Hello, everybody. Good afternoon, or good morning for those who are in the US.

Before Jean-Pierre will go through the details of the second quarter financial, I would like first to make some few opening comments starting obviously with the current conflict in the Middle East, which has picked up again in the last few days and which is clearly impacting our markets and our operations and our perspectives. Although we were all hoping in mid-June that a resolution could be envisaged with the signature of the MOU and ceasefire between the US and Iran, the situation has remained, to say the least, extremely volatile with the Strait of Hormuz being an intermittent battleground where the risk premium to navigate in these waters is increasingly high.

Some are even beginning to consider that this could become a new normal with the Strait opening on and off depending on level of tensions between the parties. This unstable and chaotic environment has been prevailing throughout the second quarter.

I would say the last 15 days in June where we have seen some quite interesting reactions of the market with crude oil going down very quickly, but products going to the roof at the same time. We don't know how long this conflict will continue.

We have no specific information. I don't know if anybody knows, by the way.

Of course, for us, safety of our teams will remain our utmost priority. As Jean-Pierre will show you in a moment, we can say we have managed this quarter to deliver once again strong results and cash flows from both our strategic pillars thanks to the strong performance of the teams who managed to capture very favorable market conditions for many of the energies we are producing and selling.

The oil prices rose above $100 per barrel, even if differentials have widened, while refining petrochemicals biofuel margins, but also distribution margins, were increased with some even reaching historic levels, and gas, LNG, electricity were also at strong levels. Once again, TotalEnergies has demonstrated its capacity to capture these margins and high prices, leveraging the integrated and diversified business model along the value chains of oil, gas, and electricity.

First, our oil upstream and downstream businesses have been performing very strongly at the same time, which is not so frequent, in fact, since quite often one benefits from a supportive environment at the expense of the other. Currently, both are capturing high prices and margins given the tensions on global demand for products.

As we speak, integrated margins this morning are around $130 per barrel, Brent or crude oil around $95 and margins at $35. E&P delivered a strong quarter in terms of production thanks to a solid 4% organic growth, higher than our forecast, coming from our rich and diversified portfolio of projects, which was planned, in particular from Brazil, US, and Libya, but also, and I must say it was very good, from a strong operational performance limiting, I would say, the unexpected stoppage of the production.

It was a very good performance from an operational point of view. All that allowed us to partly compensate the production losses in the Middle East.

E&P has been delivering, once again this quarter, a strong cash flow from operation despite as well, I would say, and there was a difference in the Middle East between the production reported and the capacity to lift this production, which impacted because lifting in the Gulf, of course, was limited by access through Strait of Hormuz. Looking forward on the Middle East situation, beginning of July, end of June, I would say the production was going up quite quickly and we were at limitations, I would say, only 5% of global production.

This weekend, after the conflict came back, we were more back to 8%-10% of limitations. Difficult.

I think we said 5% to 10% in our perspectives. It will obviously depend on the way that the conflict will develop.

Again, it's not only production, for us it's also lifting, offloading the crude oil, which might be affected. When we look to what happened in the second quarter, the real offloading was, in fact, affected as per our guidance at 15% of our production.

We'll see what will happen for the next, for this quarter. Refining & Chemicals performed in an exceptional way, I must say, leveraging market conditions, managing well the tensions on supply of refined products to maximize capturing margins.

Our refiners have adjusted the way they use their plants in the second quarter to prioritize, in particular, production of diesel and jet fuel, which were offering higher margins, and also, by doing that, contributing to security of supply of France and Europe. This performance was achieved although some of our facilities have been impacted by events outside of our control, like the Satorp refinery in Saudi Arabia, which was hit in mid-April, if I remember well, by some drones, and which has been used at around, which is back today at 70% of capacity and full capacity by end of the third quarter is expecting.

Also Port Arthur in the US suffered, unfortunately in June, from a lightning strike during a tropical storm, and now is progressively coming back to normal production level. Our crude oil and petroleum products trading activities have been very successful for the second quarter in a row with a strong performance, and made an another $500 million, I would say, overperformance on the top of our usual historical performance of $500 million.

Last but not least on the downstream, Marketing & Services has reported the best-ever quarter driven by positive impact of the seasonality in Europe, but also higher, I would say, unit margins, in particular in on products like lubricants. After a strong outperformance in this quarter, in the first quarter, sorry, our gas trading activities results in the second quarter were not good, to be clear, and impacted by flat-to-declining European market conditions, whereas our traders were positioned to see the more supportive European gas environment in line with supply/demand fundamental expectations.

Our traders took a long position on gas, thinking being bullish on the market, which seems to be reasonable because many some indicate many indications were pointing to gas prices increasing as because of lower supply out of the Middle East and from Qatar, because European ref inventories were low at less than 15% below the five-year average. These factors did not materialize during the second quarter, even in fact prices have declined through the quarter, leading to, I would say, weaker or poor results from the trading business.

The story is, however, not over. As you have probably seen, now gas price in Europe have rallied.

As we are a little where traders are rightly stubborn, since early July, their gas trading results are following and will be back to some overperformance again. On our second pillar, Electricity, there was multiple good news during this quarter.

Integrated Power delivered one of its best quarters ever in terms of strong with a strong cash flow, in fact the second-best since 2024, even in the absence of farm-downs during this quarter. It was supported by the closing of the transaction with EPH in April, one month earlier or two one to two months earlier than expected, and the cash flow coming from EPH was as per the expectations.

With strong deliveries on almost all fronts, but I would say gas trading for once, we have generated at the company level next to $10 billion this quarter, which has been allocated in a very consistent matter as announced to you, as I've announced to you last April during the call for the first quarter. First, of course, we are deleveraging down to a gearing ratio of 13%, which show an improvement of 2.4 percentage points quarter-to-quarter, benefiting from a $3.3 billion reduction in net debt and also $1.2 billion working cap release.

Second, of course, we have confirmed increase the increase of our interim quarterly dividend by 5.9% to €0.9 per share, which places TotalEnergies once again in the leading pack of the growing dividend companies. Along this quarter, our cash generation has also allowed us to sustain our production growth target with disciplined capital investment of $3.4 billion, comforting our annual guidance of $15 billion, and also to increase, as announced, our buybacks to $1.5 billion during the second quarter.

The board has authorized us to maintain this buyback with another $1.5 billion for the third quarter. With all these good news, I now hand it over to Jean-Pierre, who has an easy work to go through the details of the second quarter financial results.

Thank you. Thank you, Patrick.

I will start by commenting on the price environment in the second quarter '26 versus the first quarter. We captured high commodity prices, although gradually graduating decreasing over the quarter.

Brent averaged $104 per barrel during the second quarter versus $81 per barrel in the first quarter, meaning plus $23 per barrel, more than 25%. While average liquids price was up by $18 per barrel due to widened differential and a lifting schedule weighted towards the end of the quarter in a crude market which softened in June in the context of the ceasefire in the Middle East.

TTF averaged $15.6 per million BTU this versus $13.7. Our average LNG price increased by 20% at $10.2 per million BTU.

Oil prices started to impact LNG prices with one to two months of lag effect according to LNG pricing formulas. Finally, the European refining margins increased by $13.5 per barrel on average over the quarter.

In this price environment, the company reported very strong financial results increasing by almost 15% compared to the first quarter, with second quarter '26 cash flow of $9.8 billion and adjusted net income increasing to $6 billion. These results were possible because of the strong operational performance of all businesses, demonstrating the company's ability to fully capture the environment's upside.

Upstream delivered an underlying accretive production growth of over 4% year-on-year, which is above the annual 3% guidance, and partially offsetting the production lost loss in the Middle East. Downstream, a very good operational performance, as explained by Patrick, from our refineries, which has been deliberately geared towards maximizing distillate production, diesel, jet fuel, to capture higher refining margins.

Integrated Power cash flow generation increased by 25% over the quarter, supported by contribution of EPH assets in line with expectation since the closing of the transaction at the end of April. TotalEnergies generated these very strong results, the highest since the end of '22, despite two challenges.

Although production from the Middle East was higher than originally expected, a significant portion of this production could not be lifted during the quarter, and is recognized in E&P results based on the crude price from end-June, meaning less than $70 per barrel. Our gas trading underperformed after an overperformance in the first quarter because of declining gas price through the quarter, as explained by Patrick.

TotalEnergies has delivered strong profitability this quarter with return on equity at 15.9% and a ROACE close to 14%. Now moving to the business segment, starting with Hydrocarbons.

On production, on a year-on-year basis, excluding the impact of the Middle East conflict, second quarter hydrocarbons production increased by more than 4%, above the guidance provided of 3% for '26, benefiting from the ramp-up of the projects started since the beginning of '25, and from an operational improved facility availability. The impact of the conflict in the Middle East is around 210,000 barrel of oil equivalent per day over the quarter, below the guidance communicated last quarter of 360, due to the company's production ramp-up in offshore United Arab Emirates, and the restart of production in the other countries in the region during June.

Although physical lifting turned out to be in line with the guidance with an impact of 350,000 barrel of oil equivalent per day. Looking forward, we expect to maintain a strong momentum with oil and gas production in the third quarter, excluding the Middle East impact, expected to grow around 3% compared to the third quarter '25, in line with the annual growth guidance.

Turning on the quarterly results, and starting with E&P product with E&P results. The segment generated an adjusted net operating income of $3.2 billion this quarter, up by 25% quarter-to-quarter, capturing the increase in average liquid price of $17.9 per barrel over the quarter, and demonstrating the accretive new projects contributing this quarter to the yearly production growth.

Similarly, cash flow reached $5.8 billion, up 27% quarter-to-quarter. On the cost side, very important as well, once again, we maintain our leadership with an average OPEX per barrel equivalent below $5 in the second quarter.

On Integrated LNG, the production LNG production decreased by 10% quarter-to-quarter, mainly due to shut-in production in Qatar related to the Middle East conflicts. In contrast to the outperformance in the first quarter, this quarter, the second quarter, was impacted by the underperformance of gas trading activities in an overall flat or even bearish European markets, reflecting the significantly decreased adjusted net operating income and the cash flow of the segment quarter-to-quarter of $0.8 billion.

Given the evolution of oil and gas prices in recent months and the lag effect on pricing formula, the company anticipates an average LNG selling price of above $11.5 per million BTU for the third quarter '26. As we execute our consistent strategy in LNG, the main milestone of the quarter was the start-up of Energía Costa Azul LNG plant on the Pacific Coast in Mexico of Mexico, strengthening the diversification of the LNG portfolio of the company towards the Asian markets.

TotalEnergies loaded the first cargo at ECA LNG and shipped it to the Asian markets where the company pursued strategy of signing long-term oil-indexed LNG contracts with new clients in China or in Japan. Turning now to Integrated Power.

Net power generation increased to 14.8 terawatt-hour, up 28% year-on-year, driven by an increase of nearly 15% in generation from renewable sources, reflecting growth in installed capacity, and a 2 terawatt-hour increase in production from flexible gas-fired capacity, resulting notably from the completion of the transaction with EPH end of April. TotalEnergies is on track to reach its annual objective in Integrated Power, in particular, to generate more than 60 terawatt-hour over the year.

Cash flow from operation was above $700 million, supported by the contribution, again, of EPH assets in line with expectation since the closing of the transaction. This quarter again, we provide more granularity in the Integrated Power financial performance with a split in cash flow between what we call production assets, meaning renewables and gas-fired power plant, and sell activity, B2B, B2C, and trading, the former contributing 60% of the cash flow and the latter contributing 40%.

TTEP, the new the new venture with EPH, will continue providing its growing contribution to the company's results throughout the year, in line with expectation. As TTEP has started contributing in the second quarter, we said in the first quarter that Integrated Power should benefit in 20 '26 from 10 terawatt-hour net power production, in line with the 15 terawatt-hour guidance given for a full year, and more than 50 $500 million contribution to available cash flow.

Moving to Downstream. During the second quarter, Refining & Chemicals was able to fully capture the increase in refining and petrochemical margins, notably adapting the refineries run to produce more distillates.

Overall, for Refining & Chemicals, adjusted net operating income was up by $200 million quarter-to-quarter to $1.8 billion, and cash flow reached $2 billion. Marketing & Services delivered outstanding results, the best in at least 10 years, driven by the positive impact of the seasonality in Europe and the higher unit margins, as as noted by Patrick, notably on lubricants.

Adjusted net operating income was up 21% year-on-year at $500 million, and cash flow close to 850, up 19% year-on-year. Moving to the company level, and starting with working cap.

Working capital decreased by $1.2 billion during the second quarter, largely driven by the reversal of the first quarter build-up with the lower hydrocarbon prices at the end of the second quarter compared to the end of the first quarter. The company has kept the course for capital expenditure with net investments amounted to $3.4 billion in the second quarter, with a contribution of net disposal to $1.2 billion.

This, as explained by Patrick, comforts our guidance for full-year '26 net investments level of $15 billion. As a result, the gearing has improved by more than two points to reach 13.1% at the end of the quarter, reflecting a reduction in net debt of $3.3 billion.

To conclude, once again this quarter, the integrated model of TotalEnergies demonstrated its ability to capture higher prices and higher margins with a growing cash flow to support the deleveraging of the company, our shareholder distribution, with a clear priority to the dividend and to CAPEX to deliver our growth. I think now we can open the line for questions.

Hi, hello. Two questions, if I may.

I know there's an awful lot of attention, of course, on the Middle East, but I wanted to ask you a quick one about Namibia. It's still very important for Total.

Where do you stand on sort of the FID of Venus versus the completion of the transaction with Galp on Mopane? I was hoping you could say a few words about that.

Then secondly, I wanted to ask you about the payout ratio for this year because the guidance sort of more than 4 40%. I think we're sort of tracking below that so far.

Of course, hugely volatile macro environment is perhaps no surprise. The sort of the payout guidance, over which period should we expect that to be realized?

Would you still expect to have more than 40% payout sort of over the year or should that become a longer-term target?

Okay. Thank you, Martijn, for the first question.

That would be more precise. On the Galp transaction related to Mopane versus Venus, we have received the end of last week the official approval of the Ministry of Energy of Namibia.

We are just, in fact, finalizing the last paper to close the deal, potentially tonight or tomorrow. Your question comes at the right time.

That's important, of course, because this fact that we will be on both developments as operator has a strong value for us in order to engage with the first FID. On the FID of Venus, I would say there are intense discussions as well.

We have a joint target between the government of Namibia and the consortium to sanction it by end of July. There are discussions progressing.

We'll see if we can conclude in July or if we need to have a little more time. Technically, I think we have selected all contractors.

We are ready to take the FID subject to finalizing discussions with the government of Namibia. There have been some progress, but it's still some progress to be done.

Again, generally, it's when the last minute you can conclude. We'll see if we can do it.

Otherwise, we'll wait. I would say reasonably optimistic that there is a joint interest, clearly, and in particular, the Namibian authorities are fundamentally supportive to have a strong operator being able to capitalize on synergies between the projects.

I remind you that now that Mopane has been approved and will be closed, the next step is to engage in the second half to appraise Mopane. We have three wells in '27, and the FID will be taken in '28.

All that as we engaged in a strong momentum. Clearly, for us, Namibia is becoming a very important hub for future growth, not only to 2030, but beyond 2030.

Then on the other topics, we are clear, we are targeting 40% of payout. We have increased the buyback level and the dividend level between the first quarter and the second quarter.

I don't know where we'll go. To be honest, you could say there was a little cautiousness in the fact we have raised from $750 million to 1.5.

We maintained the 1.5 for the next quarter. We were quite impressed also when the MOU was signed in June by the quick drop of the crude oil price down to $70.

It's difficult, honestly, to anticipate what will be the cash flow for the second half of the year. Of course, we will be globally above the guidance we gave.

I gave even to you end of April, I think, and mentioned a cash flow guidance at $80, $7 per $80 per barrel, $7 per of refining margin of 32 billion, obviously will be higher than that. Where will it land?

Between 35 40. I don't know, it's difficult to guess.

We can make the math like you. If we were at $35 billion, there is not a miss.

There is a question of $1 billion, one a little more, one around $1 billion to increase in the return to shareholders, 1 billion in the last quarter, we'll see. There will be a debate at the board at the different ways we could imagine to execute it.

I think, again, my message to you is first, it's a good topic because that means that we are generating more cash flow than compared to the guidance we gave you in February. It's a matter of I would say rich company.

It's a good topic. The idea that we will target the 40% is really on the yearly basis.

I remind you, by the way, that we have quite an advance, hein. If you want to make it on a multi-year case, as you suggested in your question, I think the last year we were at 55%, the previous year around 50% or 53%.

If I make it on multi-year which is not the case the way, because we are simple guys. We are quite in advance compared to 40.

Again, consider that 40% guidance is guiding the board. Again, the board is also, as I was explaining you last quarter, looking with your support and your strong guidance last year at the same period of the year to the gearing ratio.

Going down to 10% is quite also an objective for the company, and we might achieve it this year. That's the equation of the capital distribution, I would say, for the board.

I think we will manage that as we've done that regularly in respecting our different I would say stakeholders.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I wanted to ask two questions.

The first one is if you have an update on the two giant oil developments you're operating in Uganda and Suriname. The second one is more of a macro question.

I was wondering if you have a view on China demand. We've seen a drop of about 5 million barrels per day in imports since the beginning of the conflict.

It's very difficult to unpick what is destocking, demand substitution, demand destruction. I was just wondering if you had any view of how to think about it.

Thank you.

First question on Uganda. We are, I would say, in the last six months of development.

I would say we expect the oil production to start before the end of the year. I would say '27 will be the year where we reach the plateau.

We have two developments, we have Tilenga on one side and the other one the offshore Kingfisher. Kingfisher I think is even ready to start up by September if my informations are good.

The pipeline is also ready by, I would say, September. We might start, in fact in the next quarter the production at a rate which is, I think Kingfisher was around 60,000 barrel per day, and then Tilenga will come ramping up, I would say, on the first half of '27.

Full plateau for me is by mid-'27. This is where we are.

By the way, it's an opportunity for me and we will follow that carefully. Of course, Uganda is affected today by a disease Ebola.

If it was not the case, we think that if it stopped, we might organize a field trip with some of you, the ones who are brave, to go to Uganda in one year in September 2027. Uganda for me is now it's a matter of finalizing and turning the wells on.

On Suriname, things are moving very well, I would say. We confirm that the production will start up by first half '28.

That's where we are according to planning I have. It was our first quarter, maybe second quarter, but we are in first half '28.

The news of the construction, it has already progressed by 40%. We are at 40% advancement, but the FPSO in an Asian yard is building correctly.

No, I would say this is more classical. It's more complex to execute an onshore project than an offshore one.

We are in Suriname, we are in a project which for TotalEnergies, a deepwater project. We know how to execute them.

Then, China, it's very interesting demand. Of course, we have all been surprised when we discovered the statistics of May and June, I would say, where in fact you are right the refinery runs went down from 15.5 million barrel of oil per day in February to 12.5 in June.

Clearly with a policy which was at first, I remind you that Chinese authorities have decided very quickly to stop exporting products out of China. They reduced the run rate of the refineries in China by 10% down to 90%, I would say voluntary reduction of Chinese.

Export was more affecting the export. The domestic demand, it's difficult to say that it's a domestic demand destruction.

I would not say that. It's also true probably that so, what we're sure is that we've observed it.

It seems that there is some, I would say, turnaround on Chinese refinery in July, August, in summertime. We don't expect, in fact, much increase of this demand from China.

It's true that when you look at that, you can consider that the system in China had quite an impact on the oil market, and probably, we were commenting in April the fact that Strait of Hormuz blockade was representing 10 to 12 million barrel of oil per day of the market. The Chinese by themselves with their policy have, I would say, absorbed 4 million barrel of oil per day.

If you add on that that the US have released almost 2 million barrel per day of the SPR, they have solved, the two countries, I would say, have solved almost 60% of the problem. That's probably why, by the way, the price of oil went up to 120, but not so high.

For the coming months, Michele, you can observe them like me, but we are back to the blockade today. It's no tankers are crossing Strait of Hormuz.

We are back to the situation. I know that the Chinese have announced that they will really allow again some few refineries to export some few products.

It was during I would say the quiet period at Hormuz. Today, we can imagine that again it might not be the case again with these events.

That's what I can comment. For sure, less exports.

Domestic demand destruction, difficult to have data on this one.

Thank you.

Hi there. Thanks for taking my question.

Just two on your LNG business. In June, there were reports around a Russian decree to authorize a sale of 10% of Arctic LNG 2, I think related to the European sanctions.

I don't believe you have commented, but are you aware, and are you planning to exit there? Related to that, are you any clearer on the sort of legal language around EU sanctions and what it means for Yamal at this point?

I know I asked with full-year results, and it wasn't quite clear exactly what it would mean, and there's been some conflicting reports. Any color there would be helpful.

Thank you.

Thank you, Biraj, for your questions. I know that you have a specific interest for Russian matters for good reasons, by the way.

Arctic LNG 2, as I remind you that we decided in 2022, it was very early in March, the accounts of March 31st, 2022, shortly after the war, we recorded an impairment of $4.1 billion, which was, in fact, concerning notably Arctic LNG 2, full write-off. Secondly, that Arctic LNG 2 has been placed under sanctions by US authority on the 2nd of November '23.

As a result, immediately, we suspended procedures in accordance with existing contracts, and in consequence, in fact, all rights, obligations under these contracts related to Arctic LNG 2 have been suspended since November '23. In such a context, Novatek approached us indeed and initiated discussions for the transfer of our 10% in Arctic LNG 2 to one of their own subsidiaries, Nordline.

This has been publicly authorized, as you noticed, by a special decision of the Russian presidency in June. In fact, given this context of Arctic LNG 2, we on our side consider that it's in joint interest of TotalEnergies and Novatek to dispose of our Arctic LNG 2 shares, which, against, were fully impaired in '22.

We have notified our partners and lenders, and we expect the transfer process initiated by Novatek to be completed in the near term. The Arctic LNG 2 chapter will be over for TotalEnergies in such a context.

The second questions, I would love to be able to answer to you, but we are waiting to see what is the legal language precisely. There was some press news this morning that there was intense discussion about a new sanctions package at Brussels.

Among these different topics, and we are not part of everything even if we try to understand, we are not in the room. There was a debate which came from, I would say, the Greek authorities, which were claiming that the Greek LNG tankers should be allowed to transport some LNG from Russia if it was to be offloaded outside of the EU.

That was basically the case. It seems that there is a legal language, but again which could, in fact, have an impact on Yamal LNG accordingly what was said, and which could, in fact, allow, I would say, some transfer and purchase of Yamal LNG if we were using a EU LNG tankers outside of EU again.

A specific case, it's a little complex story, but that might have yes an impact on the fact that if it is the case, that means that TotalEnergies could not use a force majeure to say like it was until now, because until now they could with the regulations which were in place, which were banning the LNG export to EU. There was a question mark, I made that comment, I think, in April to all of you, that or in February, I remember, that we were questioning there was a different interpretation of the European sanctions that even a EU company could not purchase any of Russian LNG either for EU or outside of EU.

It seems that the new language could, in fact, clarify it in a way that it could be done outside of EU if we use some EU LNG tankers, in fact, which, in fact, would be that the interest of EU companies would say somehow be preserved independently of if it's outside of the EU. Again, I'm just commenting some verbal informations.

We have been in contact with different, and I think the final resolution will be delivered probably tonight or tomorrow morning. They are drafting the last ones, and we'll see what will be the outcome.

Of course, we need to analyze it because we have a policy where we don't want to take any risk with sanctions. My comment, if it is the case again, I think the interest of EU companies would be preserved because honestly, to let the Russian LNG being sold outside of the EU not by EU companies, but only by our competitors, was a little odd to all the EU companies involved.

Let's see. That's what I can tell you.

We will keep you aware, obviously, because it has some impacts on our own business and we'll keep you aware of the situation.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody.

Patrick, I wonder if I could pick up on Martijn's prior question about cash returns and the 40% and so on. I think we would all agree probably this is a bit of a windfall environment, and maybe formulaic returns of capital, or one could be forgiven if there was some flexibility there.

My question is specifically around the hybrid bonds as opposed to the net debt target, and whether you would consider these windfalls as an opportunity to perhaps address some of that longer-term financing as part of your capital structure. That's my first question.

I've got a follow-up on exploration, please.

I should give that to Jean-Pierre, but to be honest, the hybrid bonds is for me, it's a debt. It's not a debt, but it's a quasi-debt with a low interest rate compared to the issue bonds.

I don't make a lot of difference between the different bonds that we have issued. I would say it's around €11 billion of 3% coupons.

It's a quite a cheap debt. Is it a priority to unwind all that?

My answer will be clear, it's no. It's no.

We have made some partial reimbursement, but it's not a priority. Again, we are more looking at I would say as a CEO, I'm more looking to the global cost of our different bonds rather than this specific one.

Maybe Jean-Pierre, you want to

elaborate? It's highly dependent on the market.

If we could consider that it's cheap debt, there is no reason not to keep the hybrid in our portfolio. Of course, it's highly dependent on the conditions.

As Patrick explained, what is important for us is globally the cost of global debt, senior bond plus hybrids.

That is very clear, guys. Thank you.

Et voilà. Unanimous.

Yeah. My follow-up, Patrick, is very specific on exploration.

You hired Nicola out of Eni and you have Mopane and Venus in Namibia. Back in 2016, Total drilled the only deepwater well in Uruguay, and Eni late last year farmed into Uruguay.

It seems that activity there is picking up a bit. My question is, when you roll all that together, does Total have any ambitions to move into Uruguay?

Okay. I Doug, you will need to ask the question to Nicola.

To be honest, Nicola did not come to my office to tell me, "We need absolutely to come back to Uruguay." To be clear, our own experience in Uruguay has been quite average, to be honest.

In fact, is the whole basin because this basin, which was the Pelotas Basin, if I remember well, with in fact, we drilled in Uruguay, we also drilled in the other side in Brazil, which was not as well quite a success. We made two drillings in this deepwater basin there, which was honestly not very encouraging.

I have noticed that there were some companies last year which went back. Nicola is quite excited by Namibia, by coming back on Suriname, we go beyond.

He has some other ideas or other African countries. Again, I I discussed with him through your interview, Doug.

If he wants to come back to Uruguay, our as a CEO, the policy is quite clear, you know. We allocate $1 billion per year to exploration and appraisal.

This is my commitment to Nicola when we are in, and I told him, "It's up to you to design where we will put the money. You have to prepare to share with you your convictions."

If it's your ideas, we follow that. By the way, when I was looking to potentially it's not mined down, but the Venus case, looking to the deepment.

A Venus development might generate quite a nice cash flow paying many years of or like Suriname, the GranMorgu development will pay many years of exploration. That we need to keep in mind that it's in terms of cash generation of the added-value exploration for me is a good a nice engine.

Again, I trust Nicola that he'll will bring to us ideas. I don't know if it's Uruguay or not, but until now, it's not Uruguay.

Great. Thanks so much, Patrick.

Good try.

Thank you very much. Just two quick questions from me, Patrick.

The info that you've given us on the positioning of your gas traders is very helpful. Can you maybe comment on whether their bullishness has extended into power and your merchant and spark spread position there, and what you expect on that side now that you've got access to the EPH portfolio?

The second question, as ever, I keep trying to get comments out of you on the state of the M&A market. Maybe now we have a specific example that you know more about than we do, which is the Danoil deal, which I believe is entirely operated by yourself.

What do you think about this environment? You've made use of inorganic before.

Is this an environment to sell or to buy? Any comment once again would be appreciated.

Thank you.

I commented the gas trading, the gas trading has been, again, there was a lower performance in server trading, just to tell you that now the position is, I would say, the winning one. On electricity, honestly, I don't have the visibility on that.

Your question, of course, as this EPH deal is a deal where we are buying the assets, but we transform all assets in a tolling mode in order to have access to the electrons and in order to trade ourselves around these electricity. In fact, today at this stage, all the tolling agreements have not yet been signed.

We are working on it. I think the full potential of trading around the EPH deal is more for the fourth quarter than immediately, to be honest.

Of course, we are expecting from that some additional value, in fact. We have some objective and we were discussing that, by the way, with our trading electricity team last week during our five-year business plan.

We have some objective and we expect them to deliver. We are trading on two markets, there is the European markets.

The one which we are also trading is the US, which is a little more complex market, to be honest, because our position there is probably today still limited. We will need to find ways to increase the position in the US if you want to be, I would say, profitable trading electricity in the US.

In Europe, we have quite a large portfolio today in different countries. We have some positive expectations.

The US, I would say, it's still a work being in progress, I would say, on this one. M&A market, yeah, I didn't have the time to analyze the price which was paid by Vår to acquire the Noreco energy, probably I will receive a memo, but I was occupied by other matters these last days.

It seems for me the market today is more a seller market than a buyer market with the price of crude oil price which we experience today to make a deal unless you have a big earn-out or schemes in which you will try to capture part of the potential upside, it's not a stable market. Before this crisis, I think could imagine that the deals were done around to buy around $70 per barrel.

Today, to sell at $70, on my side, to be honest, I'm not a seller today on these assets, on the all assets, because we would not like to lose some upsides. Selling is probably better today than buying, yeah, it's fight to come back to your deal.

Again, I cannot comment the specific situation you mentioned. Maybe we have some preemption right, I don't know.

I don't know the situation obviously. We look at it.

As is our assets and we operate, By the way, I'm not surprised because Noreco was a fund, and it was quite clear to me that I met, by the way, the owner of Noreco when I was in Denmark two months ago, and it was quite clear to me that they were willing to sell. For us as TotalEnergies, we have already quite a big share, I would say, in these Danish underground assets.

It's quite mature assets, to be honest, I think we are fine with what we have. Again, we'll look to this situation.

Great. Much appreciated.

Thank you.

Thank you. Regarding the European projects, could I ask about the Cyprus project, Cronos Block 6, and what the expectations to move that one forward are, please?

Then secondly, on gas trading, yes, agree with others' helpful comments. You spoke to the European expectations for a price moves there that didn't occur.

Should we consider your gas trading business to be more of a regional focused business rather than global? Obviously, oil made material moves up and down and probably that enabled that business.

Should we think of your gas trading business as being a more European regional-focused one? Thank you.

No, the second question is clear. No, we have a global gas trading.

We are a big LNG LNG, I would say player. I just mentioned that there are different markets on the US, in Asia, of course.

I just tried to, in my comment, to tell you where we make the miss, and the miss was more on the European anticipation on the TTF where, I think, we were around $15, $16. End of March, we were around $17.

Our teams were thinking it would go up to $19, $20, like it is going, by the way, today and in July, because they anticipated the impact on the market both of the destruction from the Qatari production from the market and the I would say as well, the the fact that the the inventory in Europe have to be rebuilt. In fact, what happened is that the market probably considered that it was too anticipate to to grow to have a higher price because expecting maybe the Qatari destruction to stop, which happened in June, but came back in July, and that the they had time to have higher to grow the inventories.

It's also true that the weather in Europe was quite, in fact, good in in second quarter. It's just to try to give you the main, I would say, the main the major, the one on which they took a position, which will which appeared which were, in fact, the first which which were not the right ones.

It does not mean at all that we are not a global one. I would say, on the other markets, I didn't see any specific we didn't see any, I would say underperformance, I would say.

We only see it on this the European position. That's why I mentioned it.

Don't take don't draw this draw the conclusion. Cronos, thank you for this question on Cronos.

We are working on many FIDs, in fact, in the end of July, it's and the good news, and I think I must pay tribute to Eni, the operator, because we are 50, we have a big share at 50% like the operator Eni. We worked jointly, by the way, in the last six months to to go to the FID.

The good news is that we have I think we we are working hard to, again like on Venus, to finalize the FID by the end of July. It's a matter of Again, there is a lot Cronos, for everybody, is an interesting development where we produce gas in Cyprus, and then we maximize existing infrastructures in terms of CAPEX because it's a subsea development.

It will go to Zohr installations in Egypt to get to make the gas treatment, and then to Damietta LNG plant in in Egypt. There is you can imagine there was a number of intergovernmental agreements and agreements with third parties to use all these existing installations.

We are it's being done, honestly, and I think I think if all goes as well, we'll be able probably next week, end of next week, to announce that. It's a good it's an interesting project because at the end, for TotalEnergies, we have access to 1.4 million tons of LNG in Egypt just in front of the European market.

You can imagine that it's it's an interesting project from gas to LNG. For Cyprus, as well, is the first gas development in Cyprus.

Maybe, offshore scheme will open the door, we open the way to other to other valorization. It's it has been a long journey, but I think we are there and we'll be happy to invest capital into Cronos projects.

Thank you for taking the questions. Two, if I could, please.

I wanted to first ask you about full-year operating cash flows. I think, Patrick, you said earlier, understandably, that you'd expect to be probably above the 32 billion for the full year that you mentioned in April.

Obviously, the macro scenario is uncertain. If we were to stick to the sort of the $80, 15 gas, and 7 refining that you used in April, where do you think full-year cash flows at that price deck would outturn on an underlying basis versus the 32 that you saw three months ago?

Then secondly, I wanted to ask you about refining and security of supply of feedstocks. Is the company able to access the appropriate feedstocks for the system as you look into the coming months, and is there a scenario where additional measures could be required from that perspective, particularly if conflict in the Middle East persists?

Thank you.

Okay. On the first question, it's quite easy to answer.

The 32, because of we know what has been the improvement the second quarter, would be raised to $34.5. That's why I mentioned $35 billion, I think, in my answer to your colleague, the first question that I got.

So, $34 $45 $35 billion would be in such an environment. Obviously, we can take it as a guidance.

Again, we'll see if we are at $80. Since the beginning of the year, we were a little higher.

We are more at an average, I think, around $90.7. Since the beginning.

The last 30 days, we're at 76. That's quite a spread.

Between 75 and 90, we'll see where we'll land. It's interesting.

So, 13 but in this assumption, 40 34.5. The current forward curve is moving target.

It follows this part one. I don't have the figure, but I mentioned to you a range of $35 to $38, $39 billion if we're remaining, I think, at If we were having a second half as the first half, you double it, you find 38.

It's a higher environment. It's not 80, it's $90.

It's $90, it's a refining margin of 15. It's $90, 15, and a TTF at 15 as well, which was the average of the first half.

If you replicate such an environment, you could imagine we should deliver around $38 billion instead of 35. You have a range to where we could land.

I don't know, maybe it will be lower at the end. That's what I can tell you today.

The second question, no, we have no problem of supply feedstocks to our refining system, not at all. We are producing a lot of oil in Brazil, a lot of oil in Africa.

In fact, our refinery, by the way, independently of Hormuz, in fact, in terms of crude supply, the Atlantic Basin, all European refineries, which are on the Atlantic Basin, are generally supplied by crude oil coming from the Atlantic Basin. It's true that we like to have some sour crudes coming from the Middle East to make more diesel because it's the best crude to produce diesel.

There is a limited, but generally the sour crude from the Middle East is more going to Asian refineries, in fact, than to European ones. No, we have no concern on our side to feed our refining system.

The only concern I could have is more around Satorp in Saudi Arabia because, first, it has been hit, I hope it will not be hit again, and so we don't have the full capacity. Secondly, Satorp production is, of course, stranded in the Gulf.

It has been quite well used by the Saudi system during the second quarter for domestic use because they had other refineries which were hit. From this perspective, we are running it for the domestic market.

We'll see what could happen if it's long. That's the situation.

No security of supply for feedstock for our system.

Super. Thank you, both.

Thanks very much, Patrick. It's a little conceptual, perhaps, but one of the things that I think most of us or many of us are struggling with us struggling with medium term at the moment is, the fragmentation or fracturing, within OPEC, the UAE have been the UAE having departed, Iraq talking about, an incremental quota or changing its quota.

As you think forwards about your own position, the potential for Iranian barrels to come back, more UAE to be available, Iraqi flows perhaps perhaps be larger, where does discipline sit with what remains of the rest of OPEC? How does How does that impact the way you think about allocation of capital to projects?

Does Does it change anything in terms of how you feel about the robustness of of oil markets, particularly at the bottom of the cycle? Secondly, if I might, and maybe this is just one that I should leave, or we should leave, for the strategy days, simply to ask whether in light of, the the actions you've taken on Mopane or around Mopane, the addition of EPH, and the environment we're seeing in refining in particular at the moment, but that may be sustained, whether that's changed and altered your target of, 20 billion or so of free cash by 2030 in the $70 world?

Thank you.

Okay. The first question, it's good question for the Investor presentation outlook in end September, Lucas, where we speak more about strategy.

The first one, honestly in terms of capital discipline, because of all what you described very rightly, it's very good to stick to that discipline, to test all our projects at $50 per barrel. Because the answer, yes, you can infer that today, we are in a world of high prices, but we could go in a way where everybody would like to produce more.

Maybe by the way Saudi Arabia, like they have done in 20 in 2020, could do why not my share? If everybody wants to produce, we could do it again.

If you remember what happened in 2020 when Saudi Arabia decided to flood the market, I think some few people around them were quick to come back to more discipline. It's a matter of discipline.

For us, honestly, I continue to believe, and we are, but in the company, we are continuing to test the $50. We planned business plan, five-year business plan, we plan it at $60.

Yes, we test what happened at $80 or $70, like you mentioned. Keeping the discipline and knowing that we are in a cyclical industry, I think it's just fundamental.

All these events that you mentioned, I think are just confirming to me that we need to keep that discipline. That's what I would answer to you.

That means as well that you should not be surprised that when we will speak in end of September about I would say capital investments, you will hear figures which will be in line with what we told you last year. We do not suddenly increase our CAPEX because we have on the short term a higher environment.

Does it change 2030? Not really what you said, because Mopane, first, the production of Mopane beyond 2030.

Venus should start by end 2030. I would say Mopane for me, it is 2030-2035, we are working on it, there is no impact.

EPH somewhere was part of already our five-year business plan. We told you that we have just anticipated with EPH some of the CAPEX we were willing to allocate to M&A in Integrated Power, it has been done, but in fact, it was modeled even if EPH was not I would say the deal which was in fact modeled in our future cash flow by 2030.

Bounce in refining, frankly, I will not take it as granted, maybe because I manage that business during three years, I'm a little more cautious on it. Today, we have an incredible situation where both markets are positive in the same direction.

That's true that on the products market, you have no products coming out of the Strait of Hormuz. The Russian situations with I would say themselves, they stop exporting diesel, and so you have Russian disruption.

You have a lot of impacts, I would say, which are pushing up the product price. Because if Strait of Hormuz remains on and off, as I read that some authorities said maybe it's a new normal, if it is the case, then we'll not be in a $50 per barrel environment.

We'll be elsewhere, because there is no low cycle with an on-and-off Strait of Hormuz production. Of course, we are discussing today to invest in some of the pipelines projects which will allow to circumvent the Strait of Hormuz, but it will take few years.

The bounce of refining, I don't take it for granted for our planning by 2030. We'll come back to this question more precisely.

For me, in fact, what we have worked since we met last year in September '25, we have confirmed, in fact, and I will come back to tell you fundamentally all our targets we can confirm even strongly. Yes, the increase of free cash generation that we announced, which was more than $10 billion, an increase of 10 billion more than 10, will be confirmed.

Fact this is one of the first message in September will be the confirmation of that. The second one will be to give to you more color on beyond 2030, because, in fact, we are working now beyond 2030.

The company has two objectives: to deliver all the 2030 additional free cash, and we will do it, I can tell you, and we'll demonstrate why we are super confident, and you have some of the projects you mentioned, and then working as well to continue the story, because the story of TotalEnergies' growth does not stop in 2030.

Hey, good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions.

Two, please. The first one is on the Middle East.

Patrick, we watched some of your recent interviews with French media. I think you talked a lot about the importance of building more export pipelines in the UAE as well as other countries.

I wonder if you could elaborate your thinking around the Middle East situation and the Total's longer-term strategy in the area, please? Then the second question is on power segment.

You have built a successful power business and you achieved one of the best quarters, as you mentioned earlier. Strategically, I wonder what's your next ambition for this business?

Thank you.

Okay. On the Middle East, that is quite obvious to me.

We are very well-positioned in Abu Dhabi, for example. We just announced two very big projects, by the way.

This war, we have been quite active in Abu Dhabi to reinforce the whole partnership and position of TotalEnergies together with ADNOC. It's RJ or Masdar.

We have announced a JV with Masdar in all these renewable business in Asia. We have announced the Bab gas cap concession, which was a old dream for many people in the company to have access to the Bab gas cap.

It's done with our partner. By the way, it's interesting to know that when in 2015, we signed the Bab concession onshore, some people were skeptical.

10 years after, we deliver the additional value. It's because we were in the place together with our partners that we managed to go along with ADNOC.

Thank you, by the way, to the trust that the Emirati authorities have given into the existing consortium. We have also announced the Umm Shaif gas cap.

This week, in fact, we have FID-ed together with ADNOC. We have a 20% share the Umm Shaif gas cap, which is also, by the way, not only gas, it's also liquids, hein.

All these gas cap, by the way, are gas projects, of course, but there are also quite good condensate projects, it's for liquids. Then, if liquids, you need to have outlet.

It's clear to me, and Abu Dhabi has been very active, ADNOC has been very active, very reacting, and we need to double the pipeline to Fujairah in order not only to accommodate future growth, but also to connect the offshore production. I think the ADNOC is offering to partners to look at the projects, and we are looking to that very seriously.

That's one part. The other part of interest for us is is Iraq, because we have some production in Iraq.

Iraq today, we have only one way to export, almost not only one way, I'm exaggerating, but fundamentally it's Basra, it's in the Gulf. Being able to contribute and to see there are some projects which are being announced and being studied from Iraq to Syria, and TotalEnergies is keen to join the projects if possible or to develop some.

I think it's obvious to me that we cannot, if we want tomorrow to come back to you and to say we want to continue to invest because it's cheap oil, which is true, and there is a lot of oil, we need to diversify our exit route. Otherwise, we would not do a proper business case.

That's why I'm clear. I think, by the way, for the countries themselves, I think it's and even I think if the conflicts were coming to an end quickly, we must absolutely keep that in mind and pursue the effort to have alternative routes for this oil.

Integrated Power, but the next ambition is to reach the 2030 targets. It's not yet done.

Today, this year, we will reach 60 terawatt-hour. We will reach 100 more than 100 terawatt-hour.

I think the 100 terawatt-hour is probably the low assumption for our production by 2030. More importantly, we want to generate a net cash flow from this business.

We said next year, it would be net cash flow positive. This year, it might be, but I would like to do it in a normal CAPEX environment.

We want to join not only more than zero, but I would say in our famous free cash flow 10 more than $10 billion free cash flow target by 2030, there was 2 billion coming from Integrated Power. This target is to deliver this 2 billion.

Then beyond 2030, there are different options, but of course, we might see continue to grow the business. The question is at which pace, in fact, and that will depend as well to opportunities.

I think on this topic, the board is very keen to really see the capacity of the company to deliver on targets rather than planning big ambitions and then it's not a matter, I would say, of growth, it's a matter of value as well for the board, and especially for all our investors. You have been supportive not always, but today more supportive than before, by the way, for us to invest.

I think we are right, because one of the lessons of the crisis, as you can observe in many countries, the new world is electrification. It's not green, by the way, it's electricity, electrification, domestic resource.

We are and it's also supported, of course, by all the data centers and AI growth. We are right to be and to continue to invest into this energy, which is a good complement to what we do, in particular on oil and gas, electricity, and the gas-to-power connection is obvious.

That's the ambition: to continue to develop it. In some geographies, just to, again, to frame the completely, where we can develop the integrated model, where gas, renewables, customers, trading is possible.

That means some few major European countries, the US, that will be the core, I would say, of our investments. If you add Brazil and India, I think you have the description.

We are, in fact, today, the next ambition is to be stronger in some markets where we can deliver the integration and the profitability.

Very helpful. Thanks, Patrick.

Hi, good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions.

I wanted to go back to the Middle East. The production impact came in below your original guidance thanks to the surprisingly fast ramp-ups in the UAE in June, and maybe in Iraq as well.

Now with tensions rising again in the past couple of weeks, could that progress reverse? In other words, if the situation doesn't change from here, how soon could we see production shut-ins once again across the UAE and Iraq?

Then just staying with Iraq for a bit, just on the GGIP project, I think that Ratawi Phase 1 was supposed to be starting up sometime this year. Could you give us an update on this project?

Obviously does the renewed regional escalation pose any risks to the timing of the oil ramp-up, but also the other parts of that project including the associated gas and the seawater project? Thank you.

Thank you. I gave you some informations in my opening comments to tell you that, I would say, beginning of July, the production, I would say, was in 1st of July, I would say until July 8th, in fact, until the blockade came back, the production was going up and the impact on our production was even around 5% only.

That means that the global production from the Middle East, if you consider that our base was around 650,000 barrel per day, was by that time 550, 550,000 barrel per day because there was an increase in many assets, in particular, of course, in the I would say Abu Dhabi assets were almost back to normal production, which demonstrate, by the way, that I remember the questions that I had during the months before the MOU, is it quick to go back to the normal level? Yes, it's very quick.

The wells in the Middle East are very easy to reopen and to produce. Abu Dhabi was back.

I would say even Qatar was not fully back on, in fact, on the LNG side because there was a sort of ramping-up, cautiousness on this one. Iraq, even Ratawi was back to, I would say, half of the production, Iraqi part was a little more, I would say.

We are minimizing and we are ramping up quickly to come back to normal level. Since July 8th, in fact, because of the situation, when I was looking to the situation beginning of this week, again the impact is more around the 8% to 9% I mentioned during my opening speech because, of course, we cannot maintain such production if we cannot offtake.

It's not a matter of wells, it's a matter of offtake. Because again when you produce at maximum, your tanks are full and then your system it's more the logistics which are constraining the production.

I would say that, of course, and again, by the way, of course the LNG plant of Qatargas 2 in Qatar, which was ramping up, has been shut down again. You have some impacts and today, as I told you, that's why to guess today, I would say, to be clear, the guidance I will give you, if we were like in we were in the second quarter, we could imagine the production could be with an impact of 10%, but the offtake could be unfortunately higher and back to our initial guidance when we gave you 15%.

It was, in fact, in terms of physical offtake, it has been 15% during the second quarter, third quarter could be the same. Again, the lesson is the good news is that if this Strait of Hormuz is open back again, then we'll be able to ramp up quickly.

Then, of course, it is a condition to bring tankers and to offtake the production. All that is going together.

That's what we face today. We had some during the few weeks of opening, we managed to get all our tankers out.

We managed to have some tankers in and out, by the way, in order to load, I think we managed to load three tankers during that period. Again, these now we are back to near because it's not possible.

Let's observe. The second question, Ratawi.

Ratawi, I think there are different stories. There is the first phase that we are planning to start up.

We were expecting the first half. Of course, we are delaying because there has been some impact.

By the way, Ratawi cannot produce fully today and it has been some impact because of some equipments, etc., to flow. Today, we are, I would say, targeting end of third quarter.

September, will be possible, honestly. We don't have some events under control.

Then, the other projects are progressing. All the projects have been launched and all the contracts have been awarded.

We have people on the ground for the seawater project, for the associated gas project, for the second phase of Ratawi. By the way, we are working as well and we have good news in terms of productivity of the wells, we think that we have even a third phase one day.

All that is just being impacted, I would say, in terms of execution because a lot of equipments, in fact, one of the because Strait of Hormuz, everybody spoke about crude oil transit and products refined product transit, but there are also impacts on equipments either one way or the other way, and we have transported a lot of equipments by road, but for the larger ones, it's not easy to do and so even it's not possible. That's the situation.

We are dedicated to projects with some impacts. It's today difficult to give you in terms of if, of course, I could just tell you it's postponed by three months, what I just said.

Maybe we need to reassess the situation where we'll be back to a normal situation in the Gulf region.

Hey, good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions.

I wanted to ask the first one on the potential for windfall taxes. Given the recent backup in commodity prices, I'm wondering, Patrick, if your conversations with governments indicate any appetite to reinstitute windfall taxes?

Honestly, until now, in fact, most of the governments have taken some measures between 2010 and 2015, which are still there in many of our countries. We had one impact in Brazil where they have instituted an export tax for four months, and they are today rumors that they could extend it, which has been declared as not constitutional, but it seems to be there is a legal fight around this export tax in Brazil.

The UK scheme has been increased the recent years, they cannot take more. Norwegian is okay.

Honestly, in most of our PSCs, the reality is that there are some mechanism which you can observe when you look to the average tax rate of TotalEnergies between an environment at $60 or $50 where we are more less an average of 40%, and an environment at $90 or $80, we are more around 45%-50%. There are some mechanism within the PSC where, in fact, when the price is going up, the governments are taking a bigger stake.

In fact, it's normal because the way we negotiate ourselves, we try to protect the low cycle by giving up a little more on the high cycle. That's the balance that we try to propose to government.

This mechanism exists, and so we didn't face this type of conversation, to be honest, since beginning of the crisis. We are not there.

That's what I can tell you. Except Brazil, I don't have today in my head any other situation where we have some in discussion.

Again, because the mechanism exists already in many of our PSCs.

Great. Thanks for that.

My follow-up is I wanted to go back to the Yamal project for a minute and just understand, because you have kind of the interest in the liquefaction facility, and then you're separately lifting volumes as well. I'm trying to understand kind of what the cash flow split is between those two parts of the business.

Also, if you've been able to actually get cash distributions out of the Yamal facility itself over the past few years?

In fact, you have you are perfectly true, there are two different activities. One is the Russian activity, Russian in Russia, I would say, the Yamal liquefaction plant where we are shareholder for 20%.

The cash flows, some cash flows has been distributed. It's not an easy way to because then we respect sanctions, the question is, is it distributed in Russia and when does it flow to to Europe?

Because, again, the sanctions in Europe have limited the number of capacity to transfer from Russia to Europe. Some some some cash has been has come back to TotalEnergies, not the full of that.

This part is not, I can tell you, it's not a In fact, in the way we plan, we don't consider that. We just are cautious.

It's not coming on a regular basis. In fact, there it's sometime to time, we we have some openings, but that's not a regular basis.

Not so some cash is somewhere, I would say, in Russia, expecting waiting for us. Then, we have the other part, which is the the lifting, European lifting.

Yes, there's this one. It's out of Russia, it's a business where it's our UK and Swiss entity, UK entity, I think, which is dealing with with Russia, with Russian contracts, on which so the the cash is out, in fact.

This one, of course, we have direct access to the cash. The magnitude of this business is around, I would say, an average of $400 million, but again it's going up and down according depending on the different because it's the contracts are linked to the Brent, it depends on the assumptions that you will take on the on the crude Brent.

Let's say $300, $400 million per year. That's the that's the potential.

Right, it's not it's it's a it's a contract, it's part of the portfolio. It's not a major It's not a major situation for TotalEnergies.

Great. Thanks for the answers.

Yes. Hello.

Thank you for the update. I'll stick to one question.

Coming back to capital allocation. Last quarter, you mentioned that you were evaluating options to accelerate short-cycle investments in upstream.

Where are you on these options? It sounded like what you might typically CAPEX and change, are they just not being considered anymore?

Thank you.

No, no, of course, the difference is subsidiary that worked on it, there have been some proposals. We have approved some few, I think, $200, $300 million this year.

The guidance of 15, maybe it could be at the end 15.2, but I consider it's part of the global guidance. Does not a real impact.

Yes, for next year, there is a little more because, of course, this type of actions are not only for immediate actions, I would say you have probably $500 million of capital allocation acceleration, which will come next year. Again, it will not be the global guidance we gave you last year, which was, I think, around $15 to $17 billion per year of CAPEX.

Then, we said 14, 16. We'll stay in the $15, $16 billion, I would say, range.

Yes, we have taken some actions, and that will impact a little more 20 7 '27 than '26.

Okay.

Yes, thank you for taking my question. I wanted to come back and to try to quantify the underperformance of the LNG trading in Q2.

Integrated LNG net income was down $500 million Q-on-Q, while at the same time contribution from equity affiliate, which is, I understand, mainly liquefaction, was up $300 million. That put a Q-on-Q discrepancy at group level for Integrated LNG, excluding affiliate, at around $800 million.

This is what we should understand as a swing in the trading performance?

You are very good, Bertrand. We can hide nothing to you.

We are very transparent. In fact, we mentioned to you that there was an overperformance last quarter of around $500 million, and your $800 million is that, you have an underperformance, a reverse not only from 500, but to less than 300 compared to a normal situation.

You merit a certain distinction.

The second question probably on your comment that those long position that did not work out in Q2 was now being in positive territory, is that a hint that we could be headed for an

overperformance

of LNG trading in Q2

by

in Q3 by the same magnitude?

Exactly. Maybe we are only in July.

Maybe it could be larger, I don't know, okay. No, be clear.

Yes, it could be in the same magnitude, be clear. Because this market, when they are volatile, they are volatile.

When you take $5 per million BTU in 20 or 30 days, 20 days, I can tell you, this type of positions are making Then, the question will be the results are not finished on July 22nd, but on September 30. We'll come back.

It's possible, yes, that we might come back to you with a good news of the same magnitude.

I hope so. Thank you.

Thank you for your support.

Hi there. Thank you very much for taking my questions.

Just on the LNG growth pipeline, it was positive to see the ECA LNG project start up earlier this month. Could you provide a quick update on where the FID for Papua LNG stands today and also how the Mozambique project is progressing?

Then secondly, just on the refining environment, I was wondering if you could comment at all on how your margin has looked so far in July? Thanks.

Oh,

in July, it looks very well. I can tell you, the average margin on the last 30 days were at $31 per barrel.

July so it looks very well. I think July is probably around $35 per barrel now.

It's it reached an historic record for me with more than 40, 44 I've I've seen one day. Today, it's a little backtracking because again, the crude oil is going up.

In fact, I have one observation to make you: since the last since the the the Strait of Hormuz was again blocked since July 9, when you make the sum of crude oil and refining margin, you are almost at $130 day day after day. I don't know if there is a trick, but probably.

That's what I mentioned that in my opening comments. The second one.

The first one, on Papua LNG, we are working all together very closely with ExxonMobil, with Santos, with the government, of course. The government has just launched the last part of the procedures, the local hearings.

The objective is to clearly to sanction all that before before year-end. November, I think, is a target.

We are we are aligning the interest of all the partner in the interest of the projects, and we have studying how we can maximize synergies today between Papua, PNG LNG in order to deliver the most efficient project to the government. Again, in close cooperation with the government.

I'm happy to see that the different stakeholders are all the same objectives today and okay, we need to put together some few it's not an easy one, but I'm optimistic we could reach this sanction. We are all working for that, and we are very aligned on that.

On Mozambique LNG project, okay, it has restarted, as since January. Today, we are, in fact, increasing the mobilization of people on the ground.

I think we are at 7,000 or 8,000 people during So, we are project is progressing, let be clear. We were facing some few difficulties because some of the equipments were, in fact, being built in Dubai and different yards in the Middle East.

We had to face some tough times to exit to to exit all these equipments. I think it's done now, we but it has some But the progress, we are progressing on and in fact today, when we compare to the to the progress curve, we are almost at 45% of completion.

There we are still a lot of things to build on the to build on the on the, I would say, there in in Afungi and offshore. Okay?

That's on its way with the target being '29 for the to produce for the first train, and we'll we work on it.

Brilliant. Thank you very much.

Thank you for taking my question. It relates to refining, and you plan to introduce more green hydrogen in your system.

Where are you with this, and are there regulations in Europe which are not going fast enough for you to progress in that?

You have the French one. No, but we are working on it.

No, where are we? In fact, we have done the No, we have nice offers.

We could, as there is a good news of the quarter is that the German parliament has adopted its own regulation. Today we are very clear on the on the German part and positively part.

Leuna will be able to maximize the use of green hydrogen, so that's a good news. There was a bad news on the Netherlands part, which has been adopted, but not in the maximum part, I think the Zeeland refinery will be able to take 30%, more or less, of what we are planning to take to offtake, but again, if there is no fiscal support, we cannot do that.

Then, we are working today with the last two governments, which is a Belgian one where the drafts are not so positive, and the French ones where the drafts are positive, but the problem in the French system is that you need to go to the parliament and to make fiscal reforms in the French Parliament is not an easy task for the government. We are working on it, and I think we'll have the We like to have the definitive scheme and not an interim one, to be honest, because of course, if we commit for long-term contracts of 10, 15 years, we need to have a scheme which will which will give us some, I would say, certain level of comfort.

We are we have some it's a very technical matters, to be honest. It's one of the most complex topic I know because to explain to a political leader the RED III and what it is to make a green hydrogen in Europe getting some support, it's this one is tough, to be honest.

We we get some we we have some momentum, we are working on that. Not only ourselves, by the way, in France, of course, we are working hand in hand with Air Liquide, which is also interested to get this regulations.

Progressing, but still again, for us to commit on long-term contracts, we need to have all these regulations being enacted. It's the beauty of Europe.

You think you've done the the work because there is a directive in Brussels, and then you take four years to to implement it in each country. Then, by the way, where I'm afraid that I've just discovered that there is a new directive, which could again come back to the definition of green hydrogen, the RED IV, by some consultation.

To be honest, when you read that, you begin to be afraid because it's a from where all that is coming from regulation, it's could be could be difficult. Okay?

Thank you very much.

Hi, Patrick, and thank you for taking my question. In the light of the recent escalation in the Middle East, has your view on geopolitical risk changed?

Which region do you see as offering the most attractive risk-adjusted investment opportunities of the coming years, and how might this influence your future capital allocation priorities? I know it's maybe for the CMD, but I think it's important.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ahmed. We continue to consider the Middle East as an investable region, hein.

There is no doubt about it. It's a question, of course, and then at the end of the day, it's a question of risk and reward.

Maybe the reward will be to have a little higher. When I saw my US competitors rushing to Iraq during the last weekend, if I notice the number of MOU signed to develop 1,000 hundreds of thousands of barrels, I don't know why these US companies suddenly would like to see lower geopolitical risk and ourselves, which have more, I would say, DNA in the region, would consider it as a higher one.

We think it's a question of risk and reward, it's always policy. Again, it's back also to my comments about having alternative routes to export the oil to go to the market.

Having said that, it's clear as well that the policy and strategy of TotalEnergies has been to diversify the portfolio, and that reinforced my strong belief: diversification is of essence this business. We have done it well in Brazil, in Africa, in new countries in Africa.

Of course, the US are also attractive to us, but we are building quite a big position in the US in terms of capital allocation through LNG and through Integrated Power, we are fine. I understand the question, but at the end, when you make oil and gas, you go where you find it, hein.

If we discover oil and gas in Suriname and in Namibia, we are happy. That's true that we don't find oil and gas in Europe, to answer to your questions, and by the way, we don't have the right to look for it.

That's where we are. That for me is the answer to your question is fundamentally to maintain our strategy of diversification.

This is what we will present you in September. I think the events that we have faced the last four months have demonstrated that this is the right one, and we have been able, as I answer, to supply feedstocks to not to claim any force majeure for our LNG customers, contrary to some competitors, because we have a diversified source of supply of LNG.

From this perspective, building a position in Mozambique, but look to the countries we are developing in the last three years: Suriname, Malaysia, Namibia. We are continuing to diversify our stakes, because that's the reality of our business.

It's not only in 2026 that we discover that. It has been the case for companies 102 years old, and I think it has been the case for long.

That's what I would answer to your question.

Thank you for your attendance today and for your support. I remind all of you that we have a Capital Market Day in New York City on the 28th of September.

I think it is a Monday, if I remember well. Monday, 28th of September, be all ready to attend the TotalEnergies' Capital Market Day with more news to come because we continue to work during summertime.

Thank you for your attendance, and holidays to all of you.