Welcome, everybody, for this presentation of 2025 results and the objective for 2026. Here we are from London.

It is sunny, like it's sun for the shares of TotalEnergies until we speak, we'll see after this call. I'm happy to be here today with the executive committee members.

All of them, but not Catherine. Catherine, you can stand up, she's our new member in charge of people and social engagement and all global services.

That's Catherine. There is another person which is next to us that you need to know, which is Arnaud Le Foll.

Arnaud is our Deputy CFO. You will have a chance to listen to him today.

We'll make a presentation in two big parts and two focus in the middle, to change. First we'll have of course safety moment, it will be done, and the I would say safety sustainability part will be done by Nicolas Terraz, our President Upstream.

Then we'll have Jean-Pierre, who will make the review of the 2025 results. Then two small focus, one on Namibia by Arnaud, because Arnaud, before to be Deputy CFO, was the one in charge of the negotiation of Namibia, let's have the opportunity to listen to him.

Then Stéphane will come on a focus of data centers, AI, as a business for us, but also what we do internally. Just two focus.

Then I will take the last part about what are the objectives for 2026. It should be normally, if we are respecting the timing, not sure, it should be 1 hour, 1 hour 5 minutes, we'll see, but be patient, then you have time to ask your questions.

Nicolas, the floor is yours.

Good afternoon, everyone. First, let me take a minute for a sustainability moment.

We thought for this sustainability moment we'd share with you a very concrete illustration on what we're doing to fight methane emissions. To fight methane emissions, the first step is to detect them.

What we did last year is that we installed in all our sites a network of detection and monitoring system, fixed, continuous. What you see in the footage here is a picture or video taken in Argentina, in Neuquén.

We are just commissioning an infrared camera, and this infrared camera detected it's not a fire, but it's methane. In fact, it's methane coming from underground, from a pipeline which had a pinhole.

It was a very small hole and was leaking methane in fairly modest quantities, but still this was detected. This was, of course, immediately fixed.

The pipeline was excavated and the leakage fixed. This really illustrates the role and benefit of permanent methane detection to reach near-zero methane emissions, which is our objective by 2030.

Let me now move to safety. You see on the slides we are on a journey of continuous improvement in safety, both for safety at work and for process safety.

For safety at work, you see on the left part of the slide our total recordable injury rate, which has been continuously decreasing. Last year we were below 0.5 events per million man-hours.

I think we're pleased to be ahead of our peer group. Where we're not happy, in fact, is that we had one fatality last year.

This happened in Angola during the offloading of drilling casings from a rig to a platform supply vessel, where one person working on board the supply vessel was crushed by those drilling pipes. Manoj Kumar, he was 51-year-old, he was married, he had one child.

After the accident, what we did is what we owed to him, which is to take very strong action to reinforce the safety of deck operations on board our supply vessels by putting more physical barriers, steel frames for pipe offloading operations, but also by taking very strong organizational measures in terms of supervision of the deck operations on board our supply vessels. For process safety and the prevention of major risk, it's illustrated on the right part of the slide with a reduction of the number of primary losses of containment on our sites, which have been decreased by 60% since 2020.

We're continuing to work on that front. Today, more than ever, we want to ensure everyone working on our sites, either staff or contractors, can return home safely, and we aim to achieve zero fatality in our operations.

I'm now coming to our emissions. Here we are really pleased that in 2025 we reached and even exceeded all our emission reduction targets.

I spoke about methane just before. Now we are at minus 65% in our methane emissions compared to 2020.

We had a target of minus 60%. As I mentioned, we are monitoring this super closely in order to reach near-zero methane in 3, 4 years.

For greenhouse gas, looking at our Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions, you see that last year for oil and gas operations we reduced the emission by 1 million ton compared to 2024, and we have a cumulative reduction of 38%. The gradual evolution of our sales mix is driving down the lifecycle carbon intensity of the products we are selling.

You see the figure here, minus 19% in 2025 compared to where we were in 2015. The last point, but not the least one, is that you know that we've invested $1 billion in an energy efficiency improvement program over '23-'25.

This is paying off. It's paying off with a reduction in our emissions, because the actions implemented through this program resulted in a reduction of 2 million ton of CO2 equivalent emissions less, but it's also paying off in terms of dollars, because this program has generated around $200 million annually of energy and CO2 savings from hundreds, in fact, of actions on our various sites.

This was about emissions, and now I'm going to hand back the floor to Jean-Pierre.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon.

I will present to you the 2025 results and I think the key achievements of the year. We have a pretty well-balanced strategy, integrated strategy, anchored in two pillars: the first one, oil and gas, and the second one, gas and LNG.

Let me go through the main achievements of 2025, starting with oil and gas and oil in particular. You see that, that we started up two main oil and gas fields, one in in the US with Ballymore, and another one another deep offshore development in Brazil with Mero-4.

Namibia, it's a very clear achievement of 2025 year, entering in the block till now operated by Galp, supporting the Mopane discovery. Entering into that block, of course, is a is a very clear achievement, confirming this Namibia as a new, I would say, golden province for TotalEnergies.

Arnaud will come back on that to give you more details about that. To prepare the future, we have reloaded our portfolio, exploration portfolio.

You see here the different geographies in which we were very active in 2025. On the gas and LNG side, Rio Grande, we FID, we sanctioned the project, the fourth train in Rio Grande project with an additional 1.5 million ton per year of additional LNG offtake.

Acquisition of additional interest in Malaysia. That we entered into Malaysia very recently, confirming the willingness of TotalEnergies to build a hub that that is that is perfectly positioned to supply the gas market in Asia in the coming years.

Continuing the integration, the upstream gas integration in the US with additional acquisition of dry gas in Anadarko Basin. On top of that, end of 2025, we announced the agreement with NEO Next in fact to merge our upstream assets with those of NEO Next, creating one of the largest oil and gas, or the the major the major oil and gas players in the UK, aiming to deliver synergies.

To summarize, yes, we grow, we are a growing company. You see here the figures, 2025 4% upstream growth.

That the guidance were above 3%, we are largely above the the guidance. At the same time, we keep the discipline.

We come back on the on the CapEx, here you see the figure for OpEx, opex per barrel, the best opex per barrel among our peers, $5 per barrel. Of course, it's very important for us to keep this advantage to face a possible low-price environment.

Very and very important in our views, the fact that we were able to deliver 120% proved reserves replacement rates, that mean that we the reserve, proved reserve we have at the end of the year, at the end of 2025, will cover 12 years of '25 production. On the other pillar, Integrated Power, another year of delivery of our of our strategy, more than 20% net power production growth, both on coming from renewables and from CCGT, from flexible assets, with we mentioned here three main achievements of the year.

The the agreement we signed with EPH that will in fact accelerate our gas-to-power integration in Europe, supposed to be closed mid of 2026. Stéphane will come back on that, we we surfed, I would say, on the wave created by data center, AI, to sign 6 terawatt-hour per year PPA with data center in fact.

Implementing our model, at COD, as we recycle the CapEx, the capital, and so we successfully signed different farm-down in in the UK, in Greece, in Portugal, in France in '25, recycling the equivalent of $2 billion. Scorecard for 2025.

Clearly, we are a growing mark We are a growing company delivering of our objectives. First, first, more energy, growing growing growing energy I mean growth, clear growth regarding energy production, 5% when you combine the growth coming from oil and gas and the growth coming from electricity.

More specifically on the oil and gas, I already mentioned the fact that we achieved close to 4% growth. That the target were above 3%.

For electricity net production, we increased the production by almost 20% between 2024 and 2025, reaching more or less 50 terawatt-hour in 2025. Refining utilization rate, we were clear that during the first semester, RC has to face some technical incidents, problem of reliability of some of the assets in France or in in the in in the US.

The second semester, this has been fixed, and so given this performance during the second semester, you see that globally, all in all, over the full year, refining utilization rate were were in line with the target we we had. LNG sales, growing, 10% more compared to last year, in line with the growth in production.

Finally, on this topic, more energy, renewable gross installed capacity, 24 gigawatts of gross renewable capacity at the end of the year. We were at 26 gigawatts end of '24.

That means that in in the course of 2025, we were able to put into production 8 gigawatts of additional gross renewable capacity, and it is the pace we need to achieve 8 gigawatts per year to achieve the target we have for 2020 2030, sorry. More energy, less emissions.

I will not come back on on the figures because already Nicolas presented that. Just to mention, to summarize that we are able to lower the emissions, methane, Scope 1 and Scope 2 on our operations, while at the same time being a growing company, 5% more energy produced in 2025.

More energy, less emissions is good, but it's better of course to to grow the free cash flow to supply the shareholder returns with, of course, two main driver. The first one, maintaining the discipline on on OpEx and maintaining this differentiation advantage we have having an opex per barrel at $5 per barrel.

CapEx, I will come back on that later, we were of course in the guidance at $17.1 billion. Globally, the CFFO I think were not exactly at the level we anticipate when we when we gave the objective '25, but not very far at $28 billion.

Delivering, in our view, a robust cash flow in 2025. Now some figures regarding this 2025 performance.

Starting on the left-hand side of the slides, the cash flow and the contribution of the different in fact of different business units, sorry, to this performance. So $28 billion of cash flow generated by our operation.

You see here the different contributions, Exploration & Production, translation of the of the growing growing cash flow and the fact that I will I will I will comment that later the cash flow are accretive, the growth is accretive. Second portion, Integrated LNG, suffering in 2025 in market with low volatility, but compensating and so the the the downward in prices by additional production.

I mentioned to you a 10% growth regarding production and sales. Integrated Power at $2.6 billion, in line with our expectation.

We we have a target to have a cash flow above 20 above $2.5 billion for 2025. Downstream, $6.2 billion, both RC and Marketing & Services.

I think it's a demonstration of the resilience of the company and the integration between RC and Marketing & Services. Once again, with better utilization rate during the second semester, downstream RC was able to capture the good margin that we benefited from in in the second part of the year.

The uses, I think the yellow parts of the of the of the graph. Used we used slightly above $17 billion for CapEx, both organic CapEx, acquisition minus divestments.

The and the shareholder returns with two two components, the first one being dividends, $8.1 billion, it's the cash-out linked to the dividend taking into account the FX rates we have in the in the course of 2025, it's growing dividends. We execute the buyback program for for an amount of $7.5 billion globally on the full year.

The net adjusted income reached $15.6 billion. We continue to to deliver the best-in-class profitability, return on equity at $13.6 billion and the best-in-class ROACE at 12.6%.

The net income IFRS, after non taken into account non-recurring in adjustments, it's $13.1 billion for 2025. This has been done maintaining a strong balance sheet, the gearing at the end of the year were below 15%, at 14.7%.

Globally, total shareholder return 15.6, dividend plus buyback, representing a payout, when you compare this return to shareholder to the cash flow we generated in 2025, it's a payout close to 55%. Now about CapEx.

I already mentioned that, discipline, of course, maintained through through the year 2025. The guidance $15 billion to $15.5 billion, and so the final figure $15.1 billion.

16, sorry, 16. 17, sorry, 17.1, yes.

The this you see the repartition, the split between the different businesses, more or less one-third devoted to new oil and gas projects and close to $3.5 billion to low-carbon energies, the main component of that being Integrated Power. This figure is the translation, the traduction of $16.8 billion spent on organic CapEx, the the spending on the existing portfolio, the existing assets, plus $3.9 billion devoted to acquisition minus $3.6 billion to divestments.

That means that the M&A was quite balanced in 2025, but if you add the two figures, you you end up with a figure at $7.5 billion. That means that we continue to be very active on our portfolio, divesting mature assets and replacing them by by assets with better better performance and implementing our strategy regarding, in particular, Integrated Power.

The main the main acquisition we made for Integrated Power is VSB, the German renewable renewable player. I already mentioned the US, Malaysia, and on the opposite side, divestments, it's mature assets in Nigeria, in in Congo, in Nkossa, just to give you these two examples, in in Argentina, Vaca Muerta assets, and on top of that, the all the countries I already mentioned regarding the implementation of our strategy, the recycling of the CapEx, the capital for Integrated Power with some divestments in the US and in Europe.

Let's move in more details to see to look at the upstream performance in 2025. Once again, a growth by 4% and fed by, of course, a low low decline.

We we we we benefited for our portfolio of a decline by around 4% per year. On top of that, as we we have a very deep portfolio, and so in 2025, we were able to put on production additional barrels that globally contributed to 150,000 barrel of oil equivalent per day.

This production is accretive, it's the demonstration. We increased the production by 4%, but in a constant environment, we increased the upstream cash flow by 10%.

What does it mean? That means that the the the baseline for our portfolio has in in this environment, $70 per barrel for Brent and $12 per million BTU for gas, generate $19 per barrel of CFFO.

The new projects, you have the list by the way on the right-hand side of the slides, these 150,000 barrel per oil equivalent of additional production has, on average, a CFFO more than $30 per barrel. That means that, of course, with this new with new production, we increase the accretivity of of the portfolio.

The difference between this $30 per barrel with the $19 per barrel for the baseline, created an additional $700 million in 2025 regarding the CFFO. Integrated LNG, well, it's clear that in 2025 we we had a a a narrowing spread between Asian markets and European markets, the spread between JKM and TTF that is lower than than before.

In most of the cases, below $0.50 per million BTU. Why?

Because the market is more efficient. Now, for obvious reasons, saving freight costs, the US LNG went in 2025 mainly to Europe, and on the opposite, Middle East LNG went majoritarily to Asia.

In that market, of course, it's generated less possibility of arbitrage between the two markets, and on top of that, we have we had low volatility. All in all, thanks to the growth, 10% growth in production and sale, I already mentioned, for Integrated LNG, we were able to more or less offset the the low-price environment, the low-volatility environment, posting for Integrated LNG CFFO in 2025 $4.7 billion, only 4% below 2024 CFFO.

Integrated Power, we continue the execution of the strategy. I think you have here the figure, the progression, the increase between 2021 and 2025, more than doubling the production, between multiplied by 3 or multiplied by 4 CFFO and net operating income.

At the end of 2025, we have a ROACE close to 10%. We execute the strategy.

Once again, we we farm down different assets to recycle to recycle the CapEx, the capital. We sign this EPH acquisition, accelerating our integration in in Europe.

We we we scale up data business with additional relations with tech, signing PPA with with data center to supply them with our electricity. Good achievements, confirming the objective we have for this business segment in 2025.

Ordinary shares. That on the 8th of December 2025, I think we we opened a new chapter in the history of TotalEnergies in on the NYSE in the US.

Now our ordinary share, the same share as the share that is listed in Paris, is now listed on the NYSE, allowing in fact investors to buy the same share either in Paris or in the US. By the way, by doing that, we have listing almost around the clock from 9:00 9:00 to 9:00 9:00 a.m.

in Paris time to 4:00 4:30 in New York time. The objective is clear.

We will ease the life of our investors by doing that. We'll of course try to reach new new shareholders that were not able or that did not want to invest in TotalEnergies through ADR.

It's the objective we have in the coming months to try to to to capture additional investors through wealth manager and financial advisors. On top of that, by the way, by doing that, we have an option to use this listing, these shares listed in New York as a currency for potential M&A in the US.

The scorecards, the benchmark, the performance of TotalEnergies compared to the performance of our peers with four main metrics. The first one being the ROACE.

Once again, we are the best in class in terms of ROACE, I think for the fourth consecutive years. In our view, it's a clear demonstration that we can be a leader in the transition while delivering top profitability, ROACE.

Second, TSR, total shareholder returns, best best TSR in 2025 at 28%. Meaning that if you have invested in Total in Total share on the 31st December 2024, at the end of 2025, considering the reinvest the reinvestment of the dividends, you will have a gain of 28%.

Proved reserves life index, very good and very differentiation factor compared mainly to Chevron, Shell, and BP, we maintained 12-year reserves, very good achievements, meaning that with this the reserve we have in our portfolio, we we we are comfortable to feed the growth beyond 20 2030. Upstream production cost, low cost, $5 per barrel, it's a clear competitive advantage that we want to keep.

I think I will I will end the presentation by this slide. I've already commented the TSR, you know pretty well the policy of TotalEnergies regarding the dividend, in contributing to this TSR.

In in 2025, the performance of the share was best best in class, plus 20%. We we we strongly believe that our share is continue to be underevaluated, but this is, in our view, an illustration that the strategy of TotalEnergies is now well understood by the by the market.

To summarize, growth, accretive growth, discipline on cost, maintain CapEx as as anticipated, and maintaining opex per barrel at at low level, and on top of that, delivering all the the growth we have in mind on both pillar, oil oil and gas on one on one hand and Integrated Power on the other. I think—

Thank you, Jean-Pierre. That's for '25.

That's the past. Let's speak about as a bridge between both '25 and '26, about Namibia, we didn't make a special session like on EPH because it came late in December, but it's an opportunity, so, to come back on what we have built with this agreement with Galp in Namibia, which will be for us obviously a new major hub for our future.

Arnaud, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Patrick. Ladies and gentlemen, let me start by setting the context for our progress in Namibia.

Over the past few years, our exploration and business development efforts in the Orange Basin have led to significant discoveries that are now forming the foundation of a new deepwater golden province for TotalEnergies. Today, I'm really thrilled to walk you through the steps already taken and what lies ahead.

Here you have the core of our position, across two licenses, PEL 56 and PEL 83. We have already confirmed substantial discovered resources, and we begin with two operated deepwater projects, Venus and Mopane.

I'll come back to them in more details. Together, what we have already in hands is 1.5 billion barrels of discovered resources, and we see major additional prospects in potential currently being matured.

These two projects, they form the basis of a new deepwater hub for TotalEnergies, enabling us to plan for future development, of course, but around shared infrastructure, optimized logistics, and economies of scale. This is really the beginning and materializing the beginning of our presence in this highly prospective basin.

I'll come back to this important milestone, which was the transaction with Galp. Last December, we concluded this cashless transaction with Galp, which we expect to close by the summer, mid this year.

First, for us, this deal crystallizes the value of our discoveries. It strengthens our operated positions, and, of course, it opens new opportunities in the country.

On our side, with this transaction, we secure a 40% operated interest in PEL 83, which is the home to Mopane, with already resources identified to end up in a development, and more than 1.5 billion barrels of exploration potential opportunities on the same block. In return, what we gave to Galp is a 10% interest in PEL 56, which is the home to Venus, and slightly less interest in the neighboring PEL 91 exploration block.

Plus, we will carry them for 50% of their expenditures for exploration, appraisal, and for the first development on the block. As a result, TotalEnergies becomes the anchor player in one of the world's most dynamic basins, with stronger alignment across the value chain, which is illustrated here on the slide.

It shows how Venus and Mopane make TotalEnergies the reference operator in Namibia, definitely. As with 10 FPSOs already operated across Africa, with one new being in construction currently, we definitely benefit from a broad deepwater projects experience in the region.

This enables us to deliver fast and reliable execution, proven low-cost development, strong long-term relationship with contractors, and efficient scaling of procurement, logistics, engineering. This experience was definitely an important factor in our selection as operator of PEL 83 and for the authorities of Namibia to bring their full support to the transaction.

They definitely see us as a credible partner in the basin. On the left-hand side, the production profile shows how Venus and then Mopane could sequentially ramp up from 2030 to reach about 350 kbd of production, with additional upsides thereafter.

Our objective is clear, and we got it. We want to establish a sustainable multi-FPSO hub in Namibia to maximize synergies for the benefits of all the stakeholders.

Turning to Venus in more details, Venus is our first development. Venus is fully appraised, with around 70 750 million barrels of resources.

The engineering is well-advanced, the FEED is complete, and today, with recent EPC bids, we have confidence in visibility on cost. Key parameters of the project, it's a 150 kbd plateau production with cost below $20 per barrel.

In terms of Scope 1+2 emission intensity, we are around 15 kg per barrel, featuring the same low-emission design as in our GranMorgu Suriname FPSO, full electric architecture, centralized power gen, closed flares, vapor recovery units, etc. We are now fully engaged with the Namibian authorities to progress towards an FID by mid-2026, allowing a first oil in 2030.

Venus is expected to become the first FPSO development in the country and is really the opener of the basin as a new producing region. The second project, is Mopane, which is progressing in parallel.

We have current estimates from 800 million to 1,100 million barrels of resources, which will allow production above 200 kbd. We plan in the short term an exploration and appraisal campaign, in '26 and '27, to refine the development concept and confirm the size of the first phase, including so in '26 the Mopane extension well, and thereafter, two appraisal wells.

Like Venus, with Mopane, we target emissions intensity below 15 kg per barrel and cost below $20 a barrel, of course, taking full benefit from the synergies with Venus. With potential FID in 2028, Mopane is a second pillar of our Namibia strategy, which will contribute significantly in production beyond 2030, and with additional potential from prospects such as, as you can see on the map, Quiver or Sobrero in the same license.

Finally, let me zoom out and have a look at our broader exploration portfolio in the basin. Beyond Venus and Mopane, we see around 10 billion barrels of exploration potential across multiple prospects.

To the south, with our licenses, DWOB and 3B/4B, and material well-defined prospects in South Africa. To the north, with the recent signature of our entry into PEL 104 that expands our operated acreage in Namibia.

As you can see, with discovered resources, prospective upsides, and strong operational capabilities, we think we are well-positioned to lead the next development cycle in the Orange Basin. In summary, Venus and Mopane are large, competitive, low-emissions deepwater projects.

For Namibia, these projects are important. They are the projects that represent the first steps toward establishing domestic oil industry in the country.

With wider exploration portfolio, we have meaningful upsides in the future. This all together forms the foundation of a new golden province for TotalEnergies, with a multi-FPSO hub with strong long-term potential, all operated by TotalEnergies.

Thank you, Arnaud. I think you'll have some questions, but we gave you more insights.

I was myself in Namibia last week, and we discussed with the authorities, and what Arnaud said is true. We are considered now as a major player there, and it gave us a good momentum to move forward these projects.

Now I leave the floor to Stéphane, who will make a second focus on one of the other major activity, which is, of course, taking benefit from this AI and data center revolution. Stéphane, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Patrick. Good afternoon, everyone.

We'll cover two subjects. One is how we are going to power the AI revolution with our integrated power supply, and the second part will be how we plan to boost our operation by using AI.

I start by the first subject with a simple message. We are creating additional value by providing to data center fit-for-purpose solutions.

How do we do that? What do we sell them?

There are three type of products with three level of sophistication. The first one is a usual corporate PPA as-produced.

It's quick to build, fast for them to connect, but it's not baseload. It's just 100% green and quite competitive.

The second product is to provide them with clean firm power. What does that mean?

That means a baseload profile, what exactly they need and what they are going to consume, supplied mostly by renewables, so that 100% of the volume of energy which is consumed is coming from green production, but at the same time, matching their profile of consumption. The third product, which is new and which is quite specific to data center, actually, is the fact that we can provide them as well with a solution to have access to land to build their data center, and not every land, a specific land which is close to a grid where we have an access to the connection and where it's going to be fast for them to build their data center and to get the power supply they need.

I will give you an example of that. Typically, the first kind of product is what we have sold to Microsoft and Amazon AWS in '25.

Second type of product is what we are, for example, doing with Casa dos Ventos in Brazil. The third one is what we have just signed with Google in Texas and with prospect in notably in Spain.

Why does that matter? Because with those kind of offers, the data center is able to create more value, because they are going to have a faster time to market, and second, they are going to have a lower cost of supply.

When you create value, you are able to share at least part of it. That's the way we are able to increase the level of the PPA we are selling, extracting a bit of premium, around 10% of premium of what we sell if we were selling the same electrons to any type of industry.

There is a direct impact, which helps us to upgrade our double-digit return on our CapEx, and there is as well an indirect impact, because you are bringing consumption locally, which helps to develop your pipe of project, that's one, and second, to raise the power price where you are, which benefit to your other assets. All that is not an ambition, it's not on paper.

It's a reality. We have signed us and our partner, through our JV, 4 gigawatts of project backed by data center demand in 2005 and on '25 and on '26.

You can see the geographic spread. One-third was done directly by us, other were done by Clearway and Casa dos Ventos in Brazil with a variety of top-off player, the big GAFA, but as well some specific data center developer.

All that will generate $250 million per year of EBITDA when all the project are materialized. I'm going to focus on two specific project.

The first one is what we've just signed with Google in Texas. It's a deal that comes after what we did in Malaysia.

We are going to build a 1-gigawatt farm, it has started. We are going to sell them the 2 terawatt-hour produced by that 1-gigawatt farm.

I would say that's quite classical. In addition, Google has the option, and should exercise this option, to install a data center close to our solar panel production.

On our land, and what we are going to provide them with is a direct access to our solar production, a direct access to the grid as well, because we have asked to be able to withdraw some power from the grid, and should obtain it soon, and as well the possibility to install some battery so as to smooth the profile. With all that, they are going to be able to go fast to the market next year, and as well to lower their cost of supply, notably because they will lower the grid fees they are going to pay.

That's one type of example where, thanks to that, we are able to sell to Google a PPA at a slightly higher price than the average price in the market. Second example, which is interesting, is what we do in Brazil.

Here we are blending solar, wind we have in our portfolio, hydro we purchase from the market, to provide data center with a clean firm power, 24/7 baseload supply, 100% green. Not only we are doing that, but with Casa, we are as well providing to the data center land near connection where we have secured that connection to the grid, so that they can build fast their data center.

In addition in Brazil, they are going to benefit from a tax-favored situation on one side, and on another side by participating as well in equity to our project, benefit from other subsidy. All that make a very, very competitive offer.

Once again, for us, what is the advantage? We improve our return.

We find consumption to develop the multi-gigawatt pipe that we have. We create as well a demand in a region of Brazil where otherwise part of the assets would be developed in several years.

Now we can develop them now and have a faster development pace. I move now to my second part on what are we going to do with AI for our own operation.

First idea, there is no AI program if you don't have a strong data platform. We have spent a lot of time and effort in 2025.

Namita and OneTech has spent actually a lot of effort and time on that was to build the foundation of our data platform with two ideas in mind. One, we want to multiply, and we are going to multiply by 10 the data point we have on our assets, because AI is really about a lot of data and very precise data.

That's one aspect. Second, we want to have them real-time, because we want to be able to act in real-time when we manage our assets.

To do that, we have signed big contract with AspenTech, which is going to deploy inmation on 40 of our upstream sites and 16 of our refining and chemical sites. It was already done for the Integrated Power aspect.

That's the layer of how to get the data. Then we have signed as well with Cognite on how to transform, enrich, store, expose those data, so that we can then add the last layer, which will be based on AI, to, at the end of the day, uplift our production and our availability.

That's ongoing and should be fully deployed by the end of next year. That's one aspect.

The second aspect is that when you have the data, you need to do something with the data. We have work on focusing our efforts, and this time more on a top-down approach than bottom-up, on three programs.

One is using digital for HSE. You had an example with the safety moment, where we are using digital to improve monitoring and reduce emission.

There are two other programs. One, which is on a digital plant, how to improve the way we run our plant.

The last program is on integrated power modeling. There is a huge revolution on modelization.

Just to take an example, with AI, you can cut by two the time you need to forecast weather in a quite convincing way. You can imagine when you trade short-term power, what's that chance to get two hours in advance when you make your weather forecast.

That's just the beginning. Obviously, to do that, we need to increase our capacity, and we have make the choice to do that by betting on India, by building a global competency center in India to be able to develop those programs.

I don't have to explain why India, but our idea is one that will be our center with our own staff. Second idea, we want to manage all that to give them tasks end-to-end, which means that they will be fully accountable for all those programs.

We should reach a critical mass of at least 500 engineers by 2027. That has already started.

That's the way so we plan to use AI to transform the way we act. One caveat, though.

My presentation was not yet done by an agent, so that's probably for next year. Thank you, and with that, I leave the floor to Patrick.

Thank you, Stéphane, because the next this week no, next week, each executive of the company will be trained to have at least one agent with him. I don't know which one I will have.

It will be difficult for him to follow me, but we'll see. I will take the last part of the presentation now.

Thank you, Stéphane, and thank you, Namita, by the way, because the second part is largely led by Namita. She knows very well India, by the way.

Let's move to the 2026 objective. We are not fully on time, but I will try to catch up, if and if I know I like to speak, not sure I will catch up completely.

So '26, in fact, is a very clear it's a continuation year for 2025. The program is the cell the same.

We'll continue to deliver our growth, growth in oil and gas, growth in Integrated Power. This growth, you will see, is also accretive.

The new barrels continue, and our cash flow from operation will grow quicker than the growth itself. At the same time, because we think the environment might be more, I would say, challenging in 2026, we have, as we told you that in in September, launched a cash saving program, in order to strengthen the resilience.

I would so I would say as well that you will see in the presentation the Integrated Power business is growing, will reach $3 billion of cash flow, and by itself, in fact, because it's independent of the cycles of oil and gas, it reinforced the the resilience of the global model of the company. A word on the markets.

I will not tell you what the price is. By the way, we are planning everything at $60.

No, we are at $71 or $72, so, things are I prefer to be one $72. The fundamentals, what we think is that, yes, there is a demand, no more in '20 than '25, a little less than 1 million barrel growth per day, it's one a little less than 1%, but it's continuing.

We don't see any peak demand coming in front of us at this stage. I know it will come.

We saw so and we've seen, in fact, '25 what, in fact, quite stable around $70. People speak about volatility.

The reality is that it was it went down, but it was moving quite around the the $69 per barrel. We've seen at the beginning of the year that the fundamentals, what we think, which is a good supply, and the events in Venezuela, we went down to $60, but then reactions, reactions of twofold, when OPEC decided not to to stop putting pushing more oil in the market, and also we begin to see in the US US shale producers beginning to reduce drilling.

At $60, balance is not yet there. Additionally, on that, you had other events geopolitically.

I think the most important one is maybe not Iran, for me, it's the fact that the most of the countries now are serious about taking putting sanctions against Russian oil in a more stringent way. We've seen that, and this is an impact on the on the market.

Today, you have more and more Russian oil on the sea which does not find a buyer. The Indians are not buying refining Indian refiners Russian crude oil for March-April.

This we see has an impact, I think, on the on the market. Remember that Russian oil export in the market is 3 3 to 4 million barrels per day, it's it's really a matter.

We keep we still keep a view that fundamentals, good good supply, despite what I just say, good demand, but still supply, we plan at $60 per barrel, and this explain a certain number of decisions that I will present to you. On the gas side, I would say '26 is more a transition year.

We were at 400 million tons per year of capacity of LNG in '22. '25, we were at 435, in 3, 4 years, only 30 million tons, which was even not enough to absorb the increase of the European demand, European demand went up from 70 65 million tons in '22 to 115, has increased by 50 million tons.

This year, in '26, yes, there is some capacity which will be put on stream in the US, in Qatar, but we think an additional 35 million tons will come. Transition year, which means we translated it by moving TTF from $12 per million BTU last year to $10, but not yet lower.

By the way, today with winter time, we are still at $12, but we've seen it could go down. I think transition as well because there is a one event, which is the fact that the EU has decided to ban Russian gas from '27, and this will give an additional demand in the EU from 115 to 150 million tons, an additional 35 million tons per year of LNG coming in '27, which is almost the increase of capacity of '26.

Yes, we will see this market will see for sure the global capacity moving from 400 to 600 by '29-'30, but the impact on the price, in our view, will be gradual, and '27 will not yet be, I think, the low cycle of the of this gas price, of the LNG price. Having said that, we know we have taken actions to face it.

'26, our objectives, again, the growth, 5% energy growth globally, 3% on oil and gas. I don't think we'll reach 4.

By the way, I said to Nicolas, if you think you can reach 4, tell me now, because the market like likes the future, not just the past results. Let tell me no, but he did not tell me that.

Let's 3. On electricity net production, we should go by grow by 25%, above 60 terawatt-hour.

Of course, there is a link to when we'll close the EPH deal, but I'm comfortable with this objective. Refining utilization rate, the real objective will come back from Vincent and his team, is to stop having some issues on big big assets and availability plus 2%, refining utilization rate is maybe not the best factor to translate it into economics.

LNG sales, we will continue to grow our production, 6%, will be translated by sales. In the sales of LNG of Stéphane teams, there are some spot volumes, this is why we keep let's keep above 44 million tons.

On the renewable gross installed capacity, 34 to 42, plus 8 gigawatts. This is the roadmap of the of the teams of Integrated Power.

Less emissions. In methane, I think we'll reach sooner than we thought the minus 80%.

We are we have put the target at minus 70%, but every year we do 5% more, we'll go we'll we continue to deploy the whole program. We have the only company to have deployed 11,000 devices to make a permanent monitoring, a clear leadership.

I think it's a real direct contribution to to climate. The heating power of methane is much higher than other greenhouse gas, I think this is a a good focus for all for the company and our capacity to demonstrate results.

For the other parameters, we continue to to lower Scope 1 and 2 from operated facilities and the lifecycle carbon intensity of our sales, minus 19 to minus 20%, depending, of course, on the on the production, we we are on the way to reach the minus 25% we want to have by 2030, continuing to deploy the strategy and growing the Integrated Power business. On the other parameters for growing free cash, I will come back on it because it's important.

I read your comments this morning. Some of you were surprised by more than $26 billion.

I think we I will explain you why we've come from $27.8 billion in '25 at $69 per barrel and $12 per million BTU down to $26. If you take the environment at $60 and $10, you would find more something like $25.

There are some reasons behind why we think we will we will reach more than $26 billion. In fact, it's linked to the accretiveness of this growth of oil and gas production.

In two years, and I will come back on it, we will have, in fact, compensated $10 per barrel of oil price because the because of the growth, but also because this growth is accretive in terms of cash flow per barrel compared to where it was two years ago. Last but not least, an important target for all of us and discussion at the board, we want to maintain the 15% gearing, which will lead to the management of the cash flow of the company.

I know we said less than 20, I saw the reaction. We listened to all all your investors in 2025.

We have a model which is to maintain this 15%, and we have ways to achieve it. I will come back on it.

There might have some volatility during the year because of seasonality, working capital, but please no panic. We'll end at 15.

We deliver what we say. Trust us.

We've demonstrated that year after year. A word on our cash savings program, which, in fact, it's contributing to the free cash of the company directly.

We said $7.5 billion in September. We increase it to $12.5 billion, because, as the guidance we gave you in September around $16 billion of CapEx has been diminished to 15, like we say for '26, because in the meantime we have announced the EPH deal, which is in shares, but at the end of the day, it's an effort of investment, we will save that cash issuing the shares.

It's, in fact, an issuance of sort of capital increase with the other thing, we don't want to double-count it. We are also working on the OpEx part.

For '26, because I know that in September we gave you objectives without some color in it, this is a program. We have $500 million savings, part of it coming from Integrated Power, because the fact that we farm down allows to rationalize part of the assets.

We are organized and we will reorganize, we have $200 million fixed costs will be saved on that part. Also, both on upstream and downstream, many initiatives on Marketing & Services reorganization, central services, headquarters streamlining, reviewing the organization.

As we were when the price was down in 2016-17, in the meantime, the price went up, we have trends, teams have a little increase, we streamline that, and initiatives all across the board. That's for '26.

We have also worked to launch new initiatives in order to continue to feed this cash saving program for future years. Some of them are mentioned there.

One has been mentioned, we want the growth in Integrated Power and digital AI to be supported by this global competency center in India, which of course will offer competitive costs, but primarily is because it will give us access to talent and to accelerate the growth, and we need to have, I'd say, more people to deliver efficiently these various programs. That's one initiative.

Second one is that we are reviewing all, I would say, the non-proximity-dependent services inside the company and move that in low-cost country, I would say. We had a number of service either in IT, in engineering, in different areas where we discovered and we reviewing it, you need to review permanently what you do, some of them which are not dependent on proximity to to our own people are still delivered by high-cost service contractors, and we could move them.

We will move them. We think there is more than $100 million of saving, probably more than that.

We will apply the same philosophy to all the segments. Another one, which is we have we have now established what we call the procurement factories in Romania, which is, in fact, able to procure on some framework contracts.

We have these negotiated with plenty of suppliers, and this one has been tested. Now we'll make it mandatory for all the LBUs.

We'll move when I say all of them, I know it's more We have to be pragmatic. 20 of them by '27, and then more in '28.

There is there quite a good potential to centralize the sourcing of equipments and benefiting from the size of the company, probably at least 10% of the 2 billion, and there is more to come behind. This is a third initiative.

The last one is to see how we could mutualize some support services across some LBUs regionally, for example, in Africa or even in France, where we continue to have in different refineries, all support services are in each site, and there is probably there some gains. They are not probably, there will be some gains.

That's again taking the opportunity of to review the way we work to continue to be more efficient and resilient. CapEx for '26, $15 billion, as announced, 15, where split is there.

On Integrated Power low-carbon in cash, it's 3 billion. If you add you add 1/5, I would say, one year of EPH shares, the effort is equivalent to 4, but 3 billion, and on the other areas, I think it's quite similar to 20 20 25.

Let be clear, there is no reduction of the growth ambition. All the projects which have been launched will be delivered within budget.

It's a question to be efficient on the way we work. We revised it from 17 to 16 in September, no 16 to 15 because of EPH.

We are in this figure, we are planning to divest 1 billion more than what we will acquire, just to be clear. We have a flexibility which are identified to go down to 14, in particular, I would say, on the acquisition part if we were willing to if we were facing a lower than $50 per barrel environment.

That's the program for CapEx. Growth, I mentioned 3% for oil and gas.

It will come from not only some of the growth comes from the startups of '25 reaching their plateau of production like Anchor, which is not yet at plateau, or Mero-4. Part of this is coming from is embarked by the startups of last year.

New startups on this year, we have identified five projects or six even. One is Lapa South-West in Brazil, Mabruk in Libya, they are not very big ones.

Ratawi is more important, Ratawi Phase 1 will increase the production from Ratawi field in Iraq to 120,000 barrel per day. Then we have Tin Fouyé Tabankort, upgrade of production in Algeria, around 55,000 barrel per day.

North Field East in Qatar, we plan it for Q3. Uganda, we are planning it for Q3, now it's Q4.

We will start the first train before year-end '26. This 3%, and this is probably the most important slide, in fact, will be translated in terms of cash flow by a growth of 7%.

Again, as Jean-Pierre told you, in '25, the 4% growth of production was translated in 10% growth of cash flow because of these higher CFFO per barrel of the new projects. In '26, the 3% will be translated in 7% according to our planning, maybe a little more, we'll see, but this of course will help us.

In fact, when you make the math, at the end of this combination, we will have a cash flow from operation from upstream at $60 per barrel in '26, which will be equivalent to what we were we would have done in '24 at $70 per barrel. We have offset $10 per barrel thanks to this growth and this accretive growth.

I think this is a strong message of this presentation. Maybe this was the figure that you didn't have in mind, we were not so clear.

I had a question in September, and now in the in the meantime, we have managed to put all that together. We don't stop, we never stop exploring.

I know that it's a new music, exploring. For on our side, since the last 10 years, we spent $1 billion per year of exploration appraisal.

We had done two big, nice discoveries the last 10 years, in particular GranMorgu and now Venus, on which we will work to sanction the project, as Arnaud explained you, in '26. We have been quite active to have access to new licenses in '25: the US, Algeria, Liberia, Congo, Nigeria, Namibia, Malaysia, Indonesia.

We have a program of interesting wells, I would say, for '26, in particular Nigeria, Congo, Namibia, but also in Malaysia, and then some, I would say, more frontier wells like in PNG, Indonesia, which will be drilled this year. The efforts continue, and Nicolas Terraz has taken the lead of all these teams in order to to maintain, I hope, the success rate of the company in in exploration.

On Integrated LNG, we will face a a year where, on one side, we have a growth of production of LNG, 6%. We have two projects starting up, by the way, in '26.

One is North Field East in Qatar. The other one is the famous Energía Costa Azul in Baja California.

We are waiting for it, it's a little late, but it's planned for Q3 as well, with quite a good offtake, by the way, of both, which would contribute to the growth of the sales of Stéphane's team. On one side, we have this growth.

On the other side, we have lower the assumption on the gas price, TTF down from 12 to to 10. Of course, this has an impact, I would say, on the and also the LNG price.

If we were at $60 per barrel and a TTF of 10, the the average LNG price of all sales would be 8. We have announced 8.5 for Q1, so that's the the math which gave us, compared to 9 in '25.

When you make this 10-12% decrease on the sales and on the other side 6% increase of the growth, we are planning to have a cash flow from operation from Integrated LNG around $4.5 billion. This year was 4.6, 4.7, I think, more or less stable, stability, but the growth being compensated by a lower environment.

On Integrated Power, of course, the year, but I will not come back, will be dominated by the closing of this deal with EPH, which will provide us it's figures have to be remembered on a yearly basis, 15 terawatt-hour per year of net power production and $750 million per year of available cash flow. It's of course, these figures have to be integrated and it's a it's a major step for us, with potentially capacity to grow beyond, because there is a a pipeline coming with the 14 gigawatts gas-fired power power plant fleet.

It will be translated, for 20 2026, production above 60 terawatt-hour. The cash flow is expected to be above $3 billion.

As we plan to have net CapEx 2.5 to 3, normally '26 should be for the first time a contributive to the dividend, a free cash positive for this activity. I say normally because we have an uncertainty on the on the day on the date of the closing.

We are not completely in in line, but we are, for sure, if it's not '26, it could be '26, but '27 for sure, this business will be free cash positive. I think it's a turning point, obviously, in the way you could valorize the business inside inside the company, it will contribute to the dividend.

Refining & Chemicals, I reported to you in September that we had three bad pupils, which were Port Arthur, Donges, and Normandy. Now, this one, the good news is that the bad pupils are in better shape, if I say.

Port Arthur, the problem has been identified on reformer steam. There was a big large turnaround, which was delivered on time, and now Port Arthur is back on track with positive performance.

The Donges refinery has suffered during three several years. We will start up this famous Horizon project, which is a which is an investment in order to be able to produce gasoline on spec and not on the export market, so that's February-March, that's coming out, again we'll reach a much better utilization rate in November.

We can consider that Donges will back on back on normal availability. The cracker problems in Normandy has always always been repaired, and so again, this platform in Normandy is back to, I would say, a good good availability.

By the way, you've seen in the fourth quarter results that Refining & Chemicals have really been able to capture, they were good very good margin, $11 per barrel. The good news is that we have captured it, which means that, yes, the plants are now available, and that's, I think, a good news.

The global program that Vincent and his teams are implementing, which is called Boost 27, is to increase the availability by 2 points, and we'll follow that these KPIs very carefully along the year, and we'll report to you. Unfortunately, now the margins are lower, back, but you know that's clearly this is the integration, when price of oil is going up at 72, we have margins today around 4 to 5.

We have less environment, but again, it's part of the we we'll gain on one side, we have less on the other side. This is why we think it's good to be integrated.

Marketing & Services is very growing steadily, $100 million of cash flow per year, 2.3 in '24, 2.4 in '25, we plan 20 2.5 in '26, despite the fact, I remind you, that we have streamlined some of the networks in Europe and in Africa. We have a special focus there on lubricants.

We have reorganized the lubricants business unit in a sort of I would say independent business unit company. There is no don't think there is any plan to divest it, we love lubricants.

It's very cash, it's a super cash cow, very little capital employed, good business, stable market share, and don't try to rush to gain market share, better to manage your margins and keep your good margins. I'm we have good, and I think the focus on these units is giving us ideas on how to develop.

We are very focused today on the auto market to to have more emphasis on the industry markets, that's the idea of behind this new organization. On the networks, the focus will be done to really move forward on developing the non-fuel revenues, which is a source of potential cash.

Global picture for '26 to conclude is that so we will generate, as I said, at $60 and per barrel, $10 per million BTU, refining margin at $5, about $26 billion. We will invest 15, we have a free cash of $11 billion, dividend more or less 8, 8.5 depending on the exchange rate, buyback, you see the equation there.

The the news that our what we want to illustrate is that between '25 and '26, if you rebase '25 at the same environment price, we have an additional free cash of $4 billion: 2 billion coming from the CapEx, and the other 2 billion are coming a little more than 1 from the upstream, the growth accretiveness, 1.1, around 500 million from Integrated Power, then Marketing & Services for 100, and so you will and then Refining & Chemicals, which is planning at the same environment, because of a better availability, to have an additional 300 to $400 million. That's why we'll have again this resilience, and we'll be able to have the same free cash at $60 in '26 that we had a '20 in '25 in at $69 per barrel.

That's what I said. Company is more resilient and able to to distribute dividend.

The dividend coming on the dividend, board has decision has decided yesterday to come back to what was the traditional way, by the way, in TotalEnergies, and to be clear, until '22, where we were the last, I mean the final dividend, because it's not a quarterly dividend, for in French way it's a final dividend, we have intermediary intermediate dividends in the French system, that we distribute quarterly, a final one is equal to the three previous ones. We have departed from this tradition last two years because we had a clear visibility on high oil price, we were confident.

The board prefers to be a little more cautious, but there is no signal on it. It gives, by the way, a growth of the dividend of 5.6% per year in euro, 13% in dollar.

When I compare that to my our peers, we are good position in terms of growing the dividend. We will, of course, announce what will be the growth of the quarterly dividend by end of April.

Board decided to have a better view of one quarter, see the see the market. No message there that there will be The idea is not to keep it at the same level.

It's just a question to come back to the traditional manner to to manage this dividend. That's point.

I think the 5% there is probably a good guidance. On the buyback, you we have announced you $3 billion to $6 billion again at between $60 and $70 per barrel in September, we we reset that buyback guidance.

We I'm adding because I had a lot of questions during my roadshow that at $50 per barrel, there will be no buyback, it's answer is quite easy, I don't try to make in-between, don't ask me, there is no mathematical formula. Today, at this stage, the board has taken the same attitude on a we want to be able to buy back 3 to 6, we don't know where we'll land the price of all crude oil, we took a I would say a flexible approach by starting the first quarter at the bottom of the guidance.

Then if we see that the price remain around above $70, we'll have opportunity to, I would say, increase it, but I think it's better to increase than to decrease, you know my view on with the markets. Good news are better than bad news.

We we'll keep in the in the guidance, we took the low range because, again, we don't have a full visibility on it. I would also say that the second message is important, is the one on priority to gearing.

We have listened to investors loud and clear, this 15% has been clearly is an anchor point. You can see on the on the math that it match with more or less at $60, it match more or less with $3 billion of buybacks.

This will be, I would say, the idea that we don't increase the net debt to finance the buyback will be part of the equation of the way we will allocate the cash flow in 2026 coming forward. That's, I would say, again, we have the CFFO is resilient, we have a clear investment and we will execute the $15 billion.

The dividend is now will be dividend, we have a little uncertainty, of course, on the exchange rate, even if my view is that it will continue dollar to weaken, but we'll see. It has an impact on us.

Again, as I said, keep in mind the gearing sustainability, which could go up to 3%, $3 billion of working capital. We anticipate 2 to 3 billion for the first quarter.

That represent easily 2 to 3% or 2.5%, 3% of gearing, so, again, as I said, no panic. To finish this presentation, you know this slide, we just updated it.

I think we offer and we continue to offer a clear and consistent strategy, which is, yes, differentiated from our peers, but differentiated in both ways. On the oil and gas, we deliver a growth, an accretive growth.

We keep, and I think it's important, the the medium- and long-term view. Again, we have renewed again by more than 100% of proven reserves.

It's I remind you the last three years, 140, 150, 120%. The capacity to continue to identify new resources to sanction projects is there, and I'm very confident with the pipeline we have in front of us of FIDs to be taken in '26 and '27, that we'll maintain this track record.

I think this is probably one of the better best foundation for the investors within TotalEnergies. The other differentiation is about this Integrated Power pillar, which is again benefiting from a good demand for electricity, even in our Western countries, and also benefiting from this growth, and it will contribute to to dividends, if not '26, '27 for sure.

Thank you for your attention, and we are ready to take your questions. Let's move to the Q&A.

Raise the hands if you want to ask questions. Biraj?

Hi, it's Biraj Borkhataria at RBC. Thank you for the comprehensive presentation.

First one was just on Namibia, as you visited there. We know for Venus, you're looking for extension to the concession.

Could you just talk about Mopane and whether the fiscal conditions today are sufficient for you to take a FID and whether you're looking for any improvement there? Any comments that would be appreciated.

Then the second question is just on your LNG portfolio and specifically Yamal. You were quoted today around sanctions and the lack of ability to divert the cargoes.

In the past, I think you said that you could divert some to Asia and keep some, what's your latest understanding of how those sanctions will be enforced? Thanks.

Okay. Namibia, first, again, the good news is that because of we made this transaction with Galp, the authorities know us, perceive us as, I would say, unavoidable.

We are there, and we will be the company which will help them to establish the oil and gas industry. The dialogue even on Venus was much more, I would say, engaging.

It's a new administration, it's a new country to oil and gas, they had to learn, but they see us as the engine of capacity to deliver it. I would say, I will explain them that we have an opportunity because now we have received the tenders, and honestly, we are within the ballpark for the CapEx we were anticipating, which is good news, because there is also more appetite from contractors to transact with TotalEnergies.

They see us again. This deal has generated, I would say, a good virtuous circle for us.

Maybe I'm optimistic, but we have in front of us as well the Namibian authorities organize themselves now in order to be able to engage with our teams, you have working teams. The idea is that we could sanction by middle of the year.

We'll see if we can deliver, but clearly it is on the program, blessed by the president, and we'll see if we can reach the point where we can sanction that. On Mopane, it's very different.

Mopane has a permeability which is much easier. Again, we are facing a development which is, I would say, more or less a sort of GranMorgu development.

No, and again, it works. With the CapEx we have in mind and the fiscals, it works, without having to negotiate plenty of elements.

The point on Mopane is more that we know it's big, we don't know if it's very big or big, the idea of the appraisal program, is it 800 700, 800 million barrels or is it 1.1, 1.2? Because, in fact, the last wells they drilled going on the southwest discovered clearly an extension.

We need to see up to which point is going this extension, because this could influence the way we develop the field. That's the idea of the three wells, which have been, by the way, completely aligned with Galp on the program.

Again, the idea is that we'll be able to run it, and if we do that, we should be able to sanction that by '28 and then moving forward. The idea is to have one project and the other one moving behind.

There are, obviously, synergies. For TotalEnergies, by the way, it will also help to discuss all these Venus discussions, because we have the perspective not only to have Venus, which was a little constrained, but to have more than that.

In terms of the way we will approach this fiscal discussion, it helps everybody, and I think we have engaged in a smart and good way. So '26, for sure, for us, focus on Namibia will be important, and again, we have the opportunity to deploy our competence there in a very efficient way.

Yamal, first '26 will be '26, '26 there is no sanction. Short-term no, we don't have short-term deals with them, we make only the long-term contracts, '26 will be as per it.

For '27, there are one thing which is clear, no more import of EU in the EU, this contract will be diverted. In fact, today, legally, we have a question mark, because the way it's written, there is a question mark: is it only import to EU, or is it import everywhere in the world?

That means is a European company like TotalEnergies forbidden to manage any Russian LNG? The intent was not this one initially, what we understood from the text, but the way it's written, today we have engaged with, I would say, the French Treasury and the Commission in the EU Commission to have a clarification.

I cannot fully answer to your questions. Maybe we'll really have to just give up the marketing of any Russian LNG, then we'll have to obey, obviously.

It was not our understanding, but the way it's written, we could have that understanding. We are willing to clarify that point.

At this stage, I cannot tell you more on this one. What will remain is that even if we cannot market, we can remain shareholder of Yamal, which is another issue for us, because Yamal for us is a source of two business: being a shareholder of the company itself, plant, even if difficult to get some dividends, but it's an activity, and then the marketing part.

The sanction only covers today the marketing part. There is no force majeure, there is no rules which would force us to exit from Yamal.

That's where we are for Yamal. Okay.

Matt?

Thanks, everybody. Matt Lofting at J.P.

Morgan. Two questions, please.

First, you've talked several times about the benefits of the higher-margin barrels and that sort of bridging a part of the $10 a barrel '26 versus '24. No barrels are born equal, I wondered if you could just expand on that a bit in terms of the key sources, geologically, fiscally, size of assets, etc., when you think about the growth versus the base portfolio.

Then second, I just wanted to ask you about M&A. I noticed during JP's comments, he talked or referenced the US listed shares and that potentially being a sort of a source of supporting M&A in the US in the future.

It's obviously a province that historically the company has often been pretty prudent on the view on valuations around, any thoughts there would be appreciated.

You have no surprise. We have been clear that we want to increase our upstream gas in the US, it's quite clear.

We have done different deals. We still have, I would say, a gap of almost 1 Bcf/d, we can do it by many small deals, or we can do it in another way, we are studying that.

What JP told don't tell you we will do it, just told you that we have a currency which we could make some M&A in the US, and when you look in the US, it's better to make deals with shares. The upside is with 10%, you can do a deal.

In cash, it's much more expensive because of fiscal regime, so that's one of the idea. We'll see if it works or not.

We have no more comments on that. The idea to continue to find access to upstream gas in the US, that's a clear priority for us.

It was in '25, it still remains, be clear. Then on margin, yes, if you put the slide 10, where there was the famous $30, I was sure about the questions.

I will not give you all the details, but you have some oil fields, and you have some gas fields. Generally, the margin on the oil fields is much better than on the gas fields, I can tell you.

The oil fields which are there are two in the US Gulf of America. No surprise, US Gulf of America is delivering quite high margin because fiscal terms are low, in fact, compared to others.

You have Brazil, which is also giving some good cash per barrel, so that's the two ones. I think and then the gas generally are lower, are more traditionally one.

It's also true that in the mix, it's not there, but we are replacing barrels from the North Sea or barrels from Nigeria, SPDC, JV, which honestly have a low margin. We replace this type of barrels by barrels which even the gas barrels have a better margin for some of them than what we had in the portfolio.

That's also, I would say, a mix of barrels which we grow in the portfolio. Okay.

Irene?

Thank you. Irene Himona at Bernstein.

If I go back to the cash-accretive barrels, if we think about value as not cash flow, but free cash flow, is there anything we can say about the CapEx of the new barrels in comparison with legacy oil and gas, and therefore, the free cash flow generation of the new barrels? Then my second question on Integrated Power, obviously, it will be a major, major milestone to turn a relatively young and very fast-growing business into free cash flow positive this year or next year.

When I look at the renewable subsector of utilities, they're all cash negative, and they remain cash negative, perhaps with one exception. I wanted to understand what it is that you have done so very differently to companies that have been in that business for far longer than you, some of which are much, much bigger than you are.

I can reverse the question: why do not they do like us? I don't know.

I know my figure. I don't have a huge experience, and our board is asking us permanently to make some benchmarks on these big companies, but the size of the business makes quite difficult for us to do it.

Honestly, maybe Stéphane has the recipe. Again, the integration delivers the global cash.

In '26, the $3 billion, we consider it will be 60% coming from the upstream, what we call upstream is renewables and gas-fired power plants, and 40% from the downstream, which are customers B2B, B2C, and the trading, just to give you an idea the source of cash. On the renewable part, we continue to invest, but in terms of free cash, the fact that we recycle the CapEx, we recycle a lot.

This year, we have sold for $2 billion of renewables, which allow us to finance, in fact, almost not all, but 70, 70-80% of the organic CapEx. Now the 8 gigawatts is stabilized, we are no more growing the construction every year, the flow is 8 gigawatts, we are in a sort of permanent mode where, in fact, we more or less finance 80% of the renewable CapEx by the recycling of the CapEx.

That helps a lot, because that means that's more $500 million, and we generate more than that with our renewable portfolio, to be clear. That's, I think, the discipline.

I know that the question is can you really recycle? This year, we have managed to do it in a quite strong way.

Now, I think we have beginning to establish some platforms, for example, in the US with some large partners. It was Apollo, it's KKR, maybe on which we begin to see if we could follow up and follow on, I would say.

The farm-downs of 2026 could be done with one of these platforms. We begin to industrialize this part of the model.

Again, it's because we have a view, a long-term view, we stabilize at 8. Maybe my peers have, I don't know, they have other ideas to develop, I don't know, this is the way we look at it.

I take your point on free cash generation more globally. We didn't look at that way, but this is what happens on the renewable.

At the end, by the way, this year, we didn't spend 4 billion, we spent only 3.5. Part of it, but on the renewable part, CapEx, the projects have been a little slower, but we were able to manage it and to manage the growth with less.

I think we are also more selective, more focused. We begin in '26, one of the plan on the renewable part is we inherited many geographies with small projects, and that honestly, when you have plenty of small projects in many countries, it's inefficient.

You have difficulty to follow, you have too many teams per megawatt. We now prefer to concentrate on less countries, but having teams which are more efficient in, I would say, megawatt per people, per staff.

That's also the variety. Michele?

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

We've seen an opening up of several countries, or at least better fiscal terms, that Total has operated in the past, from Venezuela to Syria, Kuwait, et cetera. We've already seen the success you've had in Iraq and Libya leading to new projects.

How do you think of these opportunities? Then I wanted to ask you on Tilenga.

It starts up at the end of this year. It's a major part of the growth next year.

When do you expect it to reach plateau on both phases?

The plateau should be raised by mid-2027, to be clear. First train being started this year, second train the first half, plateau by mid-2027.

There is a delay, to be honest. It's not a strong performance in terms of construction.

Now I'm sure, honestly, it's true that the main difficulty we faced was to mobilize people on the ground. There was not so many, I would say, people with the right competencies locally, and we have been obliged, and one of the main contractors has descooped part of his business to one of his subcontractors to find people, to bring people.

We have much more Chinese on the ground that we were planning to have it, and all that makes, I think we lost for me a year there in all the mobilization on the ground. No, it's done.

The progress is back on track. Nicolas is following that every week himself, we are back, but there is a delay, it's not fortunate.

We have other source of growth, it will feed next growth next year. On the first question, first, we like what we've done in Iraq, we can do more in Iraq.

We have opened the door, some others are following, but from the Iraqi authorities, they remember that we have opened the door. We are welcome, and we will work with them.

New government will be put in place. I think we have a strong partnership with the Qataris there, Qatar as well with QE.

The teams honestly, to have been able in two years to sign all these contracts in Iraq, it's a huge performance for our teams to have been able to go through the whole system, and also good relationships with the Basrah Oil Company. All that is an ecosystem which helps so let's continue to Iraq.

Libya, it's not Russian mountains, but I don't know, Libyan mountains. We managed together with Conoco to have these new fiscal terms, now we have better terms, even including which they will be applied to the existing production, but we have an incentive to invest, we want to invest in the North Gialo projects.

There the main challenge will be to mobilize contractors, because Libya is not yet, I would say, a fully stable country. I see a lot of enthusiasm.

We need to convince good contractors, strong contractors to come in order to build in Libya. Again, in both case, it's a very cheap oil, renewing reserves, there is a big potential there, it's good.

Waha production today is around 400 or 350,000 barrel per day. We can easily increase that to 500, 600,000 barrel per day.

There is a huge potential, which is identified. It's a matter now to execute projects in this environment.

Beyond it, you mentioned some interesting countries, very different. Kuwait, I was in Kuwait, I have an interest for Kuwait.

I have one dream, which is to put TotalEnergies in each of the country of the Middle East, I'm continuing. They have announced that we'll be open to international partner to develop their offshore.

True or not, we'll see. We'll look at it.

They need some competence. Others will look at it, obviously, we are not the only one, but it might be.

What are the fiscal terms? I don't know.

Because all that, it's a matter of risk and reward. Syria, the stake are maybe not so high, in fact, and so there are teams or explorers are looking with others together to see what we think about the quality of the rocks, and I don't want to judge about it.

We ask them to review, but we know onshore we were producing, but the stakes were quite small, I would say, at our size. It's a question at the end also for us, we don't have infinite human resources and competencies, we cannot go everywhere.

Now we have this new Namibia. Clearly, I see much more potential of profits in Namibia today.

Question is as well of potential for the future. Venezuela, I already answered, it's not at the top of the pile of my files, because we are consistent.

We have said in the past that we concentrate our investments on oil which is lower than $20 per barrel, low-cost oil. Oil in Venezuela does not fit with that, because not only upstream, is also upgrading and the whole system, were there.

I think it's not a priority. I think all that needs to be stabilized before to rethink to all that.

That's what I think. Alejandro?

Hello. Alejandro Vigil from Santander.

Thank you for taking my questions. The first one is I'm very interested about your views about CO2 regulation in Europe.

Now you're going to be one of the largest generators in Europe after the EPH acquisition. I'm interested in your thoughts about the system, it needs some changes, etc.

The second question is we are also seeing a consolidation process in oil services and drilling, and looks like there is a new wave of investments in the upstream business. Your thoughts about potential inflation cost in the investment in the upstream.

Thank you.

I don't like consolidation. There's a point, it depends on the markets.

It depends on the markets, but if you have a market which is already limited to three players or four and you go to two, this become a problem. No, and I'm clear on it.

There are some consolidations we don't support, because at the end we see the impact. By the way, today I think and we observe it in the offers we just received for Namibia, we see a stabilization of the market.

I think it's linked to the oil price, we are no more at 80, but down to 70, could go lower, I think it has an impact clearly on the service industry. To be honest, even some service companies have tried to combine their offers by linking wells and subsea, we didn't see, honestly, in the offers we received, any advantage of that.

They tried to promote to us an integration, maybe it's good for them, but as a customer, we didn't see a lot of value of this type of approach of integration, I would say, on subsea and wells or things like that. We worked a lot, and even if we are ready to look, in particular, on drilling, we are developing today an approach where we give more integrated contracts, rather than ourselves taking the different bit and pieces to give it to one company.

We've done that in Iraq for obvious reasons, to be more efficient. We are looking to do that as well for the wells.

In Suriname, there we see a value for us to select one which will integrate. It's good for them, but it's good for us.

On this one, the demonstration has to be done that we, as customers, are really benefiting from this type of consolidation or integration. I like competition, fundamentally, better to keep competition.

By the way, it's normal in a liberal world. CO2 regulation in Europe, it's an interesting question for Stéphane, because Stéphane is the guy which permanently told me you must promote the CO2 price because of renewables.

Now he has some gas-fired power plants, let's see how he will arbitrate between the two parts of it. Question is for you, Stéphane.

No, but I think that there are several questions. One, we have the ETS1 system, where there is a question mark on how fast are we going to reduce the level of quota, and what's going to be the consequence on the CO2 price.

As mentioned, Patrick, we are buyer of CO2 for our refining industry, and at the same time, the power price are linked to CO2 price. I've got CCGT, which are more value when CO2 price is higher.

I've got renewable, which has more value when CO2 price is higher. It's clear that the Integrated Power part will benefit from an increase of CO2.

There are question mark today on where that market is going, given the balance between the speed of the decrease and potentially the increase in demand. We are quite happy with the way the market is functioning today and with this balance, and at the end of the day, if we want the transition to take place, it will have to take place with a higher price of CO2.

At the same time, we need to be cautious on what's going to happen for the industry, because we need as well to maintain the demand of the industry. That's one aspect.

Then you have the ETS2 system and so on, but that has marginal consequence, honestly, on what we do. We are more focusing on the ETS1, on which, as I said, we are quite satisfied with the current situation.

Fundamentally, we like a price of CO2, just to be clear. Otherwise, there will be zero transition.

Right?

Up to Europe to decide what they want. Then if you want to make an exception for the high emitters or your heavy industry, you have ways to do it if you want to support this industry without necessarily doing it through the price of CO2.

There are two different topics. The debate mixed both, but you can have other ways to support your heavy industry than just lowering the CO2 or stopping the decrease of quota, et cetera, et cetera.

I think this is a real fundamental question for the policy makers. Today, the debate is difficult.

Henri?

Thank you. Henri Patricot, UBS.

Thank you for the presentation. Two questions.

The first one is on the FIDs for '26, '27. You mentioned Venus for mid-'26.

Which other projects do you see as perhaps more likely to go ahead over the next couple of years, which ones are more challenging across oil and LNG? Then secondly, on LNG, during the presentation, you mentioned the risk of new project delays in '26.

What do you see the risk for the projects in which you're involved in Qatar and [unclear]?

Again, I was on the one for us on on the NFE in Qatar, we were in Doha, the whole industry was in Doha last week, and we discussed, again, I discussed not only with Qataris, with Technip Energies, which is a which which is a main contractor. They say second quarter, we put third quarter, we are a little cautious, third quarter is probably more more reality.

I see that progressing well on the ground. We'll see if the finalization, but again, I don't see that as a risk on this one.

On ECA, I think we have been long to wait, but now it's again, Technip is transferring the installation by by by May, I think, and we we said third quarter. This one, we could face some quality issues.

We have we have a real we have concern about the quality of the work which has been done, this need to be checked. Again, third quarter for both.

The sanctions in '26, we have Venus. We have a project in Nigeria called Ima, which is gas project to continue to feed this Train 7, famous Train 7.

We have progressed a lot. Now we launch the tenders.

We had a meeting last week on it, we said go. We the idea is to sanction the projects in '26, and it's important.

It's an easy project, but in Nigeria, even if easy, it's always a little slow. We face some hurdles, local hurdles, but it seems to be this one.

Then we have the question of Papua LNG. Either we sanction or we have an issue, the plan is to sanction in '26.

We'll we'll see, there is different workstream together to put together, because it's a CapEx, it's a fiscals, CapEx, financing, and marketing. You have different workstreams which should converge all of them by mid by middle of the year, I would say.

Is not done, but if we don't manage to do it now that we have, I think, optimized the CapEx, we don't see what we could do better than what we have. We are around $14 billion, $15 billion, not at 18, but not at 12.

That's why I speak fiscals, we have a clear discussion, a clear engagement with the government and and with the partners. We see where we land, and we'll have to take the decision in '26.

That's I would say. What else do you have, Nicolas?

We have the gas cap in the UAE

[unclear]. That's a license to be obtained, it's not yet a decision.

Marjan Train 2. Ooh, it's business development.

No, no, you are going too quick. No, no, no, no.

No, no, no. No way.

That's the optimism of the upstream. No, no, no.

There is no way to get the FID on Marjan Train 2 in '26, '27, no way. No, no, you have to drill a well, to appraise, okay.

I know our process. It's good to have some good momentum from the President of Upstream, but After that, they will just ask us to report on it, no, no.

It's still business development, this one. No, we are working with Oman to see if beyond the first train we could build another one, benefit from it.

We have identified some gas, we need to be sure that we have enough gas resource. We will not build a train without be sure to have the gas.

That's for me just the fundamental when we speak about LNG. Okay.

What else? Kim, go ahead.

Thank you, it's Kim Fustier for HSBC. Two quick questions on the upstream, please.

The first one is on Mozambique LNG. You've now restarted construction.

Could you talk about the revised timeline for the project in terms of remobilization and first LNG? Secondly, maybe just a word on the NeoNext Plus transaction in the UK North Sea.

I guess, what's the impact there on production, CapEx, maybe future growth, and do you see a similar structure elsewhere in the world potentially being applied?

The second question, sorry?

NeoNext

Plus.

NeoNext Plus, okay.

First one, we have been clear, we have restarted. Today, I visited, I was with the President of Mozambique on in Afungi.

We have almost 5,000 people on the ground already, 4,000 local, 1,000 expatriates. We need to reach 15,000 to be at full speed.

The ramp-up will will take off. In fact, again, I would say all the engineering is done at 90% or 95%, procurement of all the long-lead items has been done.

Now it's a matter of construction on the ground. The plan is to deliver the project by '29, maybe end '28, but let's say '29 to be to be sure.

This is a plan that we on which we work today. Again, the remobilization, no, contractors are aligned, let's do it.

It's a and I think it's a it's really a matter of construction. We we most of the procurement, everything is ready, because, in fact, we spent some we we were not quiet during the years, we try to advance as much as we could the project.

On the North Sea transaction, yes, there is at the end, we have we have an impact, positive impact on the production, 47.5% of the global production is more than what we have our share, around 10,000 barrel per day, I think. We have a positive impact on the CapEx, because we have some synergies there, we lower the CapEx by $100 million, something like that.

Then we'll see what we will do together. I think, clearly, there will be synergies on OpEx, that's clear, it's clear.

They are doing it today between Ithaca and Repsol, we'll bring our teams, and again, we want to optimize, it's mature. It's better to do it three together than alone.

There is another positive impact on the deal on the abandonment cost on the CapEx side, because the full idea is to have a sort of abandonment factory, I would say, in an efficient way, rather than each company. By the way, from this perspective, I'm not sure our engineers are the cheapest one on the planet, to abandon wells, they are very cautious.

I think having that and there are a lot of works to be done. To plan it, to plan it, including with authorities, in a smarter way than if you are alone, obliged to do it.

There is also again from this perspective. Do we want to develop the same model elsewhere?

No. Because I don't see where.

I know we have the opportunity on Honestly, all that was led as well, as because of the fiscal eyeing in hike in the UK, we were looking to that, and and the maturity of the assets. Honestly, the assets become mature.

When we are looking at these assets from a pure TotalEnergies point of view, when I look to the business plan of Nicolas' teams, I said, but we have nothing more in 3, 4 years. We'll have a huge organization, not much to to manage.

How do we make this this slowdown and in abandonment costs? We realized that it was time to to look to, I would say, merging with an enlarged groups, more efficient on the costs, again, than staying alone.

Which we don't have honestly that in another when I don't see we I don't see that situation at all, in particular the neighboring country, if your question was about Norway. Norway, not at all.

It's not mature at all. It continue to grow and to deliver cash, and it's fine.

I'm happy with the Norwegian assets. We it's this is to answer a specific question.

As as well, I didn't pronounce the word fiscal synergies, but you there are some. UK government knew, and that's a consequence.

Henry Tarr?

Hi. Henry Tarr from Berenberg.

Thanks for taking my questions. Two, please.

One is just on the EPH volumes when they come into your portfolio. Are they already pre-sold, if you like, or how are you looking to market them when they come through?

Then the second question is just on the net CapEx guidance, $15 billion for the year. Is that sort of an organic number?

Are there acquisitions and divestments beyond what you've already sort of mentioned in terms of farm-downs that we should think about in that number? Thank you.

Your speaker, second question is for Integrated Power or globally?

Globally.

Globally, I mentioned that the net between acquisition and divestments is minus 1 $1 billion more of divestments than acquisition. The organic is at 16, and the net is at 15, to be clear, which is feasible.

We know what we have to deliver. What will be the exact amount?

I don't know, but we calibrate at the end. We have always a large menu of divestments.

If you want to reach one, you need to plan two, 1.5, Closing is always sometimes difficult, it's better to have a large pipeline of divestments idea in order to reach it. Then we monitor the acquisitions related to what we anticipate on the divestment, but the divestment program is today well engaged.

On upstream, I see at least 1, $1.5 billion, which are very clear on which it's a matter of closing the deals, including in Nigeria. Honestly, on the farm-down on your side with what we've done and capacity to follow on, we have also quite a good idea on the way to progress it.

EPH volume pre-sold? The answer is no, but you can explain.

No, they are not pre-sold, and actually what's going to happen is that after closing, we will offtake 50% of the production. Usually, those volume are sold on the wholesale market, you don't have to find a customer to do that, and EPH was not tolling to a third party its CCGT.

Then there is a normal program of hedging forward of those assets. It will move with EPH volume, but nothing different from what a normal player would do.

As I said, as after the closing, we will be the one offtaking those volume and handling notably the hedge program of those volume.

Okay. Lucas?

Thanks very much. It's Lucas Herrmann at BNP.

Firstly, Patrick, every time, or all of you every time, you don't leave us with that much scope for questions to be honest, and congratulations on much better year than many of us anticipated.

Did you have say all what we want, are we continue? No.

I was pleased when I read the title.

She's right. On a serious note, and probably two end-of-day questions, one thing that hasn't been mentioned at all is chemicals, and you're a big player, and I guess the question I've got in part is really thinking about what the scope for upside may be if the chemical cycle were to normalize at a point, together with your thoughts on if we're seeing any signs that we may be moving to a point where players are saying, okay, it's just enough pain, we've got to start shutting in, because this can't go on at this level forever.

The second, before you answer that, thanks very much, maybe towards Stéphane, just on LNG. In terms of contracting and building the portfolio, now you've pretty much achieved the 8 to 10 million of length that you'd wanted in Brent.

Are we broadly done in you fixing contracts? I know that's a silly observation, because it's an ongoing process, but just are you comfortable with where you're at?

Thank you. Stéphane will answer you.

Just for all of you, we plan to propose you to make a visit of Rio Grande during the CERAWeek, like we've done last year for half-day, and to dedicate this half-day to LNG, because I know you have many questions. If some of you will be there, we will embark you if you accept with us from Houston, ensuring the transportation.

The idea is to dedicate, I would say, like we've done last year on renewables and power, to dedicate this half-day to LNG. Stéphane will have plenty of time to explain you everything about our portfolio, but I think it's time we have many questions to try to have a specific point.

Stéphane will answer you. On the first one, chemicals, chemicals on our side, when we speak about chemicals, we are good, big volumes, but we are not a real chemical company.

We are just a polymer plus one cracker plus one. We make the big polyethylene and polypropylene.

We don't have the whole story behind it. It's clear that today it's facing large overcapacities coming from China, everybody knows it, which puts, in particular, our platform in Korea, which was one of the best 5 years ago, today is facing huge difficulties, because the natural market of Korean platforms were export to China, and of course, this is closed door today.

Which is a topic, by the way, as well for all these US crackers, which were built with the idea not for the domestic market, they were built with the idea we'll export to China. I don't know why everybody made the same mistake, nobody have seen or understood, and it's a real problem for me, because suddenly last year we discovered that the Chinese have built so many capacities to be almost self suppliers, in fact their own autonomy.

Themselves, by the way, because I think you have an issue of the domestic demand in China, no all these civil real estate, all that is going down, they face themselves overcapacity for their own market. You have a situation which is not good.

Having said that, I see in our portfolio two types of petrochemicals to be clear, I've been constant. I have the one in Europe based on naphtha.

This one, you can take it wherever you can want, you can be the best, it will never become competitive against petrochemicals, polyolefins done on ethane, either in the US or in the Middle East. The gap of competitiveness, it's impossible to close.

This ones, it's a matter of managing the pain, I would say. We have decided this year to shut down a cracker in Antwerp.

Others have decided to shut down a cracker in Normandy, not ours, but next to us, which was good news for us. Today, we are left in terms of crackers with Antwerp, and with Normandy.

We have the small one in Feyzin, but it's very small and which has a dedicated, I would say, market. We left Lavéra, selling it to Ineos, which shut down the cracker.

I'm quite happy to exit step by step, to be honest, and it's really a problem. Company is big.

When you have the integration of the cracker to the refinery, you can see some ways to manage it. In terms of polymers, you lose money on the polymers.

I'm looking to the global picture, because if I'm running my crackers, I need to have an outlet for the crackers, and nobody will take my ethylene today in Europe. I need to transform my ethylene to bring it to customers in order to capture the margin on the cracker.

If you don't see it as an integration, then you'd ask if you just have a polymer business, why do you continue? No, we have a business unit of polymer and Vincent tried to convince me to merge it with the cracker.

I say, "No, no, no, I want to know the business. Otherwise, we will not know where exactly we make the losses, but I want to know what we can fix and what are the pain."

That's the situation. Then we have the other petrochemicals based on ethane, either in the US or in Saudi Arabia or Qatar.

This one, honestly, is competitive because we have an advantage on the feedstock. This advantage on the feedstock absorbs, I would say, even if you lose again on your polymer, the absorption is even easier to be done.

When I see on this integration between the crackers on ethane and the polymers, I would say it's okay. We are okay.

Does it make money? It makes money.

It makes money. It makes money.

It makes money.

Money as in profit?

Money, profit, and cash. It means profit and cash.

No, otherwise I would not tell you that, Lucas, I would tell you it's a disaster. We need to fix it.

No, I'm not in a panic mode, to be clear. The question for us is the European part, is there a way or not?

That's true, that's why, of course, Vincent is not very happy when Stéphane say, "I want a high price of CO2." For him, it's just what can we preserve from this business?

On my side, what I think is that no way to invest in any capacity on naphtha crackers and all that. The question of how do we go down, surely, but it's not easy, because I think other players have the same view than us.

Even if some players like Ineos bought our Lavéra cracker because they had another view on the market, fine. I'm fine.

If we find from time to time good opportunities, I'm ready to do it. We have a third polymer, which is polystyrene, on which, in particular in the US, we will try put it for divestment, this one.

That's the way I'm looking at it. It's ethane, it's Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the US.

Even the US, I think we have one, I'm not sure we were ready to make another one, we'll be cautious on it. You have to absorb this overcapacities, it could take time.

Again, I'm not as a chemical company, I don't see all what is happening behind in the value chain.

Yes, as you mentioned, Lucas, we've sold around more than 8 million ton between end '23, beginning '25 on the Brent basis in Asia. We are happy with what we have done, and I consider that the portfolio is well-balanced until 2030.

After that, it's an ever-going job, because you've got contracts that expire, you have additional production that will come from LNG growth. We have to work on the portfolio post-2030.

Mais bon, we've got time to do so, and I'm not too concerned by that. You should expect additional sell of LNG on a Brent formula on that time horizon.

Maybe we can take a question online.

I will reveal a secret to you. The net result of chemicals in '25 was $500 million, positive globally.

It's only a small share of the net result of Refining & Chemicals, but it's positive globally. It's not too bad compared to what I listen when I'm reading the newspapers.

It's not too bad.

Okay. Doug, you can go ahead with your question if you are there.

Sorry.

We lost Doug.

He preferred to be with a competitor in New York. That's a problem.

Maybe we can take another one online. You can go, Jason Gabelman.

Go ahead. We have a problem maybe with the—

You are not lucky, eh?

Yeah. Question in the room then.

Anish, go ahead.

Hi, it's Anish Kapadia from Palissy Advisors. I had a question on the outlook for global gas.

Clearly, some of the strategic moves you've made over the last few years are on the back of your view that there's going to be somewhat of a narrowing of global gas prices and Henry Hub. I just wanted to kind of get your viewpoint if gas prices do fall further from here, below your $10 TTF assumption, what are some of the measures you put in place and how can the Integrated Power business, such as the acquisition you made in Europe, help to mitigate some of that fall in TTF pricing?

First, as I explained, we have tried to balance the portfolio, so that we are selling our gas more on the Brent formula than spot, to that extent, we are not that exposed to decreasing on TTF or JKM gas price. That's one.

Second, it's clear that with gas price, you will have two effects. One is that you are going to find back Asian demand that would limit that trend.

Second, you are going to improve the competitiveness of gas in Europe for power production. We should have a kind of parachute effect, thanks to our CCGT fleet, and should be able to benefit from that move on thanks to the full integration in Europe along the value chain between gas and power.

That's the way actually we have mitigated that possible decrease of the gas price.

Okay. Other questions in the room?

Jean-Luc?

Jean-Luc Romain at CIC Market Solutions. Had a question on the new exploration acreage you just took in Namibia.

It's a different basin, probably higher risk and less explored. How do you compare the potential or your geologists compare the potential of the Lüderitz Basin with Orange Basin?

Again, it's out of the Orange Basin, it's the Lüderitz Basin. Clearly, it's an exploration.

It has been positive, we find hydrocarbons in the Orange Basin, the idea is we should not stop. I guess probability of success is lower, obviously.

We had the opportunity to enter that license, the explorers love it, but we were not only the ones from TotalEnergies, the one of Petrobras as well, because, in fact, we joined forces. In fact, we were competing, we decided it was better.

That's why I like competition up to a point. Sometimes it's good to partner together in order to have access to the license.

I think the both teams of explorers, geologists have seen the same potential, I would say, interest, it's good to make seismic and then potentially to drill, we'll see. Again, I think there is a certain logic, and I think the fact that, again, we are establishing a strong presence in Namibia encourage our teams to look to other license which might be available.

Okay. Other questions?

Yes, Maurizio.

Maurizio Carulli from Quilter Cheviot Investment Management. Congratulations for the good results.

I have a question about the electricity business, including renewables, of course. You've been able to grow it very well and with a better profitability of most of the traditional utilities companies.

The question that I have here, as long as you can continue to have good opportunities for expansion, good profitability, good return on capital, and good free cash flow, do you have a strategic cap for the expansion of your electricity business long term?

No, it's a question which will be a debate at the board, exactly the question next strategic seminar, because now we are, in fact, after the 5 years, we are more conviction about the model. In 2020, we said let's engage for 10 years, otherwise we will never manage.

If we don't keep an horizon, I said to the board, "Either you give us 10 years to do it, or it's better not to engage, because this type of business will make obviously diversification, we can make some mistakes, but we need to see if we establish a business." Now we are more confident, and the last strategic seminar when we review Integrated Power, it was more about how to increase the profitability.

Let's demonstrate the question of Irene, "Why do you do that?" , et cetera.

Now we have a better idea. Then I said, "Well, it's time to discuss between us where do we go beyond 2030, of how much do we want to grow this business or not."

This is, I would say, and I know that I have a good question from you. Of course, it's linked as well to the capacity we'll have to see the value of this business within the global company, I would say.

As it was said by one or two of you very well by Irene, I think there is a turning point when it's becoming free cash positive, because then you perspective will be different. As long as it's a sort of cash sink, "Why do they do that?"

If you begin to deliver cash, and we think that even if it's positive by '26, we could go quickly to 1, to 1, 2, $3 billion per year, then the appetite might see. I see also, to be honest, more and more a strong integration between the gas and the power.

I think to answer to Anish, part of the question is also this integration gas to power is a way, if you have a lower gas price, you could recover part of the value along the chain on the electricity part. I see some value, and I think, by the way, my view is that the market clearly has better reacted to the EPH transaction because it was gas to power and not just renewables.

I'm open my eyes, I'm clear, which, by the way, is helping us to discuss, and at the board, these elements are very important. The board is more and more looking to that in a way, and I will be probably more able to answer to your question in 1 year than today.

As we are clear that we want to reach a sort of size of 20%, what do we do beyond, at which pace, that's a debate. The opportunities might continue to come, in fact, in this business.

I think there will be a time, the debates we have in European countries about the budget, I'm advocating in France today to stop to have all these CfDs. It's incredible what happens today in 2025.

The states are taking the market risk, to secure revenues for developers, it's very strange system. Why the state should take the market risk of value of power and not the developers and the investors?

In the US, we are taking the market risk. We have some fiscal incentives, but fundamentally it's very different as a philosophy, as a regime.

These technologies are mature enough today, at least for onshore solar and wind, to go to something else. Then if this type of evolution happens, you will see the competition will not be the same.

Because then you will see larger players will find back an advantage compared to plenty of smaller players, which today, in fact, are in infrastructure business with no risk, which, honestly, I don't think the European governments will be able for long to continue to finance a zero-risk business and which is, of course, return is not very high, because it cannot be. Again, this is a debate where I'm not able, but this will come now.

It's time to have it, and the board, they had their independent session, it was the main topic, now we'll work for them.

We have a technical problem, but I will take the question from Doug. Yes.

Good.

I want Doug to be satisfied.

He sent me the question.

He sent me an email that our technology does not work, no AI in Total, in TotalEnergies, so.

The first one is on Namibia. You are carrying Galp, but do you receive Galp's share of cost oil?

This is the first one.

Of course. Otherwise, I don't do it.

The second one is what is the current dividend break-even post the EPH deal and after the EPH deal is closed?

Ooh la. Dividend break-even, but it's quite easy.

$3 billion represent $10, it's $50 per barrel. It's 50.

$50 per barrel is the dividend break-even. Post-EPH, EPH will not change dramatically everything, it will be $1 billion, it's $1 billion is $3, $2, $3, it's 40 $48 or something like that, $48, $47 per barrel.

Cost oil share, yeah, of course, we take 50% of In fact, we more or less, we had a scheme in Suriname, which fine this one, to be honest, is a little better for us. No, yeah, if we take the cost oil share, it's clear.

Okay. Do we have questions in the room?

No more questions in the room?

If you are satisfied, thank you. Thank you for your attendance.

Thank you for your comments. Thank you to all the teams of TotalEnergies who have delivered these results, including, of course, the different executives present in the room.

The next meeting with you potentially might be in Houston for the ones who want to continue participate to this field trip on Rio Grande, and again, with a focus on LNG and the portfolio and how we manage all these times which are in front of us. Thank you for your attendance.