Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to TotalEnergies' first quarter 2025 results conference call. I now hand over to Patrick Pouyanné, Chairman and CEO, and Jean-Pierre Sbraire, CFO, who will lead you through this call. Sir, please go ahead. Good afternoon, everybody, or good morning if you are connecting from the U.S.. Before Jean-Pierre, I will go through the detail of the first quarter results. I would like just to make some few opening remarks. Although what appears to be today, more challenging global environment and the ways that TotalEnergies intends to leverage our consistent strategy to deliver resilient results, benefiting from our energy production growth and attractive shareholder returns. We have indeed entered into a period of heightened macroeconomics and geopolitical uncertainty. We've, and this list is not exhaustive, current fragile negotiations on the Ukrainian-Russian conflict, the new but fluid tariff policy enacted by the U.S., decision of OPEC+ to unwind its voluntary production cuts. Even if the impacts are not yet fully appreciated and might evolve in the coming months, this moving context is creating uncertainties, notably on oil demand, along with volatility in the oil markets, oriented on the downside over the past few weeks, and also on costs for new projects in the U.S. because of tariffs' impacts. In this quite, I would say, fluid landscape, TotalEnergies has and will, I would say, continue as unique strengths, that we have consistently built over the last 10 years, and our efforts are paying off. First, of course, and foremost, we have been strong and never gave up on oil and gas. We have built over the last 10 years one of the best low-cost, low-emissions oil and gas portfolios with more than 12 years of reserves life, which today gives us substantial leverage for strong and accretive growth that clearly differentiates us versus our peers. Delivering this growth is, of course, one way to protect our future cash flows. We are growing companies with two pillars, including the second pillar, electricity, which is not dependent on the oil price, which gives an additional resilience to our model. As you will see with Jean-Pierre, this quarter, we delivered robust year-on-year production growth of nearly 4% in oil and gas and 18% electricity, which represents a unique total energy production growth of close to 5%. We are also, at the same time, in control of our costs, our CapEx first, because most of our CapEx have been engaged and are based on lump sum EPC contracts that secure the level of the CapEx. Also on the OpEx side, we have maintained, in the last year, despite the inflationary trends, our cost per barrel, our OpEx per barrel is lower than $5 per barrel, and again, this quarter. Finally, we are benefiting, and our balance sheet remains strong. We are confident in our ability to achieve our growth objective for 2025 and keep triggering under control. Because we have confidence in our business model, the board has decided to maintain attractive shareholder returns despite the uncertain environment. The board first and foremost confirmed the first interim dividend, which was announced in February at EUR 0.85 per share, which is a 7.6% increase compared to 2024. In dollar terms, I would say it's even more than that. It's more than 10% at the current exchange rate of 1.14. As you know, dividend is a first priority in our capital allocation framework, and we will continue to maintain and to grow with dividends in future years, even in these uncertain environments. Remember that we did not cut the dividends during the COVID period. After 12 quarters in a row of $2 billion or more of share buybacks, the board has once again announced share buybacks of up to $2 billion for this second quarter, despite the softening price environment, which ran below $70 per barrel since the beginning of April, and in an uncertain geopolitical and macroeconomic context. Just as we have done during over-volatile times, the board will continue to monitor the buyback on a quarterly basis within the guidance we gave to the market last September to maintain a $2 billion buyback in reasonable market conditions. To conclude these introductory remarks, as you will see again today with our Q1 results, I think we are well equipped and well prepared to navigate uncertain environments. We remain focused on delivering on our 2025 objectives and to maintain attractive shareholder returns. On that note, I will now turn over to Jean-Pierre, who will go through the details of the first quarter results. Yes, thank you, Patrick. My first comment will be on the price environment in the first quarter that was globally similar to the environment we had in the fourth quarter 2024. Brent was at $76 per barrel versus $75 per barrel in the fourth quarter. TTF, European gas price, was $14.4 per mL cube, up 6% compared to Q4. The average energy price was $10 per mL cube, down 4% compared to Q4. Our indicator for European refining margin remained weak, averaging $29 per ton over the quarter. In this context, the company reported adjusted net income of $4.2 billion and a CFO of $7 billion for the first quarter 2025. Profitability remained robust, with return on capital employed for the 12 months ending in March at 13.2%. Furthermore, TotalEnergies continued its strong track record of attractive shareholder distribution, with $2 billion of buybacks executing during the first quarter, and, as Patrick mentioned, a 7.6% year-on-year increase in the first interim dividends of 2025 to EUR 0.85 per share, which is up 20% versus pre-COVID level. Now moving to the business segment results and starting with hydrocarbons. 2025 is off to a strong start. First quarter production was above the high end of the guidance range at 2.56 million barrels per equivalent per day, representing nearly 4% growth year-on-year. Production benefited from continued ramp-up of projects in Brazil, in the United States, in Malaysia, in Argentina, and in Denmark. In addition, we continue to be successful at keeping operating costs at low level. It was $4.9 per barrel equivalent during the first quarter. Looking forward, second quarter production is expected to grow 2%-3% year-on-year, reflecting more planned maintenance compared to the first quarter, which had an impact of around 50,000 barrels per equivalent per day. Given the strong 4% growth achieved in the first quarter, we reiterate full year 2025 production growth guidance of more than 3% compared to 2024. Moving now to exploration and production. The company continues to execute very well. E&P reported strong and growing results, with adjusted net operating income of $2.5 billion and a cash flow of $4.3 billion in the first quarter, up 6% and 9% quarter to quarter, respectively. Cash flow benefited from accretive new low-cost and low-emission oil production, which generated roughly an additional $100 million of cash flow above what the portfolio average would have delivered during the first quarter. We anticipate additional accretion throughout the year, with the Ballymore offshore field in the U.S. having achieved first oil earlier this month, and Mero-4 in Brazil expected to be online in the third quarter, both of which are adding high-margin barrels that will enhance the cash flow. Moving on to integrated LNG. LNG sales were stable at 10.6 million tonnes, and integrated LNG achieved adjusted net operating income of $1.3 billion, up 6% year-on-year and down 10% quarter to quarter, in line with the evolution of the average LNG price I have already commented. Compared to last quarter, cash flow of $1.2 billion was impacted by the timing effect of dividend payments from some equity affiliates. LNG trading continues to perform in line with expectations for 2025. Gas trading results were impacted by the unexpected downturn of European markets, following new elevated uncertainty on the evolution of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Forward European markets expect gas prices to remain elevated in the second quarter of 2025 in the context of inventory replenishment in Europe. Given the evolution of oil and gas prices in the recent months and the lag effect on price formulas, TotalEnergies anticipates its average energy selling price will be between $9 and $9.5 per mL cube in the second quarter of 2025. For integrated power now, first quarter adjusted net operating income was $500 million, and cash flow was $600 million. As anticipated, this quarter results do not include any positive impact of farm down, which are expected later in the year. Thus, it's a matter of timing, and it's driving a 1% temporary decrease in ROCE to 9% this quarter, which is expected to reverse as farm down will progress. Looking forward, the company is on track to achieve the annual cash flow guidance. Additionally, we are progressing on multiple fronts in the integrated power segment. TotalEnergies signed a premium clean-term power contract with STMicroelectronics of 1.5 TWh over 15 years during the first quarter. In addition, the company further deployed its differentiated integrated power model in Germany, with the launch of six new battery storage projects developed by Kyon, the company that we acquired last year during the first quarter, and the closing of the acquisition of the renewable developer VSB, closed earlier this month. Turning now to downstream. In the context of weak refining margins, together with declining petrochemicals and biofuels margins in Europe, downstream posted adjusted net operating income of $0.5 billion and a cash flow of $1.1 billion in the first quarter 2025. Cash flow this quarter was impacted by several factors, first one being the usual seasonality in the market and services businesses, and the timing impact of dividend payment from equity affiliates in refining and chemicals. Beyond that, the macro environment remained challenged, with refining, petrochemicals, and biofuels margins lower than our planning case, impacting cash flow by about $150 million. On operations, we encountered some issues at Donges Refinery and Port Arthur LNG that negatively impacted cash flow by about $200 million. These issues at Port Arthur have been resolved, and work continues at Donges Refinery. However, there are no systemic operational issues, and performance was strong at other sites such as Antwerp or Leuna, boosting the global refining utilization rate to 87% in the first quarter of 2025, from 82% in the first quarter. Let's move now to the company level. At the company level, net investment totaled $4.9 billion during the first quarter, and we reiterate full year 2025 guidance in the range $17 billion-$17.5 billion. We reported a seasonal working capital build of $4.4 billion in this quarter, but I have to remind you that it's less than the $6 billion reported in the first quarter 2024, and in line, in fact, with the $3.4 billion-$4.4 billion range reported in the first quarter 2022 or 2023. The drivers of this quarter working capital builds are mainly, first, a $1 billion reversal of exceptional working capital items reported in the fourth quarter 2024. Secondly, a $2 billion seasonal effect from gas and power distribution activities in Europe and related to advance payments occurring in the first quarter of 2025. Third, a $1 billion impact from evolution of the business related to stocks and sales increased at the end of the quarter. Lastly, the balance sheet remains strong, gearing is at 14.3%, but as indicated earlier, the $4.4 billion working capital build this quarter is highly seasonal. Excluding this impact of this seasonality, the normalized gearing would be 11%. Now, Patrick and myself are available to answer your questions, so please open up the line. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, if you wish to ask a question, please press star and one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. Please kindly mute any audio sources while asking questions. If you wish to cancel your request, please press star and two. Once again, please press star and one. The first question is from Doug Leggate of Wolfe Research. Good morning. Very early morning from Houston, Patrick and JP. Thanks for taking my question. I think the reaction to the debt move this quarter, JP, is obviously weighing on your stock. I think this is probably thank you for the explanation on the moving parts, but I think it begs the question, how do you think about sustaining the 40% payout, the share buyback, if that means that you end up leaning on the balance sheet to fund the capital program? What is the trade-off? How resilient or how much would you be prepared to continue to do that? Is there a limit where the buyback would become, or the payout would become under question? I have a follow-up, please. Because the 40% cash flow for buyback is not, 40% of cash flow is not at all into question. It is a clear and a strong guidance. We will be about 40% by the end of the year. I can commit to that. What we said about the buyback, I remind you, the guidance we gave you in September is that, and I repeated it in my speech, the guidance is to maintain a $2 billion buyback per quarter in reasonable market conditions. The board obviously considered that these conditions that we experienced during the first quarter and even since the beginning of April, where I remind you, power is still, was between $65-$70, thinking down, is still giving a set of reasonable market conditions. Of course, it will be appreciated. It is a global, it is not one, there is not one specific price limit. It's more a global, I would say, approach to the macroeconomics. We observe, like you. In fact, the world, as I said, is very uncertain because this tariff seems to be a hit, but it's quite fluid, and we could expect maybe the U.S. to come back to more reasonable, approach on all that. It's not impossible. You know, we have to adapt ourselves. That's one of the difficulties. In fact, the reaction of the board, like we've done during COVID, is, first, no panic. The fundamentals of the company are strong. We deliver a strong cash flow. Why should we overreact today? No, let's look because we could see some policies change on the one side, the other side. It's true that the old markets and, in fact, are more looking to on our side to what the OPEC+ will do. In fact, it's more important for us, really, in this type of environment. That's why, you know, the 40% for sure of cash flow and distribution, keep it as a strong guidance. I remind you, last year, we were even at 50%, not 40%. By the way, I think, if we the first two quarter with $4 billion of buybacks plus a strong commitment to the dividends, as you said, and I repeated what I said permanently, is that the first dividend is the first capital allocation. It means that we are on the basis of $12 billion at least and more between $12 billion and $16 billion. I would say, obviously, you make the math, you will find your 40%. No point about it. You can be sure of it. The second important part of that, it's why what we monitor at the board level is what this concept of normalized gearing that we shared with you, which was not a because I was sure about your reaction of the market in this context. We monitor it. In fact, as we told you, at the beginning in February, at $70 per barrel, we are targeting a gearing by 12%-13% over the year. Today, without excluding some of these seasonal effects, we would be at 11%. Honestly, there is nothing maybe, if the price is at $65 the whole year and not at $70, it will give something around 14% instead of 12%-13%. That is, again, a guidance which works well. For, for, at the board level, I think we are confident in the fundamentals. Low, the growth is coming. The growth is delivered, which is, of course, fundamental. It's not just work. Growth, controlling our costs. We have a strong experience and a track record on that. We think it's the best signal we should send to our investors is, as I said, like for the strategy, to know consistency. I think the key, the word I want you to have in mind is TotalEnergies is a consistent company. Even more when the environment is unstable, rather than just making short-term reactions. It's not at all the way we monitor the company for the last 10 years, and the board is aligned on this attitude. Thank you, Patrick. My follow-up is related to that. You have built-in capital flexibility to the plan, particularly around integrated power. You've talked about a $2 billion flex. What would it take for you in the microenvironment to consider a spending reduction on your net capital guidance? I'll leave it there. Thank you. No, I think honestly, I think I'm clear as well. We have a plan. We could have some flexibility. No way today to activate that. Again, we are at $65 per barrel. I'm confident in the way to move forward for this environment. It's not the point. The point might be on what could be led us is more the impact on the tariff on the supply chain of, for example, renewable projects in the U.S. or batteries projects in the U.S.. If you apply some tariff, 20% or 25% on importing Indian panels in the U.S., obviously, we could save some money there, just to be clear. I say that because we just took a decision recently on, there was a 600 megawatt project, which was approved by the ExCom by end of March. After the tariff impact, we asked our teams to look again to it, and we say, "Okay, let's pause it. We'll not invest. We will postpone it," maybe because of tariff, because obviously, we are not exactly, without tariff, this project was more or less around 12%. With tariff, it's less than 10%. We say pause. We are not in a hurry. It's not volume, not of value. We have to take care. That's the type of things which could happen. Again, it's more, on the cost side, the impact on the CapEx side is more because of the tariff, and we need to monitor that precisely and not to be driven by volume over, over the value. Again, I'm comfortable to maintain the guidance on the CapEx. The question of flexibility is more if we go down like during COVID, when we go down to lower than $50, then we will have to act. As you follow us for long, Doug, you know that during COVID, we were able to save $3 billion. We are not there. We have some flexibility. Again, I know that Nicolas Terraz on the downstream part has beginning to ask his teams, "Okay, be clear. Maybe a $500 million could be activated." He is beginning to take actions at his level. At the corporate company level, I am fine. To monitor that, we will balance it. Thank you very much indeed, guys. The next question is from Michele Della Vigna of Goldman Sachs. Thank you very much. I had two questions, if I may. First, I wanted to come back to your point, Patrick, on tariffs. It's pretty clear that they would materially impact the renewable business in the U.S., but I was wondering whether it could also affect some of the oil and gas projects and also if there could be any issue with the LNG vessels globally, given that so many of them are Chinese-built. The second question, you may not have an answer, but I was wondering if you had a view on what happened to the Iberian power systems these days and if there was anything in terms of structural change to the power systems with renewables that you think need to be addressed. Thank you. Okay. On the tariff, you have to, we have to be clear. As I said, I think this could have an impact on the new projects which have to be sanctioned. We have, in most of our projects that we have already, the Rio Grande and one to three are secured. I'm not, I don't expect any impact on the tariff because all that was secured in a strong contract, EPC, which is going well, by the way, is in advanced progress. Rio Grande is in advance. It is already at 39% compared to 31%. We have the good news, by the way, during the quarter, as you know, the legal issue of the permitting has been pushed away. It is growing. We were on train four and probably five. This is a topic on which we'll, expecting to see if there is an impact on the tariff because our tariff on steel for new projects that might have. Again, the difficulty might be more, to be sure in which, which tariff are we speaking about? Is it finally at the end of the day, 10% across the board? Okay, that probably could be absorbed because, in fact, in the U.S. projects, remember the Trump policy, it was not only increasing tariff. There was a sort of countermeasure which was to lower the VAT tax, the income tax, in fact, the tax, so we do not have this part. You know, this is also something we have to keep in mind. It is not only a matter of cost. It is a matter of profits at the end. If the countermeasures and the reconciliation bill, which will come before the end of the year, is for me very important. For me, it's more at this stage a question to monitor a six-month uncertainty. I think we'll have much more clarity on the U.S. investment case by the end of the year, because we'll have probably all these negotiations of the tariff will have landed some one way or the other. On the other side, we will have the bill which lowering the tax, the corporate tax, which, of course, is important in the U.S. system. For me, that's the point. The way we monitor that, but I don't see, and the rest of the projects for us at this stage outside of the U.S., we didn't see any impact on the tariff. To be clear, it's not an issue. Your second question of LNG vessel is interesting because that's true, but I think the U.S. understands that if they want to export LNG without Chinese vessels, I'm afraid the export will be limited. I think it has been raised. I understand, by the way, there are a lot of discussions and negotiations about this idea to have a special tax on all vessels which are not built in the U.S., but they begin to see some, I would say, amendments, a low way. I read a paper yesterday that we are going in the right direction. Honestly, yes, it has been raised to the U.S. authorities, but it could be a real issue for everybody, including for customers, including for that. We know that it's, how long will it last again? Let's look at it. I'm again, that's why, again, at the board, we took a position which is, okay, no overreaction, no panic. Let's look. We will have more clarity, I hope, and getting out of the smog on these issues. There is a lot of noise, but I think at the end of the day, business will prevail. Business interest will prevail for everybody. Iberian Power System, no, I don't know. I know specific true. I mean, the lessons I think at the end, and I will tell you, Michele, what happened, in fact, we observed what happened in Germany in February when we had one week without wind. That struck me because I can tell you there was no problem in Germany, but one week without wind, if you don't have the full backup system with your gas pipe power plant, that year, it was more a coal-fired power plant, then you have an issue. I think the lesson for me of all that is that it's good time when we think about integrated power and globally to speak about the grid, which needs to be adapted. We observed that when the grids have more than 30% of renewable, it becomes more unstable. We need to investment in the grid, invest back investment in flexible assets. I think the two lessons I drew from the February event, and I'm suspecting, but again, I don't know, no specific idea, but Iberia might be the same type of, in fact, text. We cannot think that a full renewable system will work in electricity. This is not, this is a lesson I drew, which, in fact, honestly, reconfort me in our own strategy, which is to maintain this gas-to-power together with renewables. We gave a guidance 70/30 between both. Maybe we should adapt it in the future, having more flexible assets to monitor this type of intermittency and impacts on the system. Thank you. The next question is from Lydia Rainforth of Barclays. Thank you. Good afternoon to everybody. Patrick, if I just come back to that idea around the sustainability, affordability of the buyback, part of the reason that there is that shortfall is that the pace of growth that TotalEnergies is delivering. I'm just wondering, could you give us an idea of the difference in CapEx that you would need just to keep the business flat versus delivering the growth you are? Really, what's the growth CapEx? The reason I ask that is that clearly others in the sector are delivering slightly higher free cash flow, but actually are growing less than TotalEnergies is. The second one just links again to the balance sheet. It's clearly strong at the moment, but that weaker market always creates opportunities. How should we think about how you how else you would look to deploy the balance sheet potentially for acquisitions or put another way, are there any holes in the portfolio that you would like to fill? Thank you. Great questions, Lydia. Thank you. The first one, let me be clear. We are given by value. We have some good projects delivering accretive value. The growth is coming from accretive projects. This one must be preserved. That is a medium and long-term industry. We need to develop it. Of course, again, if I have to cut CapEx, again, I remind you, I am able to cut CapEx, but not on the fundamentals of the growth in oil and gas where we will deliver accretive cash flows for shareholders. I will not, but I have other ways to arbitrate. You know, if I need to invest less in EV charging, do not worry, I will do it. I will give you a list of things on which we can be, or on CCS. We are spending some on it. This will be reviewed. By the way, we are making our business plan exercise in June, July, and I will look at it with, preparing the future 2026, and our futures investors meetings by beginning of October. We'll look at it, obviously, with a scenario, what happens if, and looking to flexibility and defining to arbitrate. I will not arbitrate what is a fundamental, future cash flow growth for shareholders. This is clear. It's already, you know, we have these projects have been sanctioned. They are being, they will be delivered. In fact, the priority must be to maintain their budgets and their timing rather than beginning to arbitrate. We have enough, you know, when you speak about $17 billion budget, to find $2 billion, it's not so complex in a company like that. I will, if we have to do it, we will do it, as we have done it in the past. I think we have a track record over the last 10 years. We demonstrated you that we are able to do it. I want to do it in a smart way and not, again, at the expense of a future cash flow growth. The balance sheet. You know my position. My position, in fact, it's always good to be countercyclical. The question is, can we create value? We create value when we buy at a low price. If there are and then the question for us is an arbitration. Of course, buybacks today, price is low. It's cheap. It's good to buy your shares. They are cheap, even cheaper. By the way, in terms of cost, the debt is lower than the cost of capital. It is a good investment. We will have to compare that against, can we do a beautiful acquisition with it cheap, which will be accretive for everything? The way to think about it, the way to use, in fact, the balance sheet, this is the trade-off at which the board will have to answer. Today, we are not there. I'm sorry, I do not see $50. I do not see cheap acquisitions. I'm more, we are divesting some few things. I might continue to sell them at $60 at $70 per barrel. We will see. This is the type of things which I think we need to think again, to the medium and long term, and do we create more value, more cash flows for our shareholders? That is the fundamental way to speak about the balance sheet and the way to use the flexibility which we have. At this stage, the buyback is okay. Clearly, that is why we maintain this $2 billion for the quarter. Brilliant. Thank you. The next question is from Biraj Borkhataria of RBC. Hi. Thank you for taking my question, and thanks for the comments. The first one's just a quick clarification on the way you and the board look at the normalized gearing versus the number that we see. Is it just the seasonal factors that are in there, the adjustments? I think Jean-Pierre talked about $3 billion roughly of seasonal factors, and I can't quite reconcile that with the 11% normalized gearing. The second question is just on the latest situation in Mozambique. Obviously, we're a few months on from the election, important project that you just wanted to update there. Thank you. Good, Biraj, but to be clear, the calculation, yes, we took up $3.4 billion. We said you had a $4.4 billion working capital built. There was $1 billion of reversal of exceptional elements we mentioned at the end of the year. When you make the math with $3.4 and instead, minus $3.4, you find 11%. Jean-Pierre could give you a and the team can provide you the details, but it is very, it is very easy to. Straightforward. It's straightforward, in fact. That's what has been done because fundamentally, what we observe, and again, we as a team can provide you the slide, and you can align the, you can do it yourself because it's public, the build and the release of working capital for a year. In fact, we know that what is built at the beginning will come back along the year, except some exceptional elements. We mentioned to you voluntary end of, I remember in February, but there was end of 2024, $1.5 billion of exceptional. $1 billion has been reversed, but it's still $500 million, which we should come one day. This one, we cannot, it's not seasonal. It's something which we lose. Again, we are confident because we have observed the company and the way it's able to erase these seasonal effects along the year. To release working capital in the. In the quarters. That's what I think. You know there is more release by the end of the last quarter. We have a bit of the first quarter, a strong release in the fourth quarter. In between, things are moving down, and that's the point. The Mozambique update, Mozambique, I mean, you had the good news. You had the good news. All the financing is back on track thanks to U.S. EXIM decisions. Now the shareholders have decided fundamentally to move forward with the projects. They are all working on it. We are still expecting one or two answers, but in fact, we could finance with our equity, and in fact, it's more a question of paperwork. On the ground, the security of the industrial area where we are building our projects is a huge area. It's completely secure. It's safe. What we are working with contractors today is to be sure that all contractors will remain within the perimeter of the secured area. This is a point on which we work with them. If there is no, on the other side, as you noticed, we have worked in order to answer to some controversies about human rights. I do not know if it happens or not, these events. We have no proof at all. I have worked with myself. I went to visit the president to tell him, "You need to take your general prosecutor. We want really an inquiry." We took the initiative to consult the National Commission of Human Rights in order for them to seek to be sure that this inquiry will be done properly, and they are committed to make a report. I think we have taken some actions in line on our side, which is our societal responsibility, I would say. I think we have done it. I would say if the target is to be able somewhere to relaunch this project by middle of the year. Thank you. The next question is from Irene Himona of Bernstein. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Going back to your adjusted gearing, it is obviously low at 11%. There is no issue with a $2 billion quarterly buyback. I was wondering if there is a level we cannot know if $65 Brent is a floor. Is there a level for that normalized gearing where the board would feel the need to revisit the $2 billion quarterly buyback? My second question on Namibia, is there an update on the timeline of maturing that project and progressing towards FID? Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Irene, for the two questions. I think I've answered somewhere previously to Doug. Again, we gave you a guidance at the beginning of the year, but the board was ready at $70 to go to 12%-13%. I just told you at $65 will be somewhere around 14%. If I'm saying that, that means we are comfortable with that somewhere. It's not an issue, but it's not a precise figure. This is a range where we are comfortable to use the balance sheet. Secondly, honestly, I will not play that game, but I think in New York, I told you at $50, obviously, we will revisit it, probably lower at $55 as well, just to be clear. We are not there. Let's monitor that one step by step. I prefer the consistency rather than being erratic on that. Namibia, Namibia, I was in Namibia last week. I visited Namibia for the first time via authorities. We are working on this one. To be clear, we have a project, which we have given you some information, by the way, on, in February. I think it's a matter now to find a common ground between us and the authorities. It's a project which faces, as you know, in fact, fundamentally some challenges. It's feasible. We have quite a lot of oil, and we have something like 750 million barrels of oil. So it's quite a big pool of oil. There is a low permeability. So it means that, in fact, when you reinject the gas, it's a longer plateau. We need to have a long license to produce a 750 million barrel of oil. We need as well because it has some challenges. It's a 3,000-meter water depth, which means CapEx with the lines, pipeline flow lines are more expensive. All that makes $20 per barrel, let me say. In terms, of course, I express to the government, but we have some thresholds in terms of, of, I would say, tar higher R targets, and that I need to protect my, my, my pro the project in case the price of oil will go down. We have opened the discussion. It's premature, but again, it's like I see a very similar situation with the one we had in Suriname one year ago, where at the end of the day, we find a way to find a common ground between the government and ourselves in order to be able to move forward the project. It was, of course, the first visit. I don't expect any answer, but I've noticed that there is a will in Namibia to open this oil and gas industry. We could be the first mover, which means sometimes also some additional cost because of logistics. The authorities have also to take that into consideration. Again, you know, we have a very large pipeline of projects. As I said last year in Suriname, you know, at the end, I'm not driven by the volume. The volume, and we have already quite a good growth. Adding Namibia would be, of course, it's our common interest, but it will be done if we find, again, if we are fitting with our return targets for us. And if I spend my time to visit Namibia, it's because I think there is possibility to find a common space, but it has to be, we need to be two to have two persons to play a tango. Thank you. The next question is from Giacomo Romeo of Jefferies. Thank you. Two questions for me. I think your message on buybacks in the current oil and macroenvironment is very clear. However, just wanted to go back to what you showed in your slide in the CMD where you were showing the community CFFO below $50. In there, you give us a flex level of capital investments, and you would expect those levels to generate free cash flow above the dividend. So is there a minimum level of buyback in that macroenvironment that you think you'd be able to sustain? The second question I have for Patrick is on Argentina. We have seen some of your European peers taking early position in LNG projects in Argentina. Now, there have been some headlines suggesting you're looking to scale back your presence in the country. Just waiting to get a bit of your thinking around the investment prospects in the country and whether you think there's some attractiveness around the potential for Argentina to become an LNG exporter. Thank you. Yeah. So, first, you referred to a slide, which was slide number 53, according to my colleagues, which gave me the slide, which you have the answer, I think, on the slide, because if I remember, if I am still reading the slide, we told you that, at $50 per barrel, but in a disciplined capital investment, which we down by $2 billion compared to the global guidance, we were able to deliver the dividend, of course, to grow the dividend, and there were some cash flows remaining for buyback. I think you have the answer to your question. At $50, I do not think the buyback are going down to zero. It is not the case. It is not the idea. You can make your math and then the teams will give you more information. For me, the answer was clear. We have, in fact, a post-dividend breakeven, which is lower than $50 by the end of this, on this period. That is a way to monitor that. By the way, today, if the price was going down, I suspect we would have done already $4 billion by the end of the half of the year. That is good. If the board is confident, you know, if we maintain the $2 billion, I remind you as well that there is a strong guidance, which has been a little forgotten, and maybe we could have repeated it today, which is the more than 40% of cash flow from operations, which is another guidance on which we told you repeatedly it will be full cycles. More than 40% of cash flow from operations full cycles, it is supportive of the distribution to shareholders. We are committed to that, and this is not, and I know that you had a trend to forget it because we were up to 50%, but we did not change the guidance of more than 40% full cycles. In fact, we did not change it full cycles because it is exactly what we want to cover in case the oil price is going down. Keep that in mind, and you can make your math with it. Argentina, yes, we have been active. We have a lot of projects in the world in LNG. You know, I think there are, we have, it is a question of allocation of capital in LNG, and we consider we have better projects in our, in our, we have enough. First, we have a lot, you know, in Qatar, in the U.S., in Mozambique, in Papua. We have enough, and we did not feel, I would say, I know that today, President Milei is making a lot of reforms, but in the last 25 years, Argentina track record for investors. I think we managed to get some dividends two or three years out of 25. To invest in heavy infrastructure in a country which has quite an unstable, I would say, exchange, foreign exchange policy is not really, for me, my priority. By the way, we have other ways to monetize our Argentinian gas on which we work. We recently signed some interesting contract to monetize our gas to Brazil through Bolivia. This is more our priority. I respect the decision of others, to be clear, but on our side, we didn't put, and I visited Argentina last September, and I explained to the president of Argentina, but others can be agreed, but for TotalEnergies, it was not a priority. Again, it's a question of portfolio gas. The next question is from Matt Lofting of JP Morgan. Thanks for taking the questions. Two if I could, please. First, I just wanted to follow up on the earlier comments on buybacks, payout ratios, and gearing. If I understood correctly, Patrick, what you said earlier, the board, it sounds like, views April conditions as well as Q1 as within the bounds of reasonable, and 50%-55% is, is for a sustained period is perhaps where you review. As you were re-referencing earlier, that the mid-cycle payout's greater than 40%. When the board thinks about 2026 and beyond, how mechanically and swiftly should investors expect TotalEnergies to revert to 40% plus as an underlying payout? And then secondly, I just wanted to ask you about working capital. The quarter-on-quarter fluctuations appear to have been quite substantial over the last 6, 12 months versus history, perhaps. I wondered if you could touch on some of the reasons behind that and the extent to which you expect that to continue, perhaps related to evolutions in the portfolio setup. Thank you. Okay. I mean, Matthew, I'm sorry. I didn't, I'm sorry to correct you. I never said that it was, I just took two examples, 50, 55, and never said there is a, a limit somewhere. It's true that at this year, this quarter, that we are still at 65-70, we are comfortable to move forward, which is not a surprise. It was a comment I gave you in New York in last September. Again, the 40% is not a mid-cycle. It's something which is a, a sort of floor. The floor, we said through cycles, whatever, will deliver a payout of more than 40%. That is to remind you of that. It gave you the guidance, which means that it was, again, it's a fundamental one. I think it's, it does not mean either that we will take 40% as a, as a strict what we want to deliver. It's at least 40%. You know, last year, we delivered 50%, and the year before as well. So it's at least 40%. In fact, the reality is that considering the dividend of TotalEnergies, which represents $8 billion, you are, I can tell you quickly, about 30% because of dividend never being cut, will continue to be maintained. Even in a low-price environment, if we generate a cash flow of only $20 billion, when you have $8 billion of dividend, you have already the 40%, you know? I mean, just, so don't, don't try to guess more than what we said. I think we, and again, we are monitoring that, as I said, as well, in the best interests of the shareholders as well. Obviously, when the share price is low, it's good to use the balance sheet to buy some cheap shares, and that's a case of buyback is a good one. There is no me when you ask me a question of mechanically, no, there is no mechanically. It's not mechanically. We appraise the situation, the macroenvironment, geopolitics. The board is not just looking to one figure. There is no magic formula hidden. It's more a question of a global environment. Again, yes, it's true that we have uncertainty today, but as I said, it's quite fluid, and it could be reversed. You know, I think maybe after, after summertime, we could have some calm down after the Tempest, you know? We never know. We are well positioned to weather the storm, so let's continue. Working capital. No, I think you have two explanations very easily. You have some, I would say, structural parts. Part of it is fiscal. You have some fiscal reversal. We have some debts which grow with working capital, fiscal working capital, which comebacks every, every first quarter in Norway or other countries. The other part, which is also seasonal, is the marketing, gas and gas and power marketing. You know, people, just people, are heating their homes much more in wintertimes. And, you know, in fact, they pay their bill monthly on equal installments along the year. You have a different of revenues between the fact that we have some big consumption during the year and equal installments, and that creates around $1 billion, at least this phenomenon. Seasonality, yes. It's seasonal. It's really seasonal, but we know that at the end of the year, the people will have paid their bill. This is a type of thing. That's why we have some real between the fiscals and these examples, and I think we have one or two which we could qualify from seasonal. That's the point on which we, that's why we are comfortable. It will continue, yes. We have observed it for several years. Again, we were monitoring that internally this time because I was sure when I saw the jump from 8- 14 that you will have some questions. We prefer to share that with you in order to be able to give you some better the way we ourselves. Thinking. The way we think internally with the board, which we put on the table, I propose to share it with you. Super. Thanks, Patrick. The next question is from Henri Patricot of UBS. Yes, hello, everyone. Thank you for the update. Two questions from me, please. The first one, on the integrated power business. You mentioned that, ROCE is a bit lower this quarter, because of the lack of farm downs. Just wondering whether that's something that you see as very much temporary, if you see or if you see actually some more challenges in agreeing on these farm downs given the increased uncertainty around renewables, in particular in the U.S. Secondly, on the integrated LNG business and the guidance on CFFO, you targeted earlier this year, you know, $6 billion of cash flows. Looking at your Q1 performance, I realize it would be more like a stable cash flow at $5 billion. Do you still see that $6 billion target as achievable in 2025 in the current environment? Thank you. Okay. First one, to be clear, it's clearly a question of timing, of the farm downs. You will see our anticipation already on Q2 is that we should have almost two quarters in one, in fact. In fact, the farm downs revenues represent more or less $70 million per quarter. I mean, on an annual basis, it's an amount of around $300 million, $280 million-$300 million of profits, which has to be taken in, which are planned. It's $75 million per quarter, $70 million-$75 million. In fact, this time, there was no farm down, but I know already that we just have closed one in Portugal, which will then generate what should have been done first quarter. It's really a question of timing. We don't see much difficulty. We continue to do it. We continue to do the farm downs, including in the U.S., by the way. We have a program to execute. We have put in place a dedicated team, specialized team, working with many players, which is, advisor, a smart person, so we have to deliver. It's part of the business model. At this point, I can't tell you. I don't see why the team would not deliver. There is no hint. Of course, it's not linear per quarter. We have quarterly results, but, and that's more, it has to, it's come. On the second quarter, you would have a result of farm downs, which will be, which will be, I would say, higher than what it was planned. Okay? No, no, no challenge on this one. I mean, obviously, the main challenge is that interest rates are higher, but, again, you have still quite a good, I would say, appetite from this type of assets, from infra funds, etc., etc. ILNG. So the guidance, yeah, when I looked at the slide in February, if you look carefully, it was target 6, but it was a shadow part, so it is between 5.5 and 6. It is true. We are, on this one today, I would say, if you multiply by 4, we are more around 5.5 and 6. You know, my teams have, honestly, on this one, I want to make a comment on it. In fact, and I think like others, what happened in Q1 2025, the fundamentals of the markets were bullish. We were long on gas. Unfortunately, as other players, by the way, and other competitors, the geopolitics became bearish suddenly, because of the comments on the Russian-Ukrainian story, which was not anticipated. You have, in fact, you had a bullish position based on bullish fundamentals, which were right because we have seen the inventories declining. It was the right position. This bullish position was suddenly, by an abrupt market reversal, taken back by mid-quarter to bearish geopolitical events. That was difficult. By the way, the business of our traders is quite complex today, to be honest, in this type of fluid environment because it depends on some, we do not know what will happen tomorrow morning. It is not, the position was perfectly right, and we were supportive of it. Suddenly, you have some, so we experienced some few losses in February, which were reversal. But globally speaking, the LNG trading was good, was strong. It was mostly gas trading, which was it. I'm fine. We took a decision recently. By the way, we have a new leader for all this gas trading, which has, wants to make some, has some ID, so I'm supportive. And between 5.5 and 6, just to clarify this guidance, and I maintain it today. Got it. Thank you. The next question is from Martijn Rats of Morgan Stanley. Hi, hello. I've also got two questions, if I may, which actually sort of just follow up on the question from Henri. I wanted to ask you about your thoughts on the true appetite that Europe might have for more Russian pipeline gas. There are so many sort of contradictory comments, indicators. It's a real market concern, but clearly, you're well connected, talked to a lot of people. I was wondering, Patrick, what your impression is of how likely this really is, say, on a timeframe of sort of 12 months or so. I mean, like, you know, on a multi-year view, probably all sorts of things are possible, but on a sort of 12-month view, how likely is this really? Secondly, perhaps a bit of a technicality, but I wanted to ask about the guidance for LNG price realizations for the second quarter, down to $9, $9.5 per MMBtu. I would imagine that does not fully capture the impact of recent sort of spot price declines given the lag that is sort of built into the system. If you had to think about that guidance for the third quarter, how much would that sort of incrementally fall, assuming, say, oil prices stay the same, TTF stays at sort of current levels? Would we see it drop below 9- 8 and a half, 8? Is that sort of a trajectory that we should be thinking about? I was interested in your comments on that. Okay. First one, I think, you know, my view on that is to be cautious first because I'm not sure of it. I'm just observing what happens on the geopolitical scene. It doesn't seem that it's easy to land between the different parties. So I'm cautious about it. I think the market has overreacted to some news in its very complex situation. What I observe as well is that on one side, you have quite a lot of pressure within the trade negotiations between the U.S. and Europe to buy more U.S. gas. Just, and that, in fact, the U.S. LNG is obviously an obvious case to fill the gap. I think we honestly, the European authorities seem to be quite inclined to please the U.S. from this perspective, which is good news for TotalEnergies, by the way. As you know, we are quite involved in that business of LNG between the U.S. and Europe. I see that as a good support for all our business. I think on the other side, politically, the Europeans are not so happy with what happens on the other side. You've seen that when I look to the program of the new coalition in Germany, I do not see a lot of support for a lot of Russian pipe gas in that platform, on the contrary. I know that in Brussels, they are working on a sort of platform to exit from Russian fossil fuels because of security of supply. In fact, today, it's interesting to observe that the European, I would say, narrative on energy is moving from green to security of supply. There was a conference in London, with all the leaders speaking about security of supply, where renewables could contribute. From this perspective, I don't see much space today politically to take a lot of Russian gas. I think it's more U.S. LNG, which will come, again, than Russian gas in Europe. That's my comments. Over the next 12 months, I can't even confirm, but I would be very surprised to see suddenly a lot of Russian gas coming to Europe in the next 12 months. It will take time, all that, before. It's also a matter of trust between customers and producers, in fact, fundamentally, to rebuild the trust. On the guidance. Okay. Look, if we gave you a figure for 9-9.5, when we gave a guidance, when you are making the math, we have some cautiousness. If there is $0.50, it is because of the spot price. On the, I would say, on the long-term contracts related to Brent, generally, you have a two-month. Timeline. Of timeline. It's quite easy to anticipate what will happen on this contract for the next quarter. On the spot, of course, I'm not sure, which is why we gave you 9-9.5. It's differently to a bearish one on the spot, which was, I think, around something like, it was between 9 and 12, I would say, but we tested between 9 and 12 European gas. Today, we are between 10 and 11. You should be in the middle of the range. I don't know what will happen. First, third quarter, again, I am not a magician, but it's quite clear that the drop of the oil price during the second quarter, which is today, whatever April, will impact July, that's quite clear. Again, if you want me, I don't have the math in front of me, and if there is, it's uncertain. What you propose as a range is probably quite reasonable. Again, these markets are super fluid. Maybe tomorrow, the tariff will disappear, and suddenly, the oil price will jump, you know? Let's see. Let's all hope for that. Wonderful. Thank you. The next question is from Lucas Herrmann of Exane BNP Paribas. Yeah. Thanks very much. A couple of quick questions, if I might. The first, just going back to debt, but also, you know, balance sheets and what's been going on with currencies. In fact, maybe, Patrick, I should ask you more broadly on currency and impact. The question specifically was, you know, the debt that you hold, a proportion of it is euro-denominated. The question simply is the impact that a strengthening euro rate has had on, you know, dollar-reported debt last quarter. I guess if currencies remain strong, we should probably expect, you know, absolute debt to see a modest uptick as well as a consequence of currency moves. Maybe, you know, talk more broadly on, given the volatility we've seen in the dollar, you know, the way that plays to your business. Secondly, just a quick question on, on cash flow and associates. JP, where should we expect, you know, the net associate contribution to end up for the year as a whole? Clearly, you know, there has been $400 million of profit booked in the first quarter, which was not covered by dividend. How do you see things for the year as a whole? What should we be modeling? That is it. Thank you very much. Sorry, Lucas. We didn't, we didn't, the second question, I didn't catch it up. I mean, as a $400 million were related to what? It was just looking at the associate move, you know, the difference between dividends received and associates. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's checking. Patrick, it's understandable. Equity efforts for the year. Yeah, yeah, equity efforts. Okay. Good. Thank you for the two questions, Lucas, and your support. The first one, so debt, I will let, Made it. I'll talk. I will let Jean-Pierre answer. What I can tell you on the effects, in fact, the dollar-euro foreign exchange rate does not affect our global results. The only positive impact it has today, it's the dividend is expressed in euro. When the dollar is at 1.15 or 1.14, in fact, we lower the burden of the dividend by the equivalent of 5%, which can make something like $400 million. It is not neutral. The rest between the different, in fact, when I look to the global, the cash flows and the results, the plus and minus are, in fact, equal. When we make the test around the portfolio, we have no global impact. We have some on some businesses, of course, but globally, it's not an issue. In fact, when the price dollar is weak, it's better for us on the dividend. Of course, that means, by the way, that our shareholders in the U.S. would not see a 7% or 10% or more increase of the dividend. I will let—no. On the equity affiliates, honestly, it's just because we have some equity affiliates which are run on a not on a quarterly basis, but on a yearly basis. Some of them are delivering their dividend by the end of the year. Some of them, like Nigeria LNG, for example, they make a second quarter, third quarter, a big fourth quarter, but no first quarter. We don't have Nigeria LNG. We are not only—it's not only us in control. You know, it's more of these JV or these equity affiliates are run by a board. And so you have different, I would say, timing of releasing dividends. Of course, our interest, I can tell you, all board members are pushing to maximize that. Honestly, this $400 million, I will come back, unless, of course, they are affected by the price environment and that you have lower results. The timing, so maybe it will not be $400 million but $300 million, but I have no doubt that these equity affiliates will deliver their dividends because generally, they are all run with a single concept of maximizing the dividend release, respecting, of course, the debt ratios, which maybe we have some debts, but that's the way it works. Jean-Pierre, I gave you the time to think about the complex question. No, to confirm you, my debt is in dollar because even if I issue bonds on the euro market, given that my business is in dollar, I swap this bond into dollar. So my exposure to FX on my debt is very, very limited because of that. In fact, I should have known the answer, but it's better expressed by the CFO. You trust him better. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Lucas. The next question is from Paul Chang of Scotiabank. Thank you. Good morning or good afternoon. Patrick, you guys signed the agreement with Egypt and Cyprus to export the gas there. Can you give us some idea that what's the timeline, what's the next step, and the size of the project? Thank you. Okay. There was a big step down by, yeah, now it is the operator. So Luciano Guidi is better positioned than me to answer to you because the operator has, and I trust, and we support them. There was a good signature in January in Cairo. It was quite an achievement because we managed to have the scheme now to be able to bring the gas from Cyprus through some existing facilities, through, through one of the LNG plants. In fact, the main discussion for us, the important point was to be sure that we could export the gas. I can tell you, even if there was one provision where some part of the gas could be delivered but on a net back to the Egyptian market, at the end, we're protected, and it will be, in fact, LNG going through an existing plant in Egypt, in Idku. For us, and for ENI, and I must thank ENI Works and also the Egyptian authorities, in particular, Minister Badawi for all the work he has done, the support, I think it's the optimal position to monetize this Cyprus gas. We are there, supportive of the projects. The next step will be for ENI, I think, to go to the FID by 2026, which is the target. There is some technical work which is being done, and of course, some paperwork, development plan. For us, in fact, as TotalEnergies, we were putting this agreement as a precondition to spend any CapEx, even on the engineering side. We did not want the teams and the operator to spend some money as long as we have not secured a real political agreement between the two countries, which was supportive of an acceptable scheme. You know, some of our engineers, they love to spend money to make nice designs, but at the end, if you do not have the commercials, nothing is given. As it was a complex situation, it is quite a good progress. We have 50% of the projects, ENI being the authority of the 50%. This progress comes further, but by the way, it was not, to be clear, it is another project which should come. It was not feeding Sapura by 2030. Maybe, by the way, the delivery, I know ENI is very good to time to market. We'll see how long it will take. It's something which we could fit, will fit Sapura because the scheme, as we are using existing facilities, is mainly a subsea and a pipeline. We don't build a lot of processing facilities. There is no processing facility. We should be able to deliver the gas by 2028, 2029. It will feed our growth of production in the future. Okay. Second question, if I could. The U.S. have a new rule in the Gulf of America, the Downhole Commingling, that allows the multi-zone to be taxed. Is that much of an opportunity for TotalEnergies there? Paleogene, I don't think we have Paleogene on our, I don't know if Anchor is a Paleogene. Anchor is a Paleogene. Yeah, Anchor is Paleogene. Yeah. We have some at Jack and Anchor, or Paleogene, no? At Jack as well, I think so. Yes. Jack and Anchor. And so what can we do? I didn't know that rule. But, you know, again, yes. Obviously, this is a good rule. By the way, one of the objectives we are, I said that in Houston during CERAWeek, is to, we are discussing with some operators, to take again, exploration in the Gulf, in the U.S. Gulf, as a priority. I think it's a very good thing. You know, we don't want to operate ourselves. We are discussing with some other companies. One of the ideas, in terms of, for the future renewal of reserves, is to take again because we are happy with what we've done with Anchor, with Ballymore. Ballymore came on stream last week, I think, or very recently. Chevron, again, is a very excellent operator in the Gulf of Mexico. Doing more in the Gulf of Mexico and exploring again is, for me, one of the, I would say, of the new action plan for our exploration teams. That will help to increase production and reserves to lower the cost. It's a good rule. Thank you. The next question is from Christopher Copeland of Bank of America. Yeah. Thank you very much. Just a quick one to follow up, on cash conversion, $7 billion of CFFO relative to your full year guidance. What I picked up was LNG and gas trading, the farm downs that are missing and associated dividends. Let us know if you can point to other improvements for cash conversion later in the year. The remaining question I had was, Patrick, regarding your appetite for more renewable growth. I thought it was quite important to hear at the end of March, new or tighter, even tougher net zero targets. You are now competing against utilities that are being told to do buybacks and stop growing as soft. I wonder whether you can comment on the competitive environment, in this new world, leaving the tariff uncertainties for one moment out of the debate and just looking at your competitors in the low carbon space. Thank you. Okay. $7 billion compared to $29 billion, 7 x 4 makes 28. Price environment for E&P has done well. It's even more than what we were anticipating for the full year. It's in line with our guidance. I told you that it was a, whereas the $1 billion is, it's a little from gas trading. I explained to you why. I mentioned to you about $500 million, $5.5 billion- $6 billion. Only in integrated power, I'm very fine with the guidance we used, more than $2 billion, between $2.5 billion and $3 billion. We will be there. We are on line, and there is a growth coming, so I'm fine. The refining and chemicals is more challenging, to be honest, and you've observed it. Having said that, I had the good news. When I wake up this morning, I've seen that the European margin is at, up to $50 per ton. Maybe, again, we could have some good news. Price of oil is going down. Integration will work, and I think this is our business model. I did not mention that during my speech as a strength of the company, because it's difficult to argue when you have results which are not so, so strong. In fact, we could have a sort of effects where you could have less on one side, more on the other side, $50 per ton. I hope my refineries are running full, and they capture the $50 per ton these days. I'm, I would say, again, it's not the $1 billion which will make any difference on our global framework that we gave you in January, but you captured well, the issue, the story. Chris, no. Look, on the growth, renewables, we are on the way. It's not only renewables, it's integrated power. I mentioned during an answer that we are looking a lot also not only on renewable flexible assets because it's the integration which makes money, in fact, and we need both. At the end, we sell to customers, 24/7 power. Yes, I observe that others are more under pressure. Maybe really, it will be easier to capture some licenses, over and again. That's possible. Again, our model, we are quite clear on what we would deliver. We are targeting some countries. We build on it. I mean, it's not a matter of net zero world for me. It's a matter of demand. The news of 2024, when you look to the results of what happens in 2024, electricity is, electricity has grown by 4% in 2024. The global electricity demand, the demand, not the offer, the supply, the demand has grown by 4%. All the strategy of the company is fundamentally driven by moving part of the company, remaining, of course, strong on oil and gas because this is the energy of today. This is where we can deliver a creative growth, etc. Moving part of the company to a market which will, which offers clearly some good perspective for demand. All these tech companies, the data centers, AI is driven, is driving this increase of electricity demand. By the way, it's good because this, again, as I mentioned in my answer before, electricity is not linked to oil. It is another way as well in our company to have a certain resilience, not the same upside, but it's like marketing and service. You have a resilient business. For us, the fact that others' competitors maybe have more pressure, less competition, that means access to assets might be better, easier. It is not a matter of net zero world. It is a matter for me of, again, comforting the TotalEnergies business portfolio is in the future, delivering growth and in a resilient way and in a profitable way. That's what is driven with what is our what are what are the drivers of this strategy. Great. Thank you. The next question is from Jason Gabelman of TD Cowen. Hey, thanks for taking my question. The first one is on the integrated LNG business. And I, you know, it's difficult to see the benefit from the Sapura OMV acquisition quarter over quarter. I know you've said in the past that that production's linked to global gas prices, and given where they are, I would have expected to see a step up in earnings from that new production. Can you just talk about kind of what that contributed within earnings, if it's masked by perhaps lower trading quarter over quarter? Then somewhat related to that, one of your large peers noted this morning that the trading environment is a bit more difficult given the new macro risks that the market is dealing with. And I'm wondering if you're seeing that in your own oil and gas trading books and for the duration that the tariff risk kind of remains, does trading become a bit more difficult? Thanks. Okay. Honestly, it's, Sapura OMV acquisition is delivering some results, obviously. The teams, I don't have that in mind today. I mean, I don't have the details. We don't give the details core asset by asset. It's easy to find if you want to look to Wood Mackenzie one year ago when it was isolated, and you will find some figures, you know? The teams can come back to you on this one, but I'm not able to. I think, Jean-Pierre, you can or you cannot as well. We look to the global one, but it's contributive. In fact, you will see. I mean, we are working today to capitalize on this position, Malaysia, to move to more assets. It's not only one asset. It's a larger story that we are trying to build, and we are willing to build together, today, together with Petronas, which is a strong strategic partner of the company. We work. I mean, that's the point. On trading, I understand the comment. I mentioned it. I think the macro environments make it more complex. Our traders told us it's very difficult for them, you know, to, to the fundamentals of tomorrow, which they think could be hit suddenly by some comments. It could have an impact, a reverse impact. It's a difficult market to trade. There is some volatility, but difficult to anticipate. It's true, but for traders, it's not the best way. It's not the easiest environment. I can only, I would say, trust them. I'm trusting them. They know their business. They know what they can take, the level of risk they can take. It's up to them. We are not guiding them on this one. We trust them to do it. Honestly, the old trading has done well during this quarter. I remind you that the TotalEnergies trading is more trading around assets, rather than on the market. We are valorizing our assets. We have a lot of positions with storages, inventories. This is the way we trade, hedging some assets, etc. I think, again, the old trading has done very well during the quarter, I can say. The gas trading has done well. The LNG part was very positive. The gas one only because of this reverse trend, we were on the right position, again, bullish on it, a long position. Suddenly, we had to reverse it, a bearish project, because of the geopolitical comments on Russian gas, whereas the market, I think the market has overreacted with something which will be, take time, as I mentioned. Yes, it's true. Having said that, again, I think, through quarters, we trust the teams to deliver some strong results. I mean, if I'm looking back to the guidance we gave you at the beginning of the year, what has been taken as coming from our different trading, because it's not only oil gas, we have power trading, which has done well as well, which is part of integrated power. We are in line with the contribution of trading to our global guidance for the year. Great. Thanks for those answers. The next question is from Alejandro Vigil of Santander. Yes. Hello, Patrick and Jean-Pierre, for taking my questions. Related, both questions about the downstream business. You have flagged some improvement in refining margins in the short term, but I'm more interested in your thoughts about the medium-term outlook for this division. The second question is about marketing. We have seen some weakness in the first quarter, probably just seasonality, but you can comment on that. Thank you. Oh, the seasonality is quite easy. People are less driving in winter than in summer. It's true in Europe. It's true everywhere. In fact, there is no, there is no surprise, in fact, because we, maybe you don't take attention, but the results of this first quarter is in line with the first quarter of 2024. Even we have lost some few, but it's in line, $260 million, $240 million. I mean, million dollars. There is no adjust seasonal. The marketing results are higher during the year, but it's not just, for us, it was, I see some comment this morning, for us, it was not a surprise. I'm not, I think the marketing and services is on the contrary, a very resilient division. Generally, when they announce that they will deliver on the year $2.2 billion, $2.3 billion, $2.4 billion, they deliver their cash flow. It is less volatile than others. It is more a question, just less drivers. You do not drive, you do not drive as much, but just consumption drive. On the first one, looking at the downstream, it is true, and I come back on it because there was an important announcement by the company, which was not commented until now, which is we have announced we close, shut down, one cracker in Antwerp, which is quite an important decision, you know, when you decide to shut down a cracker in a, it is a big unit with a lot of people involved. It is true that European refining and European petrochemicals are under pressure. Even from different, the consumption is going down. The pressure from petrochemicals from other areas is quite strong, including from the U.S., unless there are some tariffs there, but also from Asia. I think for us, it's true that we have to medium-term outlook is more to question, to monitor, I would say, this decline of the markets or this pressure on the margins. It's true that from this perspective, we contributed to restructuring of petrochemical by taking the decision that this cracker in Antwerp will be off the market by 2027. It took three years to execute it, but we'll do it. We are looking to that, in fact, for to other assets, as we know it. This is a point, but we have to do it properly, including with our social responsibility. That's important to me. Thank you. The last question is from Eritar of Berenberg. Thanks for, thanks for squeezing me in. My question comes back to Russia, actually. In the event that we do see some sort of peace deal with Ukraine, how do you see your sort of interests in the, in the country, and how you might sort of look to approach that? Thank you. It will all depend on the condition of the peace deal, which I don't know today. Having said that, we have a very strong asset, which is Yamal LNG, which I consider as a prime asset and which we continue to work on it and which is the anchor of the position. This one is a long-term asset. For the rest, I think it's just difficult to make some forecasts on geopolitics, you know, in this world, right? That's so that's I cannot comment more than that. I think I told you where we are. Okay. Thanks. This was the last question. Mr. Pouyanné, I'll turn the call back to you. Thank you for your attention and to all of you. I think the company, again, has very strong fundamentals which give me a lot of comfort, again, to weather the storm and not to overreact. I think, through these results of the first quarter, we demonstrated some of the strengths. In particular, again, our E&P division has done well, delivering the growth, strong cash flows. This is a core of the company. Integrated power is in line. The others, we face some more difficult, I would say, downstream environment, but the teams are mobilized to run the assets and to capture better margins when we recall. Thank you for your attention, and see you soon, all of you. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.