overlap all the details of the project. I have just one figure. Normally, Mozambique by 2030, if it starts in 2029, is an additional free cash flow of CFFO for us of $500 million. The cascade of, does it bring that? I don't have the details, but just to give you a magnitude. Just the first year, so probably it's better. I think our teams can better come back to you. At the end, it's okay. I mean, I'm not fine. I'm fine with that. Okay. Questions? Henri? Thank you for the presentation. Two questions, please. The first one, going back to LNG beyond 2030, you highlight a few potential opportunities in Mozambique LNG future phases, Papua, Canada Pacific, but also that quite a few projects are going ahead already for the late 2020s, early 2030s. Do you see a market in which there will be room for more than one of these, or will you be much more selective in terms of which LNG projects go ahead in that timeframe? You know, when you sanction a project, a new project in 2030, you are in 2035, 2026. I mean, on the contrary, I think the beauty, if you are able to be countercyclical because you have good opportunities, it's better to anticipate if the price is low by 2030. I think the Mozambique phase II might be the obvious case, in fact. You can then be proactive in ways. That's an idea, for example. There are room for more projects, and we just gave you ideas to tell you that the story does not end in 2030. We think we begin to think to what happened beyond. It's just a message. Coming back to a reserve life index and things like that, you know. Understood. A second question on the disposals and the SPDC Nigeria disposal. Is that something that's still included in the plan? Yeah, it's active. You know, Nigeria is always a nice country. We have accelerated on divestments of Bongai. It was not planned last year. SPDC, the previous buyer, has difficulty to give us the money. I want the cash. I will not lend him the money like others have done, just to have a headline. I want real cash. If I'm just receiving $100 million and then I just lend the money to him and I'm still there, I'm not there in this type of deal. TotalEnergies is not there, to be clear. I refuse to do that. Either they got the money and I got my value, or I prefer to keep the asset. I'm not there just to make a sort of, I don't know if you qualify it, just to lending money to have it, to keep it. That's the difficulty. Again, it's Nigeria. We have another potential buyer and we can, we will come. We are working on it actively. Nicolas has that on his personal objective. He loves Nigeria. I'm helping him, to be clear. I'm helping him as well. Again, that's a reality. That's life. We moved quickly. In the divestment proceeds, we will have Bongai and not this year, but we are working on it. Okay, let's go online. Peter, if you are still there, just ask your question. Hi, yes, thanks for taking the questions. The first was just on the LNG targets. Can you clarify what that assumes for the volumes that you have been lifting from Yamal? Do you expect those will continue if the EU does ban imports of Russian LNG for 2027? The second one was just more broadly, you've got quite a lot of growth coming through over the next few years. Can you talk a bit about the execution risk you see around that and how confident you are on delivering on the growth profile you've outlined today? Thanks. Okay. The second question is very good because now everything is sanctioned. We need to execute properly. On the energy side, on the Qatar part, I would say I'm confident. We have closed discussions not only with QatarEnergy, of course, friends, but also with Technip Energies, which is, and we see the first train middle of the year and then new trains every six months, more or less. I mean, the plan seems there. It's true for NFE. NFS we'll see later, but we'll come beyond. Rio Grande, train one to three, I would say we are in advance on the execution plan when I'm looking every month to the progress of the plan. Bechtel is very dedicated to that and we have no, today we don't see, we are not in a red zone, we are even in advance. I would say on this one, it's, by the way, we have an idea maybe to propose to some of you if you are interested to visit this plant in construction. It's always spectacular to see a huge plant in South Texas there, it's in this new area. That's what I can... Yamal, first, in fact, there is an assumption there that Yamal is not there in 2030, I don't know. We are cautious about it. In fact, we don't know exactly either what the European will do. Either it's just banning Yamal LNG to come to Europe, but not taking sanctions against Yamal. If there are no sanctions against Yamal, I cannot execute the force majeure, to be clear. I am partner, I have some commitments, up to me to take the LNG and to bring it somewhere else than Europe, maybe to Turkey, to India. Turkey is not far from Europe, it's not in the EU, we'll see. That's part of the difficulty. We don't know exactly what will be the regime. Today, they are more speaking a ban to Europe, EU ban to EU rather than sanctioning. There are two different configurations. Of course, if there are sanctions, then the end of the story, we have to stop and we'll stop and we'll execute the force majeure. That's why in our plan, we are cautious. We have a view that maybe the sanctions will come one year if the war lasts, but I hope the war will not last until 2027, 2028. I'm not at all a decider there, we'll see. That's for Yamal, I would say. In our figures, Yamal somewhere is offset from 2028. It's a worst case, I would say worst. We don't know, we are waiting to see what the political leaders will do. The last draft we've seen, it was not sanctioning, it was more banning, which meant we had to take care of the LNG of Yamal and we are working on it to see how we could manage it from a commercial point of view. Remember, on Yamal, we have a contract for 5 million tons, two to Europe and two to Asia and one is not geographically linked. We'll see, that's where we are. That part is not in our hand. We are following the decision from European political bodies. Questions? Did we exhaust all of you? You have the... No, Doug has another one. We can make another round. Okay. So Doug. Yeah, this time. I appreciate the follow-up. Thank you. I wanted to come back to exploration, Patrick, and there's two parts to my question. When you have a lower risk exploration or a development area like Iraq, margins tend to be lower. I wonder if you could speak to what the PSC looks like, how those margins, without specifics, obviously, compared to the broader improvement in the cash margin that you talked about. My second part is you did add 25% of Block 53 in Suriname, which already has a discovery. What is the plan for Krabdagu and future exploration and development, including Block 53? Okay, the second one is quite easy. It was an opportunity from Sepsam, whoever they wanted to divest. They are exiting upstream next to the door, so it's an easy connection. For me, it will help to maintain the plateau longer. This is a discovery. It's not a big one. We speak about 30 million bbl, 40 million bbl of oil. It's not major, but it's easy to connect. Entering will avoid a difficult unitization process. We'll be in, so it will be easy. Apache is in, we are in, we have Petronas, but we'll help to do it. Having a longer plateau, just to be clear, it's extending the plateau. It was a very easy case to take. It was not very expensive, so it's good. Iraq, exploration in Iraq, not much. I prefer to have access to all existing fields. Honestly, the contract we have is not low. It's not a low margin. It's a good margin. It's accretive. It's contributing to the $25 pbbl at $80. Otherwise, no. Iraq, you know, we were quite pioneers to come back there in 2022. In 2020, during the COVID, all our colleagues were exiting Iraq. We came back and we said clearly, there is an Iraqi risk. I mean, not there. We said to the government, it's risk and reward. I can come and invest and we've done it in an easy way, but we need to have a clear reward. No way to accept any service contract, to be clear. We need to have an incentive to the oil price. We set a contract, a new type of contract. I think some of our peers now are coming back to Iraq. I met the Prime Minister recently. He told me, thank you for having convinced your peers. I told him, I want to keep a space for me. I don't give him everything. Now, today in Iraq, and we had a discussion with him, by the way, I told him, look, you still have quite a number of discovered resources which are not developed. To invest in exploration, I prefer just which is a longer cycle. Why don't we try? Ratawi wasn't developed. There are other fields like this one. We are looking to where could we, in fact, even in the interest of Iraq, to increase the oil production. It's easier to come on something which is discovered and we try to accelerate. This field Ratawi, in fact, we took it at 30,000 bpd, 60, 120, 220. At the end, the cycle will be, we signed the contract, finalized 2023 in five years. It's a shorter cycle than going to explore and then to find. You have to find the pipelines because where do we do the discovery? Maybe we'll do it because the government wants, but honestly, our priority is, I think, even for the country, it's better if we can quickly grow production of existing fields. There are some giant fields where clearly we could improve the production. It's a question of what we are demonstrating to the authorities, that we can work together with POC, Basra Oil Companies, in a scheme where TotalEnergies operates. We have some secondaries and all that is good for the benefit of the country. Can we repeat the scheme? We'll see. More my priority. Clearly, when we go to these countries, the rewards need to be consistent with the risks that you take. By the way, the situation in Iraq today is fine. I visited that. Even it's better than we thought. I was, it's surprising, but the country is looking, going to a form of normality. There are elections, we'll see what will happen with the elections. On all sides, the fact that we have been able to award all these EPC contracts with this government is really a strong achievement and I'm proud of the teams who have managed to do that. Any last question? Irene. Irene? Thank you very much. Just to follow up on integrated power. You retained the volumetric targets. You retained the target for cash neutrality by 2028. You have cut the CAPEX, and I just realized you have also reduced the targeted CFFO from that division. I'm not sure I understood why the cash flow is lower this time around. Thank you. It used to be over $5 billion in 2030. It's now between $4 billion and $5 billion. Yeah. Because there is less CAPEX. The volume in net production, not in capacity. In the previous scheme, there was 100 GW of renewable capacity. Here you have only 80 GW of renewable capacity. We have adapted that because we need more flexible assets and less renewables. In fact, the reality is that the way it's produced is not exactly the same. It's also adapting to the markets we are targeting where we are more comfortable to invest. The decision which has been taken, we have, if you have either regulated markets, one priority, 70%. The oil and gas country where we see some synergies, Iraq, Libya, where we see some synergies helping, by the way, to have access to contracts on the ENP side. The other countries, what we call renewables, one, where honestly we inherited a lot of countries where we are, it's not a priority of the company to be a pure renewable developer. We are not a renewable developer fundamentally. We inherited that from different acquisitions. When we put all that on the paper, we said, okay, what do we do with all that? There are too many countries, too many CAPEX being spread there and there. What we intend to do is to keep some ones where we think there is a capacity to grow it efficiently, of India, South Africa, a few ones, or to do it with partners. We are looking to find partners and you will see soon why I'm saying that. If we conclude what we are working on, or we say, okay, these are projects which are good, let's divest them, let's stop. There is part of cleaning the pipeline, which was not done last year. That's why I think you need to accept that we continue to progress year after year and refining, I would say, the business model which is supportive of integrated power. The more we move, the more we are comfortable on the way we see the perspective. Don't tell me that you are unhappy if we spent $3.5 billion instead of $4 billion. I would be surprised. If we are more efficient, we are looking for efficiency. It's clear that we will have some portfolio management to be done, and we intend to do it in 2026. Any last question? One, two, three. Patrick? Thank you for this session. We spent three hours together, so it's a normal standard. It's okay. I hope we have answered most of the questions, but again, I'm sure we will have more. Thank you for the attendance, and again, I hope we continue to this presentation. There is no revolution, it's just giving you an evolution of the way we deploy our strategy and being more resilient, being agile, and continue to focus on free cash and return to shareholders. Thank you. Thank you.