Good afternoon. Thanks for joining this webcast about TotalEnergies' acquisition of 50% of EPH flexible generation assets in Europe. We will start with a presentation with Patrick and Stéphane here, and then we will move to a Q&A for about, I mean, the presentation plus the Q&A should be around one hour. Give the floor to Patrick for the presentation. Okay. Good afternoon to all of you for this short presentation on this acquisition, which is quite sizable. That is why we decided to make this call and to explain it. Of course, you have not been surprised. I think this acquisition is first fully consistent with the integrated power strategy that we described to you, and it is a gas-to-power integration, and it is again growing on the markets in Europe where we plan to grow. The second characteristic, and I think you have clarified, is cash equity for TotalEnergies shareholders. First, it is a slide. The first slide is just reminding you of one of the slides which we presented to you by Stéphane, by the way, at the end of September in our update of the business plan on 2029. We focused, and we told you that we will focus integrated power on major deregulated markets, in particular in Europe. There are some fundamental drivers behind this strategy. First, it is a growing electrification, growing market for Europe, EV penetration in pumps, etc. Secondly, the oil sales price in Europe is supported by gas and CO2 prices, which we plan, we anticipate as continuing to grow for the CO2. There are also strong, I would say, some tailwinds in favor of gas-to-power, the coal exit, which will happen in Germany like it happened in the U.K., like it is happening, it is planned in Europe. Also, of course, energy security focus more recently, which obliges governments to realize that they need to have a 24/7 electricity system, and gas-fired power plants have clearly their share of the, I would say, growing share in this mix, like batteries, by the way. Because again, the more you put to cope with the intermittency of renewables, it's perfectly true in Germany, in the U.K. You have a capture price, and the markets on which we will speak today, about which we will speak today, the capture price for CCGT BES is quite good, the utilization rate, and we will come back on this one. I would say the fundamentals supporting the strategy and this deal fit with the strategy. What is the transaction? It is an oil stock transaction, which consists of creating a JV, which will be owned 50/50 by TotalEnergies and EPH. Who is EPH? EPH is a Czech company which is led by Daniel Křetínský, which is a well-known, I would say, investor in Europe, which has established for, since, I would say, 2010, quite a large power platform, first on coal-fired power plants, which are not at all in the scope of this JV, but then moving to gas-fired power plants and batteries, I would say, since in the last 10 years, he moved to expand to more flexible assets. We had some experience in the past with EPH. We have made a first transaction with them, by the way, in France, in Cairns, where we acquired from them a gas-fired power plant, and he kept a coal-fired power plant. By the way, EPH was more willing, believing in coal than gas. They have moved after that. We made another transaction more recently in West Burton, in the U.K., when we acquired a West Burton gas-fired power plant last year. We made it 50/50 with EPH. We know this company. They are very experienced in, I would say, flexible assets, electricity, and they've been quite successful. They proposed us to engage in this transaction, which is where we do not take all their assets, but only, I would say, some identified in four countries on which we'll come back. Italy, U.K. and Ireland, Netherlands, and France. Stéphane will explain to you why these first three countries are very relevant from, I would say, an electricity market point of view. In these countries, they have around 11 GW of gross capacity already installed, and they are just building 3 GW, the new ones being mainly in Italy, I think, and some batteries. More than 40 GW. We will acquire 50% of it, which will represent a net power generation of around 15 TWh I would say, in 2026 on a full-year basis, which will grow because not only are there some new plants being built, but also there is a plan to refurbish some of the plants in the U.K., so to 20 TWh net. The JV will be operating through a stalling scheme. What does that mean? We will bring our gas. For us, there is a gas integration, and these 15 TWh represent more or less 2 million tons of energy. It is quite, again, a nice integration to add value to our energy business to Europe. We will get out our share of the production to commercialize these 15 TWh per year, either for marketing or trading. It will move to the portfolio of our company. That will create another source of added value. What we estimate as a valuable cash flow, which means in this perspective, the JV will finance most of these assets through debt, in fact. There is no equity injection, the $750 million per year. It is a JV which, by the way, the portfolio which is brought by EPH has also some assets under development, around 5 GW, some gas plants, some batteries. We can come back on that. For all this package that we will gain, we will pay EUR 5.1 billion. The EV has been discussed and agreed on EUR 10.6 billion. We have a debt of around EUR 3 billion, so 5.1. It will be paid into TotalEnergies shares, which was the request of EPH, because EPH, in fact, is willing for this transaction as a second objective, not only to share this platform to be able to scale it, but also to become TotalEnergies' long-term shareholder, as it has been in the quote of Daniel Křetínský. They see that as a diversification of their own business, investing in a global company like ours in the energy business, and they consider that the energy transition we are leading is interesting. There we get, we agreed on the share price was the last 20 quotation. It makes almost EUR 54 per share. 95.4 million shares will be allocated. This number is now fixed since yesterday evening. Whatever will happen between today's signing and the closing, this will be shared, and if there are some adjustments, it will be done in cash. This represents a multiple of 7.6 times EBITDA 26. I would say it's in the market. It's in the market. This market is dynamic. It's cheaper than in the U.S. market on the European side, but there is more appetite. It's, of course, cheaper, but if we had to build all these plants by far. Of course, it will allow us again to access and to commercialize more terawatt-hour, also to data centers in Europe and all this development of acceleration of demand in Europe. That's for, I would say, globally the deal. As I just say, of course, for us, it's a lowest in net gas-fired capacity to move to more than double on net gas-fired capacity. Today, we have around 4.7 GW net. We know that sometimes we communicate in gross, but in net, it's 4.7, and it's go to 11, adding around 6. Immediately 11 GW, which could position us amongst the largest players, I would say, in Europe. Again, as I mentioned, we will unlock, I would say, some additional value, first by. It will help the teams of Stéphane to boost their clean firm power sales from renewables and flexible generation. It will also, of course, give a new dimension to our trading business across different markets in Europe, which is, of course, another source of revenues. Again, as I said, for me, it's also very important. The strategy, electricity strategy is based on the gas-to-power integration in that case, again, with a view we might have on the energy business and the energy markets in the coming years. It's a form of edge, I would say, but for 2 million tons of energy through this integration to the gas, to these gas plants. Last but not least, for this introduction, coming back to the creativeness, I would say, of the transaction, there are two elements. The first one is that, as an average, we'll receive an annual available cash flow of $750 million per year. What we will spend, I would say, issuing these 95 million shares is equivalent of dividend, let's say around $400 million. There is some cash available. That's the first source of, I would say, what we can say as a creativeness. The second source is that, as you have understood, for this transaction, which is around, let's say, $6 billion, a little less, depends on the euro rate, but EUR 5.1 billion, we are front-loading some of the CapEx that we had announced end of September. We told you that we will spend in integrated power $3 billion-$4 billion. There were some inorganic, some M&A around, I would say, half of it. We are using part of it immediately for this transaction. It accelerates the growth of integrated power, but of course, as I would say, very logically, we will diminish the CapEx cash spent in integrated power for the next five years to $2 billion-$3 billion. Globally, the guidance for the world company is revised down by $1 billion, which is again some free cash, which will allow us to firm up the return to shareholders in the coming year. That is for, I would say, the main elements of the transaction. I will let the floor to Stéphane to give you more insights about the portfolio. Thank you, Patrick. I will now describe the EPH portfolio that will be brought to the JV. As Patrick mentioned, the JV will have 14 GW of top-tier flexible assets across Italy, U.K., Ireland, the Netherlands, and France. The bulk of those 14 GW will be CCGT, with 12.5 GW of CCGT, of which 10.8 under operation. If I go country by country, I will start by the U.K., where we will have four sites, four CCGT, which are between 15 and 20 years old, already well placed in terms of merit curve in the U.K. In addition, all those CCGT have gone, are going, or will go under refurbishment in the coming years, which will have two benefits. One, to benefit from capacity contracts, which are secured revenue and which boost the investment in the refurbishment. Second, to improve even further their situation and their rank in the merit curve. That is for the U.K. Then you have Ireland, where we have three sites, a very strong presence in Northern Ireland, which is a very specific and niche market, but very, very interesting, and one site in Ireland. That is for the U.K. part. Then you have Italy. In Italy, we have seven units with a bit more than 5 GW, with two competitive sites in the north and some two other sites in the south, which are must-run because, as you know, in Italy, you have different zones. In some of those zones, they are not that well connected. We have here OCGTs that are must-run plants with high load factor. The most interesting part in Italy is the fact that we will have two new plants, brand new plants that are coming on stream now and will ramp up next year, and which will be one of the most competitive and the most efficient plants in Italy. To complete the picture, we have as well four sites in the Netherlands, with three of them which are 15 years old and quite competitive. That is for the gas-fired power plant part. In addition to that, we have 1.3 GW of battery in construction, mostly in Italy and U.K., but as well a bit in France. And some biomass assets, biomass in U.K. and in Italy, a very big site in U.K. with 0.4 GW. And here again, very profitable as they are benefiting from CFD system. So they have secured all their revenue over the next at least 10 years. That's for the existing portfolio. And then you have 5 GW of new projects, both refurbishment of existing CCGT, the bottlenecking of the capacity of some CCGT on existing site, and obviously development on battery. Why those three markets? I just want to come back on a few characteristics of those markets and why we like them. In Italy, first, Italy is a power island with a power price which is linked to gas and growing CO2 price. The gas price in Italy is actually quite expensive as it is mostly imported, and you have high transport cost. That is one aspect. The second aspect is that you have a high capacity, an attractive capacity elimination mechanism that EPH had been able to secure. Last but not least, there is a regional system with a specific dispatching regulation, which leads to the fact that Italy is the highest market in terms of spark spread and of CCGT margin. That is one aspect for Italy. You have United Kingdom and Ireland. Once again, power island with linked mostly to gas as it is a marginal capacity to be dispatched. High CO2 price. The CO2 price is even higher in U.K. than it is actually in Europe. That is one. It is clearly a country that is focusing a lot on its energy security, which leads them to put in place a very attractive capacity market. It is as well a market where there is a strong penetration of renewable, both onshore and offshore. A very profitable balancing market is adding value to dispatchable assets on the intraday market. It is also a market where there is a great conjunction between north and south. Again, it is adding to the profitability of flexible. Last but not least, the Netherlands. Netherlands is a bit different. It is pretty much the contrary. It is very in a core position in the European grid because it is connected to many markets, starting with Germany. It is clear that CCGT in Germany are going to be key with the decommissioning of coal-fired plants that is coming and in the reduction of the dispatchable assets. At the same time, it's a country, as you know, where renewable is progressing fast, hence high volatility due to the renewable intermittency that the CCGT is able to capture and that the Netherlands CCGT will capture. Just to mention as well that we will inherit from a 5 TWh of B2B business. All in all, assets in three key markets where we have at the same time strong price, strong margin, and boost by capacity mechanism. If I look now at the growth of the JV, as Patrick mentioned, in 2026, the JV will produce around 30 TWh, and that production will increase by 33% in the next five years to reach 2030, with the ramp-up of the power plants that are currently under construction and will come on stream very soon. That's one aspect. The second aspect is the refurbishment of all the U.K. plants. Both new plants and refurbishment will lead to that 33% growth. If I look at the gross margin, the gross margin of both the JV and of the commercialization aspect should generate around EUR 2.4 billion of gross margin. 40% of it are secured revenue from the capacity contract, the CFD system, the capacity remunerations that I have described before. The remaining part, the 60%, is coming from the marketing production. It is interesting to note that the secured revenue are actually above the fixed cost of the JV and will be notably useful to raise the debt to finance the growth. All that, obviously, will be useful because we are going to offtake the production and integrate that production in our global portfolio of trading and sales. It will allow us to notably boost our clean firm power sales as well as scaling up our asset-based trading and cross-border opportunity as we have a strong portfolio now in France, the Netherlands, U.K., Italy, and Spain. Last but not least, I want to show you what will be the result of the integration of our current portfolio with 50% of the JV. As you can see, in terms of flexible generation in 2026, we will be at 25 TWh per year. The transaction added 15 to our current 10 TWh of production. That will continue to grow both within the JV, as I have explained, and as well because we continue to plan for some growth in other countries. That is one aspect. The second aspect is on the renewable side. We have 6 GW today in Europe of gross capacity. With the pipe we have actually built, that should grow to 20 GW by 2030. That is the same for storage, where we have today 0.7 and with the transaction 2 GW. That will continue to grow to 7 GW, knowing that we have our own portfolio in Germany and we have now a portfolio in the U.K. and Italy. That is for the production. If I look now at the full value chain, that production is using gas. Actually, there will be that integration with the 50 million tonnes of LNG that we are delivering in Europe in addition to our North Sea gas production. As Patrick mentioned, the gas supply of the JV will represent 2 million tonnes of LNG. That is for the integration with the gas. If I look now downstream, that will obviously enhance our capacity in terms of trading and especially in terms of asset-backed trading. The asset-backed trading will represent in 2026 around 70 TWh coming from our own portfolio today, CCGT, renewable, plus aggregation and the 15 TWh that will add that transaction. Finally, to go to the end of the value chain, supplying our own B2C and B2B activity, notably in the U.K., with 60 TWh of sales. I hand over now back to Patrick. To end on this presentation, just from a few updates of the guidance at the company level resulting from the transaction, which is again front-loading EUR 6 billion of inorganic CapEx. First consequence, as I said already, the net CapEx guidance is revised down to $14-16 billion. We are planning, we will see in February, but 2026 at $15 billion, very logically. For those who were asking us where flexibilities are coming from, you have one already there, €2-3 billion for integrated power. The second one is again for integrated power. It is an acceleration, I would say, going to a positive free cash flow. I know that the market is impatient to see this new business becoming free cash flow positive. With this transaction, it will come as early as 2027 instead of 2028, contributing to share returns. Secondly, this transaction is also contributing to, I would say, the trajectory to increase the right share of integrated power from 10% to 12%. It is positive. It gives some comfort not to accelerate, but the trajectory is, I would say, firmed up by this transaction. Last but not least, as I said again, this is cash accretive. From both parts of you, and I would say again, this transaction is accelerating somewhere and firming up the trajectory of the free cash flow per share growth that we have announced end of September. We told you 20% per year between 2026 and 2030. Again, there, you can see $1.5 billion coming. That will help, of course, the trajectory, including, and I would insist, as these revenues will come out of the oil and gas cycles, this will, in case we see some, I would say, mild markets in 2026, give even more comfort to our trajectory. Again, that will tell to you beginning of February. That is, I think, the main message that we wanted to deliver today. We are ready to take your questions now. Okay. We can open the line for the Q&A. I see that we have a first question from Bhiraj. Bhiraj, go ahead, please. Hi. Thanks for taking my question. Just two quick ones, please. The first one, just on the free cash flow guidance, you've provided the average of $750 million. How should we think about the cadence of that between 2025 and 2030? Any color there would be helpful. Then secondly, are there any details you can provide around the lock-up for EPH on the TotalEnergies shares? Thank you. Honestly, we gave you the average. To detail it, around the five years, it's, I think, let's keep the guidance as an average. It's better. We need to implement all that. Let's take it as an average along the five years. As we additionally, because the available cash flow again for TotalEnergies is coming from different sources, as you understood, from the JV itself, which will give some dividends, some revenue capacity, and from the tolling system. It is also coming from our own business, I would say, which is the marketing of the electricity, where we'll generate our own gross margin on these ones. These should follow, obviously, the growth. I prefer to keep it as an average. That $750 million is a good starting point from, I would say, full year 2026. Second question, there is a lock-up of one year to be transparent with you on the shares, knowing that, again, and if you read in the press release, there is a quote from Daniel Kretinský himself, which speaks about long-term investments. Clearly, for him, investing in TotalEnergies means a long-term investment. I would say the one-year lock-up was more a question of cautiousness to avoid any change of mind, change of mindset. Fundamentally, we are entering into that business with a long-term view. To give you also some ideas, we have a lock-up on the JV itself, at least at five years. We have planned there are some mechanisms of ROFO, ROFR, put and call in case we would diverge from the strategy. Strategic partners would consider that it is a strategic, we would like to, we prefer to go not together. Again, the idea is to keep this platform. For me, it is a scalable platform. It is a growth platform. We are fine. We have, of course, in the agreements, all the ways to manage the different situations like this type of transaction. Yes, thank you. Okay. We can go for the second question. We have Bertrand Audet connected. Bertrand, you can go ahead, please. Yes. Two questions, if I may. Can you expand on the tolling agreements in LNG so that we can understand not only the benefits to TotalEnergies as a seller of LNG, but also the benefits of the JV? The second question is on Italy. To my knowledge, you have very little exposure in terms of renewable power here. What makes Italy, in terms of integration, a key market for TotalEnergies? Thank you. The first one, maybe there is a misunderstanding. We will provide the 2 million of energy, our share of the JV, of the gas to the JV. For us, there is an integration. There is no specific benefit for the JV. The JV, in fact, the tolling mechanism will be based on a remuneration of, of course, the OpEx and a decent remuneration of the CapEx of the JV. It will be the same for both partners. The JV will receive these revenues, will run, I would say, the industrial business of the assets. Then we will take in nature, I would say, our share of electricity. From this perspective, there is no specific benefit for the JV. The integration is giving us, I would say, a short and a hedge for TotalEnergies' position. If EPH wants to buy gas from TotalEnergies, we will be happy to sell some gas to EPH. At this stage, it is still open up to us to be competitive. Italy, can you explain, Stéphane, to take the question of Italy? Yes, it's true that for the time being, we have a little exposure in terms of renewable power, even though we inherit from the portfolio of VSB acquired and from EREN, we acquired some assets and a nice pipe. We want to grow that. We want to grow that business. That's one aspect. In terms of integration, even if Italy is a power island, it's clearly connected as well, partly to France and to Germany and to the core of Western Europe. There is clearly an integration between Italy and the rest of our portfolio. I would say that's one, an integration within the country with battery as well and with gas because it will allow us to develop our gas supply to that country, which is interesting. That is integration along the value chain in Italy and as well integration within the European grid between Italy and the neighboring country. To complement Bertrand, you understood very well, but today we have 300 MW. Of course, Italy will become another area of interest to grow our renewable business. There are not so many opportunities, but when you look more carefully to any country, we had some, to be honest, until now, we were considering the market as from a pure renewable power, quite complex. The view will change today with, of course, this nice position because it is quite an attractive electricity market, like described by Stéphane. We will have more interest to see if we could, we will have enough gas plants if we could, I would say, balance the renewable part in Italy. Okay. Next question. Very clear, Patrick. Thank you. Okay. We have a question from Irene Mona. Please, Irene, go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon. Congratulations on what appears a very material deal. First, I wanted to ask, what is the gap you still believe you have in terms of CCGT capacity that you need in Germany and perhaps in the U.S.? Secondly, as you said, power will turn free cash flow positive a year earlier. You have lowered group CapEx by EUR 1 billion. You referred to the intention to use the extra free cash to firm up returns to shareholders. On your recent share buyback guidance, it would take over two years at a $60 Brent to buy back the shares you are issuing today to pay for the deal. Is it possible at this stage to be a little bit more specific on what Totals other shareholders can expect as a benefit from today's deal, please? Thank you. Okay. First, on the first one, yeah, you are right. I mean, to be clear, the only country where there is a gap for remaining in Europe is Germany. Okay. I want to be clear. We'll have enough gas plants in Europe after that deal with Germany on which we work. By the way, EPH has a lot of coal plants in Germany, but no gas plants. They plan probably to, I'm sure, they are waiting. It's difficult to make transactions in Germany today because everybody's waiting to see what will be the German government framework. Everybody's waiting to be able to value, I would say, their assets. They will obviously make some plans. We did not want to be involved in some coal plants conversion, but I think we might have opportunities with EPH. We are looking to other opportunities today. We are working on it. I would say the figure which was mentioned to you, if I remember, there was a slide. Yeah, this one. In 2030, it is mentioned 25 TWh per year. You can easily make the math. Today, we are adding, we have 10, we are adding 20, so it is 30. It is only 5 TWh per year that we are planning somewhere to complement the portfolio from a gas plant. The U.S. is another market on which we are, you know, that we have also some appetite. Today, the deals have been more expensive than the one in Europe. I was quite explicit, I think, in New York telling you, okay, we will be patient in the U.S. In the meantime, we managed to have access to gas plants here. We will come back to the U.S. at a later stage. The other part, I was no surprise with your question. Again, no, I will not change today any guidance on the buyback because, again, you see the market is quite volatile. I would just simply say that this deal for sure reinforced because I know that some of your colleagues, not you, Irene, but some of your colleagues doubt that we will maintain some buyback at $50 per barrel. Of course, obviously, this transaction, the $1 billion at $50 per barrel is firmed up. That is one answer. Honestly, we will see. It will depend again on the volatility of the market. What I can also say to the other shareholders is that as we have some free cash, a little more, that will comfort the dividend that the board will decide in February. In this context, even if the market is mild, we will, of course, take into account this deal, this transaction to consider the increase of the dividend next year. Okay. We move to another question. We have Chris Copeland. Please, Chris, go ahead. Thank you very much. Just one for clarification first. That $750 million, you are saying, is available cash flow. Can you define that as dividend that you are expecting to receive, or is it a different definition between operating free cash flow? Some clarification would be helpful. Secondly, I wanted to check regarding the EBITDA outlook. You have given us a multiple for 2026. Considering one of your slides, Stéphane, about the 33% growth outlook into 2030 for volumes and the fixed costs, would we be right in assuming that EBITDA grows faster than that along with that trajectory? Thank you. The second question, if we had applied that to the EBITDA of 2030, we would have found a multiple of 6.5. Just so you can make the math. It is growing year from 1.4 to something like 1.8. 1.8. 1.8. More or less. That is just the second question. We thought it was better, to be fair, to consider what we have in our hand in 2026 without anticipating on a longer term. On the first one, no, it is not only dividend, again, because it is an equity company. As we explained to you, it will come from different sources. It will come from dividend from the JV itself with the tolling mechanism and the remuneration capacity, which are in the JV. We will get that share. We will have also some cash flow coming from our own marketing operation. That is the sum of it. That is why we say available cash flow. You cannot just use the EBITDA from the JV, which we gave you as an indication to explain how it works from the, I would say, acquisition point of view. You cannot translate it immediately into available cash flow. Again, I insist that the JV itself will be self-financed, in fact, because thanks to this tolling mechanism, which will be tolling contracts which are signed with TotalEnergies and EPH, we can have some leverage at the JV level, which will finance the construction. There is some CapEx, again, as Stéphane told you, at the end of the construction, plus the refurbishment in the U.K. and potentially in the future part of the development. I think we just took into account 50% of the 5 GW, to be safe, but that will be self-financed on this side. I hope it gives you more clarity on this guidance of $750 million as an average of available cash flow available for TotalEnergies as a company to consider is to return to shareholders. Okay. We have a question from Alastair Sim. Alastair, go ahead, please. Thanks, Jules. You might have actually asked my first question. You answered my first question, which was about the, can you get full integration from the sort of marketing and trading with only 50%? I guess you're saying there's a tolling arrangement. Can you get visibility on where you need to trade being a sort of a 50% joint venture partner? And then secondly, obviously, as you look forward in these forecasts, can you talk about the capture ratio and combined cycle? I mean, you're taking your view here that these assets are going to be used more frequently, or do you think there's going to be more price volatility? Thank you. On the second one, I think Stéphane will give you, in fact, it's a matter of cost merit curve and positioning of the gas plants. Again, he will give you more indication on it. It depends on each market. It depends. On the first one, I think each partner, EPH and us, we have our own trading team. Each of us will trade our share of the terawatt-hour, I would say. It will help, obviously, for us. It is increasing on the asset-backed trading, as Stéphane explained. It is increasing the size of our trading activity in power and increasing the geographical footprint because we will have more assets or trading teams will have access to electricity in different geographies. That will be, if I understood correctly, your questions. For us, it was very important, to be honest, not only to have access to acquire some assets, but also to develop our own marketing of this electricity, of electrons, because it is not only for trading, it is also for making this clean, firm power offering. Being able to combine some intermittent renewable assets with some gas plants will help us to. We signed recently some deals with data centers in Spain, and we have others to negotiate, to discuss in Europe, having access to this type of, I would say, electrons as a value. On the capture ratio, maybe you could explain where we are. On the capture ratio, as Patrick mentioned, it really depends on which is CCGT and which market. We have a full range of, let's say, an average of 35 for the less competitive to up to 60-65 for brand new CCGT. One of the characteristics of the portfolio is to have at least three big new CCGT, which are the most efficient in their market. That's one aspect. There is no underlying assumption of an increase of the load factor in Europe. We have not taken that into consideration, even though that's a subject that could be discussed. It is true as well that we can expect an increase of the unit margin of the CCGT with the increase of the intermittency and the volatility of the market. In what we have shown, that is not taken as an assumption. The energy margin is planning to grow as a volume, and the volume is coming from the capacity growth that we have shown. Stéphane, could you just clarify the trading profit assumption you are using then is just based on current market conditions, more or less? Yes, they are. Okay. Thank you. We have the next question from Lucas Hermann. Lucas, go ahead. Yeah, thanks very much. Congratulations. It does look like a really interesting deal. Two, if I might, just one in terms of balance. I mean, everything to do with clean power strategy. How far or how much renewable do you need relative to carbon in order to execute on the strategy or make sure that you do not go too overweight one source of electricity relative to the other? That was one question because you are pushing clearly quite aggressively here, or you are uplifting significantly on the source of electrons from CCGT. The second, Stéphane, was really to ask you about the U.K. position because you have already expanded or have built positions in the U.K. Is there a conflict in any way there between the wholly owned? I guess effectively, you are just buying electrons, but is that going to result in prioritizing one source of electron relative to the other from CCGT? How does that work? Does it matter? I hope that was clear. I will let Stéphane think to the second one. On the first one, okay, look, you are right. What is the right balance? I would say if I consider by 2030, we will have more or less 35 TWh per year from flexible generation, 30 already secured, I would say. I would say in renewables, when you convert the gigawatt, it depends, of course, and I would say on different assumptions, the capture rate and the capture, the curtailment, the battery system that you are building. It will be more or less the same size of, let's say, around 30 TWh, 25-30. It is more or less a system which will be 50-50 at the end between gas and renewables. I'm very comfortable with the gas-to-power position because, again, for an oil and gas company which is producing gas, which is a leader in LNG, developing and going into this integration of the value chain and I would say adding value to the gas by electricity, in particular in continental Europe, where you have an increasing cost of CO2. That's, for me, a nice way to integrate the gas chain. As an electricity player, we need both sources. I would say the figures that we mentioned on this page, slide 11, which was explained to you by Stéphane Boët, 2030, give you the, I would say, this is what we have in our portfolio and that we will develop on the renewables side and the battery side. You have time to think to the U.K. position. Do you have a competition between the assets? No, in the U.K., as you know, we have already our shares in West Burton, but actually, it's good because it's with EPH. By definition, within the various CCGTs, there won't be any conflict of interest. That's one. The second question could be, is there a conflict of interest on competition between renewable and CCGT? The answer is no. For me, that's quite the contrary, where the value is going to be created by the integration between both. Because usually, when renewables are producing, they've got the priority because marginal cost is zero, and CCGT makes a complement. When they don't, then CCGT are producing, and it's because you are matching both at the same, you've got the complement, they are complementary that you can create value. To be honest, I'm very pleased as CEO of the U.K. West Burton plant. Today, it's running with 25, almost at 50% of the time, which is, by the way, with a CCGT, which is running the most. I don't know if there will be competitions between CCGTs, but this one, if they are all like this one, will be happy in terms of delivering some nice, good results. Again, on the renewables, there is still in the U.K., we still have to develop, in particular, the offshore wind farm build, on which we are expecting some good pricing in order to develop the project. Okay. We have the next question from Matt Lofting. Matt, go ahead, please. Thanks for taking the questions. Two, if I could, please. I think you talked earlier about the load factors, etc., on the portfolio and the range around it. I wondered if within that, you could just talk a bit about the operational track record of the assets and the portfolio, given that quite a lot of it is operational already, the consistency and sort of how you've seen underlying asset availability trends through time on the data that you've reviewed. Then secondly, just on coming back to gas value chain integration and the value there, there's various parts and benefits that you've talked about in terms of marketing, LNG integration, etc. Which aspects do you see as most valuable, perhaps, to TotalEnergies? Thank you. On the first one. On the first one, it's an experienced team who have been developing CCGT now for many years. When we look at the figure on made-aware due diligence, there is no specific point to report. What is more important is that on West Burton, they are actually, they have the technical lead of what we are doing within the JV. We have been able to test in real life the way it works in the last six months. We are satisfied with what we see. Again, it is a very experienced team who has been quite successful to develop that business. That is one. On the second one, as we say, there will be potential integration as the supply of the CCGT is creating a 2 million ton short. That is always a good thing to have an outlet for LNG because that creates additional optionality. What is interesting as well is that when you think about clean firm power in some countries in Europe, it is not always that easy to come with a fixed price. Here, we'll have the chance to have the full value chain from gas shell production in the U.S. to selling clean firm power in Europe with all the steps of the chain. The fact that CCGT in Europe is adding another outlet to that full value chain. We are convinced that we will extract value from that additional optionality. Okay. I understand that Lydia is traveling. Nash from Barclays, please go ahead. Nash. Sorry, Alejandro first. Alejandro first. Sorry. Okay. Go ahead. Alejandro. Sorry. Hello? Can you hear me? Yeah, yeah. Sí. Yes. Thank you for taking my question. Congratulations for the deal. Again, I have two questions. One is if you can elaborate about the investment proposition of this acquisition versus greenfield development. My understanding is that it's very tough now to acquire gas turbines and greenfield permits. If you can elaborate about this. The second question is about data centers. You explained before this deal in Spain if with the new portfolio, there are more opportunities for data center agreements and in some cases, dedicated plans for some of these projects. Thank you. Greenfield development is around EUR 1.2 million per megawatt-hour. This one, if you make the math, is more around EUR 700,000-EUR 750,000 per megawatt-hour. First, it is obviously much cheaper. By the way, to make a portfolio of 14 GW or 7 GW net, it will take us years to get the permitting. It is a huge acceleration. In fact, when you consider on one side the acquisition price and the other side, just the opportunity to build a sizable position quickly in these markets, no doubt that it is for me a very interesting and attractive investment proposition. Honestly, when EPH came to us to propose such a transaction, it has obviously ringed a bell in our head because we were not having that possibility in our mind, even if we have engaged with them, but not on the global portfolio. Clearly, we were thinking immediately with Stéphane, okay, it's a unique opportunity. It was a direct negotiation there again. They've done it with us because they were considering us as a good partner and also, by the way, a nice place to put their money in with the shares of TotalEnergies. From as a CEO, I was quite pleased with his proposal. That's the investment proposition. On the data centers, obviously, we are having access. Data centers, they need reliable and firm power. Reliability is important. We made some first deal. To have access to more electricity coming from gas plants will help the Stéphane teams to develop more opportunities. This is what everybody is thinking today. That is today. People are looking for more energy, for more capacities. Managing to capture part of this capacity will help us to develop the business. Maybe Stéphane wants to elaborate on that. That is what we mentioned. That is what we are seeing in the U.S. today and that we will see that it is coming in Europe now and will develop further, I am sure, in the following quarter. The idea that we can use more CCGT and increase the load factor of the CCGT to supply specifically data center is there. Okay. We have a question. Now, Nash, you can go ahead now. Please go ahead. Perfect. Thank you, everyone. I have two, please. The first one is, I think Patrick, you mentioned about the dividend that is around EUR 400 million. I wonder if Total has agreed to any kind of new dividend policy with EPH and how easy is it for Total to influence your dividend going forward? The second question is on the EPH portfolio. I think there is about 10 GW operational CCGT assets. Could you provide a bit of color on the age of those operational or legacy assets, please? Thank you. Okay. The age, I think the average age is around 15 years. And Stéphane can elaborate on that. On the legacy assets, around 15 years, you can take it. Some are very new, like you said, but the average is around 15 years. We have quite a lot of time. The oldest one in the U.K. is a plan to refurbish. We have access to capacity markets, which will even enhance the revenue. I would say we are comfortable with, I would say, the legacy assets that we inherited. When we positioned them on all the cost merit of country by country, and I was looking to this page and we presented that to our board. Honestly, in Italy, I think we have five out of the six, I would say, in the top first and second quartile. In the U.K., all of them are in the first, second. In the Netherlands, two of them are more marginal, but the others are fine. That is to position them. No, there is no new dividend policy with EPH. The $100 million I just mentioned to you is $95 million. There was no announcement today. It just arrived. It's 95 million shares multiplied by the dividend that you know today, which in EUR 3.6, I think, EUR per share. I don't want to make a mistake. In dollars, it depends on the dollar-euro exchange rate. There is no policy agreed. No, they are coming as a shareholder. They know they just have observed that, as you know, we never cut the dividend for 40 years. They do not expect us to change our policy when they became shareholder, for sure. That is good support for all the shareholders, I would say. In France, no, there will be a 4% shareholder. It will be the largest shareholder are the employees. Then we have BlackRock at around 5%. We will have 4% with them. Maybe. I would say, there will be a shareholder. Obviously, we'll entertain a dialogue like with all the shareholders. I would say it's a matter for, as they declared us clearly, they are there for the long term. I think the dividend will grow together with the growth of our free cash. I think the main factor for me, and again, this is the advantage of transaction, is this trajectory that we have of growing the free cash share per share around 20% per year for the next five years. I would say this part, this deal, is firming up part of what was coming from the electricity, the integrated power business. Maybe some shareholders add some dots of it. I would say the transaction is just on the contrary, firming up this trajectory. The rest of the growth of free cash, which will feed the dividend coming from the upstream in particular. Okay. I apologize if I was not clear. Could I ask on the dividend one? It is not dividend from TotalE. It is dividend from EPH, from the JV to TotalEnergies. Can you make any influence over there? Sorry. Sorry. No, that is a very clear policy. All the cash has to come to the shareholders on both sides. We all agree. We leave a certain just the minimum cash required by the, I would say, the operations of the JV. But then there is a cash. Both shareholders agree that the cash must come to the shareholders quickly. There is no friction there. No friction. Perfect. Thank you. Sorry. The next question is from Henri. Go ahead, Henri. Yes, thank you, everyone. I have two quick questions, please. The first one on the new JV. I am just wondering because you mentioned that it will help to get to 12% roadship from 10%. Are you able to share what level of roadship the business generates at the moment? In other words, see how much of the uplift comes from these integration benefits. Secondly, to come back on the topic of the buyback and the dividend, just wondering to what extent the fact that you'll be issuing 95 million shares has an impact on the balance between dividend and buybacks. Would you be maybe more leaning towards buybacks to effectively offset this issuance of shares, or does that not matter? Thank you. On the first one, I would say this JV has a roadship above 10% immediately and going up to a little above 12%. It is giving the trajectory is firm up, as I said, for sure. It is positive. Second one, I would say no. We'll stick to a policy we'll give you. It's part of, I would say, again, I answered the question previously. I think we drew some lessons with the board. Recently, we gave you some guidance on the buyback. I just confirmed today that this deal will, I'm confirming that at $50 per barrel we will maintain a buyback, which is logic because first, we have the $1 billion of CapEx. Again, because part of the deal, of course, is to, I would say, to board back the shares. There is no specific acceleration at this stage. I mean, this has to be monitored as well more globally according to the oil and gas markets and the volatility of it. I don't want to make any commitment on this part. Again, as we've done it when we issued shares to make the Mercury deal in the past, this time, we have a buyback program in place. It will come quicker. Okay. We have a last question from Jean-Luc Romain Goët. Thank you for taking my question. It relates to the capacity payments in Italy and U.K. Airlines. Is it increasing over time? I think it was a little less than EUR 300 million in 2024. How much could it be rising? It's increasing a little. The answer is yes, I think. Yes, it's increasing. It's increasing as the refurbished plant or the new plant are coming on stream or the biomass is coming on stream as well. The answer is yes, it's increasing. Okay. I think we have no more questions. Thank you. Thank you. I think, as one of you said, it's a material transaction. We felt that it was the right time to have this exchange with you. Again, you will see the impact of the transaction. We planned the closing, I would say, second quarter. We need probably six months between today and the closing, so maybe May, June. Honestly, for when we will present you the roadmap for 2026, we will take first of July, half of the year, just to be cautious about the guidance we will give you in February. Again, we do not see many obstacles on the road. It is more processing the different European regulations. From the board point of view, we are quite satisfied. I would say the board was satisfied because it's, again, an opportunity to execute the strategy, which has been consistent and what we exposed to you. Secondly, welcoming a long-term European shareholder, I think, is also valuable for the company and reinforcing the trust in our strategy. I'm not planning to have you again on a call before year-end. Even if there is one important event coming for TotalEnergies in December, as I remind you, but normally we are progressing. We will confirm it on December 8. We'll transform these 8 years into ordinary shares on the US listing market. I hope it will also give a good momentum as this transaction to our stock. Thank you for your listening and see you soon.