Good afternoon, or good morning everyone. Happy to be with you again today.

Before Jean-Pierre will go through the details of this first quarter financials, I would like first to make some few opening remarks, in particular on the conflict in the Middle East and its consequences. As this region, Middle East, holds of course a very special place for TotalEnergies.

It's deeply rooted in our DNA, in our history, and our identity, because it is where the company was born in 1924, in Iraq, and more importantly, this is a region where we have established along the years a prime position which differentiates ourselves. Since the very first day of the conflict on February 28, our priority has been first the security of our teams and their families, and we have decided just two days after to organize the evacuation of employee families and as well as some non-essential employees out of the UAE, Qatar, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Lebanon.

Thanks to the strong mobilization in all our affiliates in the regions, but also around the globe, and also at the headquarters, more than 1,300 people have returned safely from the countries concerned by the conflict, and I want to thank all the teams who participated to that strong effort. Safety of our staff will remain our utmost priority, but I want also to reiterate here our full solidarity and support for the population of these countries which suffers the consequences of the conflicts, and I want to reaffirm TotalEnergies' commitment to all our local partners, contractors, and customers.

From this point of view, I want to underline that we kept a presence in all the countries aside our partners. For example, in Abu Dhabi, all our secondees working for the ADNOC JVs are maintained on the ground.

It's the same situation in Qatar. We have also, by the way, sent some experts to assist QatarEnergy in evaluating the damage and the repair necessary to the two trains which were damaged during the conflict.

We have maintained a team in Iraq, in Basra, of 20 TotalEnergies staff which are supervising the progress of the GGIP projects on the ground with around 5,000 workers there. Also, in Saudi Arabia, we have of course maintained most of our secondees in order to supervise the Amiral projects, which mobilize today 22,000 workers.

My message on this first is to thank all our teams, which are again working hard in the region, facing the situation. I went myself last week to visit them, and I can tell you I had a strong feeling of a high mobilization of everybody facing these adverse events, and also I met of course our partners and authorities to reaffirm our commitment to the region.

Of course, we will have to draw some lessons from what happened, in particular to envisage some alternative evacuation routes for the production of oil in the region, but that will come after the conflict. This conflict immediately has some impact on TotalEnergies' operations, and we have been, by the way, very transparent, I would say, since day one to disclose all the impacts on our activities.

At this stage, the production is shut down in Qatar, Iraq, and UAE offshore, which represents approximately 15% of the total oil and gas production of the company, more precisely 360,000 barrel per day, because we continue to produce onshore UAE oil productions, 210,000 barrel per day TotalEnergies' share, which is evacuated through Fujairah terminal out of the Strait of Hormuz, and we also continue to produce the Dolphin gas between Qatar and UAE, because it's, I would say, a domestic Gulf production. While this is a significant portion of our production upstream, these Middle Eastern assets contributes less to our cash flow per barrel than the rest of our portfolio due to higher taxation in the regions, and these 15% of volumes, a little less, 360,000 barrel per day impact only account for roughly 10% of our upstream cash flow at $60 per barrel.

The company's cash accretive growth expected for 2026 is largely outside the Middle East, and you've seen that through the results of the first quarter, meaning that the higher oil price observed since the start of the crisis more than offsets, of course, the loss of production in the Middle East. An equivalent of $8 per barrel increase in the Brent is enough to offset the expected 2026 CFFO from the shut-in production.

We are, of course, today of more of $100 per barrel, I think even $115 per barrel this morning, which in terms of our sensitivities to price represent substantial additional cash flows. The impact on the LNG production shutdowns in Qatar or in Abu Dhabi on our LNG trading activities are in fact very limited, as our exposure to our marketing portfolio is limited to 1.5 million tons for the remainder of 2026.

I remind you that most of LNG produced by our JVs in Qatar are in fact marketed by QatarEnergy itself, and not by TotalEnergies. Finally, on our refining activities in the region, the SATORP site, which is owned jointly by Aramco and TotalEnergies, was impacted by strikes that occurred during the night of April 7 to April 8, causing damage to three units.

No casualties were reported. As a safety precaution, the units were immediately shut down.

A partial restart occurred on April 14, allowing to resume production at 50% capacity, 230,000 barrel per day, and the repair work on the first one of the unit, a VDU unit, are well underway, and we expect to restart and to increase the production to more than 300,000 barrel per day from early days of May, May 5 or around. That's the situation for our assets.

This conflict, of course, had consequences beyond the only perimeter of TotalEnergies, and now will impact the course of 2026 very significantly in terms of markets. Although the damage to upstream assets has been limited so far, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz constitute a major disruption to the world energy system, as it affects around 20% of worldwide oil, crude oil, refined products, and of course LNG exports.

There is very limited spare capacity of production outside the Gulf in reality. The immediate consequence was a surge in oil prices, which are now around $100-$115 per barrel, which have been extremely volatile with major swings in the past weeks.

Some days have been the highest days, I think we experienced eight of the 10 highest volatile days in the last 25 years during the month of March and April. Given the time required to restart facilities, but also, and more importantly, to reach the markets, because an oil tanker which will be loaded in Abu Dhabi or in Saudi Arabia will take 25 days of shipping to reach its customers in Asia, Korea, Japan, and so there is a time lag.

Even if the war was to end quickly, prices are expected to remain at higher levels. In all the scenarios I can read, and I agree with the scenarios I'm reading, either from the IMF or from some banks, at least $80 per barrel is expected for 2026.

In fact, the reality is that the 2026 surplus scenario that was anticipated by the markets and by ourselves, by the way, at the beginning of the year is now over, is behind us, with global hydrocarbon inventories being materially drawn to balance the market, already at a pace of 10 to 13 million barrel of oil per day. We have already consumed, I would say, 500 million barrel out of the inventories, and with the phenomenon I described to restart and to reach the market, it's probably more 1 billion barrel which will at least be consumed from the inventories, and we would exit, even if the conflicts, and I hope so, will end in the month of May, we would exit the conflict with clearly some very low inventories.

This conflict also has some impacts on the LNG markets and prices. We have seen that the European gas price have established today at around $15 per million Btu.

Again, we are facing now by this summertime the peak season for LNG, because it's only the warm summer season in Asia, which will draw and which will call for more LNG demand, but also it will be a season where Europe will have to replenish its storage, and as at the end of the winter season, we were at the lowest point of the last five years in terms of European gas storage, around 25%. We anticipate as well, and I was in Qatar, that QatarEnergy will wait for a real stabilization of the Strait of Hormuz before to restart the liquefaction plants.

You cannot turn on, turn off these plants easily. It will also impact, I would say, the time it will take to reach the market.

That's on LNG, and I would not be surprised to see some support from higher prices by summer season considering this time lag that Qatar LNG could go back to the market, and Qatar LNG represents almost 20% of the world market. In this context, the strategy of TotalEnergies demonstrates once again the ability of the company to capture price upside thanks to major strategic strengths of the company, and also I must say, and I compliment the team, because of a strong operational performance, which of course is of essence in such markets, during the first quarter.

First, of course, we are integrated along the value chains of oil, gas, LNG, electricity, and allows us to capture margins and prices all along the value chains, and provide us with a unique combination of activities in oil, gas, electricity, being a low-cost producer, transforming them into added-value products which can then be traded on the market and sold to our B2B, B2C customers. Secondly, we are a growing company and a strong organic growth, and we are demonstrating, quarter after quarter, our ability to strongly grow our production.

As you've seen, a 4% year-on-year organic production growth for the oil and gas business, and also of course electricity business. 4% for oil and gas was above our annual guidance of 3%, and which of course helps to offset, if not completely, it was completely during the first quarter, will be partially during the second quarter, the impact of Middle East conflict, but more importantly, it allows us to capture the upside of the high prices, because the incremental production, that's the new production that we put on stream is more accretive and generates more cash flows per barrel than the average of the portfolio.

Third, we are diversified, and I think this is again a strong lesson of this crisis, a strong diversification. Our rich and diversified portfolio allows us to compensate again the impact of the crisis in the Middle East through our geographically diversified portfolio of oil and LNG outside of the region.

It notably allow us to activate the flexibility of our LNG portfolio to ensure the security of supply of all our customers, and the diversity of the LNG portfolio, we are producing in 11 different countries, allows us to serve our customers in Asia rerouting some non-contracted volumes that we have in our portfolio to them, and not to declare any force majeure in our contracts. I can ensure you, because I visited some customers in Asia, that they appreciate very much the value of the contract commitment at TotalEnergies.

We have also, I would say, and it's another example of the optionality and of our diversified portfolio, I would say that more than ever, the decision to restart the Mozambique LNG construction in January could be fully appreciated, because it's a diversification which will be good for our portfolio by 2029. There was an article recently in a journal that the Mozambique will be the Qatar of Africa, and we are proud to build these projects in Mozambique, and it will help us to diversify.

I would say as well, as we are working hard, these events are giving a good momentum to sanction Papua LNG before year-end. In this context, of course, and compared to the beginning of the year where we were all cautious, there are no reason not to fulfill all our commitments for strong returns to shareholders, and I think the board has taken decisions yesterday that I'm happy to report to you, and considering, of course, the strength of the balance sheet, but also the environment, and taking into account the ability to demonstrate our growth, priority was again given to what I call the sacrosanct dividend by continuing to its strong track record of dividend growth, and we have decided to increase the first interim dividend by 5.9%, above probably market expectation, to €0.90 per share compared to last year interim dividend, which was at 0.85.

We confirm once again the leadership of TotalEnergies, not only in terms of dividend resiliency, but also more important, dividend growth among the oil and gas majors. Secondly, and we are, I would say, very pragmatic and consistent, once again, in view of the current projections of the evolution of the prices, not only the second quarter, but as I said, along the year 2026, the Board of Directors gave us the authorization to continue, of course, the share buyback program up to the high end of the range that we gave last February, which was $750 million to $1.5 billion per quarter.

We will target the high end of this range, up to $1.5 billion per quarter. The board as well reiterates the objective to achieve a cash payout ratio above 40% for the full year 2026, and we will monitor buybacks accordingly along the year.

Keep as well in mind that in terms of capital allocation, board attached great importance to deleverage the balance sheet, and we would be happy to see a gearing in the low teens by the end of '26 if the crude oil price was remaining above $100 per barrel. On that note, and I will now turn the call to Jean-Pierre, who will go through the details of the first quarter financials.

Thank you, Patrick. I will start by commenting on the price environment in the first quarter versus the first quarter '25.

Brent averaged $81 per barrel during the first quarter versus nearly $64 per barrel in the first quarter, up more than 25%, and average liquid price was up by $12.4 per barrel due to the time lag effect, in particular in the Emirates. TTF averaged $13.7 per million Btu versus $10.3 per million Btu during the first quarter '25.

Our average LNG price stayed at $8.5 per million Btu, oil price increase impacting LNG prices with one or two months of lag time according to LNG pricing formulas. Finally, the European refining margins remain at $11.4 per barrel on average over the quarter, with exceptional margin in March and poor margins in January and February.

In this price environment, the company reported very strong financial results, with first quarter '26 cash flow of $8.6 billion, increasing by 20% compared to the first quarter, and adjusted net income increasing by more than 14 40% to $5.4 billion. These results, as already highlighted by Patrick, were possible because of a strong operational performance of all businesses, which demonstrated the company's ability to fully capture the environment upside.

Upstream delivered a 4% upstream underlying accretive production growth, offsetting the production loss due to the crisis in the Middle East. Downstream, a very good operational performance of our refineries, with utilization rate on average over the quarter above 90%, that allowed us to capture high refining margins in March.

Trading was also able to take benefit from the high market volatility in March and delivered high performance on crude, petroleum products, but also LNG. TotalEnergies has delivered strong profitability this quarter, with return on equity at 14.4% and a ROACE at 12.7%.

Now moving to the business segments, and starting with hydrocarbons. On a year-on-year basis, excluding the impact of the Middle East conflict, first quarter oil and gas production exceeded expectation and increased by more than 4%, above the guidance provided of 3% for '26.

As communicated by the company from the very beginning, the production was impacted by the conflict in the Middle East, with an impact of around 100,000 barrel per day on average for the quarter, which corresponds on average to around 25 days of disruption during the month of March. E&P, exploration and production.

Turning to quarterly results and starting so with E&P division, the segment generated an adjusted net operating income of $2.6 billion this quarter, up by more than 40% quarter-to-quarter, fully capturing the increase in average liquid price of $12.4 per barrel over the quarter, and demonstrating the accretiveness of the new projects this quarter, Lapa South West in Brazil, Mabruk in Libya started up, and which, once ramped up, bring an additional production capacity of 25,000 barrel of oil equivalent per day. Similarly, cash flow reached for E&P $4.6 billion, up 26% quarter-to-quarter.

On the cost side, once again, we maintain our leadership with an average OpEx per barrel of oil equivalent below $5 in the first quarter '26. On Integrated LNG, on the production side, LNG production, it has grown significantly by 12% quarter-to-quarter, mainly supported by growth in Australia with Ichthys back to full capacity during the quarter, the United States, and Malaysia.

First quarter LNG sales reached 12.4 million tons, supported by strong spot activity, giving us a strong start compared to our yearly guidance of more than 44 million ton. Supported by this growth and strong trading activity capturing market volatility, the adjusted net operating income of Integrated LNG was increased significantly quarter-to-quarter to $1.3 billion, and cash flow to $1.8 billion.

Given the evolution of the oil and gas prices in recent months and the lag effect on pricing formulas I already mentioned, the company anticipates an average LNG selling price of around $10 per million Btu for the second quarter of 2026. As we execute our consistent strategy in LNG, the main milestone of the quarter was the full restart of construction activity at our Mozambique LNG project, with more than 6,000 people already on site as we speak.

This project will broaden the diversification of our LNG supply, a strength that the current crisis has put an additional emphasis on. Turning to Integrated Power now.

Net power production increased year-on-year to 11.7 terawatt-hour, with a 20% growth of power generation from renewables, offsetting the lower utilization of gas flexible capacities in the context of lower winter demand in Europe and in the United States. TotalEnergies has increased its renewable capacity by nearly 8 gigawatts over a 12-month period, on track to reach its objective of 42 gigawatts gross installed capacity at the end of the year.

Cash flow from operation was $0.6 billion, as no farm-downs were registered during the first quarter '26, unlike in the first quarter '25. This quarter again, we provide more granularity in Integrated Power financial performance, with a split in cash flow between production assets on the one side, renewable and gas-fired power plants, and sales activity on the other side, B2B, B2C, and trading.

The former contributed 35% of the cash flow, and the latter for 65%, in line with the first quarter '25, due to the seasonal nature of the marketing business, with more consumption, obviously, during the winter. Given the closing of EPH deal that we announced this morning, TotalEnergies has now a 50 a 50% interest in a portfolio of flexible power generation assets in Europe, and Integrated Power should then benefit in 2026 from 10 terawatt-hour of net power production, in line with the 15 terawatt-hour guidance given for the full year, and more than $500 million contribution to available cash flow in relation with this EPH deal.

Moving to Downstream, and during the first quarter, Refining & Chemicals was able to capture the exceptional margins in March, thanks again to the high availability of the refineries, which recovered their full operational performance. It was particularly the case in Port Arthur in the US and Donges in France.

Utilization rate reached 92% in the absence of plant turnarounds, and trading activities was also very strong for crude and products, taking benefit of the market volatility. Overall for R&C, adjusted net operating income was up by nearly $600 million quarter-to-quarter to $1.6 billion, and cash flow reached $1.7 billion.

In Marketing & Services, results remained consistently strong and reflects the seasonality of the business, with higher margin activities offsetting lower volumes linked to the disposal of some assets in Brazil and in Sahel in Africa. Moving to corporate, to company level, and starting with working cap.

Working cap increased by $5.1 billion during the first quarter, out of which $2.5 billion is related to gas business seasonality, and $2.6 billion that reflects the impact of higher hydrocarbons prices at the end of the quarter, notably on inventories. While the context remains quite volatile, we deploy our investment program with discipline, with net investments that amounted to $4.5 billion in the first quarter, with a neutral balance between acquisitions and disposals, in line with our quarterly budget, and we therefore reiterates full year '26 net investment guidance of $15 billion.

As a result, the gearing lands at 15.5% at the end of the quarter, with cash flow growth driven by higher energy prices partially offsetting, in particular, the impact of high prices on the working cap build. Looking forward now, we expect to maintain strong momentum, with hydrocarbon production excluding Middle East impacts in the second quarter expected to grow around 4% compared to the second quarter '25, in line with first growth we registered during the first quarter.

As we speak, as mentioned by Patrick, production shutdown in the Middle East still represent around 15% of the company's total production, and we anticipate refining utilization in the range 80% to 85% in the second quarter, which accounts for a two-month scheduled maintenance at Donges and the impact of the capacity reduction of SATORP commented by Patrick. As I mentioned, the company confirms it expects its yearly net investment to be at $15 billion for the full year, in line with annual guidance.

Therefore, net investments should trend downwards in the second quarter. Meanwhile, the company is evaluating options to accelerate short-cycle investments to capture current hydrocarbon price environment.

To conclude, this set of growing and earnings clearly demonstrate, in our view, the strength of our integrated model in oil, gas, and power, which enable us to seize price upside in the first quarter, and put us in a strong position for the second quarter and the rest of the year. With that, I think, with Patrick, we are now available to answer your questions.

You can open the line for questions, please.

Thank you very much, and congratulations on the strong results. I wanted to ask two questions on LNG.

The first one is about whether, with all of this crisis, you're starting to see a resurgence of demand for oil-linked, long-term contracts, and if that can unlock more LNG projects for you, like, for instance, PNG. Longer-term, I was also wondering if this crisis may actually be a bit more concerning and reduce some of the dependence on hydrocarbons from Asia, for instance, turn some of those countries more towards coal, solar, and energy storage as an alternative, and if that could actually make perhaps what already looks like probably an oversupplied LNG market from 2028 last well into the next decade.

Thank you.

I will take the second one first, Michele. It's quite clear for customers in Asia, a crisis in '22, another one in '26, the reliability, I would say, from an affordability point of view of the LNG will be questioned.

That's why, by the way, we think we have to promote to them the idea of long-term contracts not only related to spot price. That's very clear.

That's what the Europeans, because of their rule, are not benefiting from, but I think it should influence and put them more on this type of long-term contract. You are right.

That's the whole planet, not only in Asia. I think the governments will look again to, like we were in the '70s, domestic production first, I would say, domestic energy first, whatever it is.

Coming from coal when you have coal, coming from biofuels, by the way. Malaysia, Indonesia are beginning to raise their biodiesel content very logically.

Coming to renewables, of course, as well, and from this position, our company, TotalEnergies, could benefit from it, because we are also investing in electricity, I would say. That would be, and I would say, electrification will be also a global answer, because you can produce electricity from various means and not only from hydrocarbons.

That will be the big trend, I think, we will see, because security of supply, because again, affordability of energy is of essence. It's not a very good news, I agree, for the LNG markets.

As you said, probably the result of this crisis as well is that we push back some of the I would say, the famous wave, I think, because there will be some delays in some projects, because, by the way, we don't know today how long the war will last. We have no idea.

I always said that '26 would remain a good price. I think '27, we can be optimistic.

Then, what you said, the oversupplied LNG market will come from 2028. I would say, by the way, that it's not bad for customers to have an oversupplied market.

One of the observation I've done when I observe what happened today with the crisis, and it's quite remarkable, I know only two markets today where there will be no impact on the crisis, on the energy price. One was the US domestic gas price, Henry Hub, still remain at even lower, at $3 instead of $4 before, of 3.5.

Why? Because there is an oversupply, there is overcapacity, the Permian gas now is connected through pipelines.

The other market I observe is French electricity market, no impact at all, because also overcapacities of nuclear and renewables, by the way, both. We produce too much.

That means that it is a way to secure the affordability. From this perspective, because of what you said and the fear which could be generated to our energy customers, the fact that we'll enter at a certain point when probably more summer '28 than before or winter '28 will to I would say, a lower cycle will be good to convince them to come to us.

I make a link with your first question. Honestly, today, I think we were happy and lucky to have signed a lot of oil-linked contracts, because in this context where there is sort of a bullish price of oil, we have always quite been bullish, but I think this context, the crisis, will also impact, I would say, these oil markets, because there will be now something which was completely even hypothetical, which in fact was only putting in the risk cartography, which was the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, became a real possibility.

It materialized, this threat. This threat is materialized.

You have in the Gulf more than 20% of the 25% to 30% of the oil resource, oil and gas resource. Clearly, I think this will have an impact at the way that the markets will I would say, take this threat into even if we go back to a stabilized situation for the Strait of Hormuz, will have an impact on the markers, on the Middle East markers, I would say.

Today, I think we are happy to see that. We see appetite from Asian buyers for Papua LNG, not only because of the contract, but because of geographical position, I would say.

Of course, Papua LNG is perfectly located, not far from them, outside, any diversity is good. On our side as well, we think that, because of this geography, we will see if we sign long-term contracts for Papua LNG or if we keep some LNG for our own portfolio, because we like this LNG as well for our own portfolio.

Again, no problem from this perspective to sign, and we might be, I would say, in this context, a little tougher in the negotiation. What I've observed the last week, some Asian buyers come back to Henry Hub-plus, because suddenly, because they just observed what happens, and the stable, I would say, and affordable gas marker is the Henry Hub.

I think so there will be quite a lot of new popularity for the Henry Hub-plus if some LNG offtakers want to sell their LNG there. Definitely, this crisis has an impact on all this global LNG market.

Having said that, you've seen our results during the first quarter. While you have a strong diversified portfolio, you can deliver results when you have volatility.

I think we demonstrated that with our teams during the first quarter. I think we'll continue for the next quarter as well.

Thank you, Patrick.

Hi. Thanks for taking my question, and thank you for the comprehensive overview of your operations.

The first one was just on the comment in the release around accelerating short-cycle investments. Could you just unpack that a little bit more?

What opportunities are you looking at, and secondly, kind of what are you looking to see macro-wise or otherwise to put that capital to work? Then secondly, just a follow-up on Papua New Guinea, could you just talk about the steps from here to FID?

Are the fiscal terms all now agreed, and tenders, and so on, just any uncertainties there ahead of FID? Thank you.

Okay. First question.

You would have been surprised that we didn't mention that. I'm sure I would have a question.

It's quite natural from the CEO of the company that I've asked to my E&P teams, "Okay, is there anything to accelerate on the short cycle to benefit from higher price deck?" Because again, on '26, being confident is difficult in this world, but to see at least $80 per barrel, I would put quite a lot of my own money on it for the rest of the year.

By the way, it's an exercise which is moving on. I know there are a few countries like Angola, for example, where they have some ideas.

If we need to dedicate a few hundred million dollar to that, I would do it. Maybe I will tell you at the end of the day that it's not $15 billion, but $15 to $15.5 billion, but you will accept it if it's profitable on the short term, I think.

Honestly, I'm not sure it's so big, because in fact, when we built the budget, we did not arbitrate a lot of short-term cycle, in fact. We had a list of what we could cancel in case the price of oil were going down to $50 per barrel.

We prepared in case of, I would say, adverse markets. We have asked the questions, and I know that, because I visited some countries, that they have some few ideas.

I can be flexible on keeping the discipline, but again, if we can generate some good free cash flow on the short term, everybody will appreciate it. It's not probably as big as I just mentioned.

It's probably some few hundred million dollar that we could mobilize, subject to capacity to have the rigs, etc. We are working on it with some countries.

On PNG LNG, I think, it's a large big project, good, many partners. We have in parallel some, I would say, at least four workflows.

The CapEx side, I would say, and the EPC are progressing very well. We have made some recommendations to our partners.

We are waiting for the approval from one of them, I hope we'll get it soon so that we can move forward with these tenders. In parallel to that, we have, I would say, the financing of the project, because there is a project financing.

Both are linked, by the way, because as selection of the nationality of some contractors have an impact of the involvement of export credit agencies. There is a little sequence there, we need to have decided the contractors so that we can definitely confirm to the different credit export agencies.

I think there is some appetite, clearly, from Asian credit export agencies, but also we discuss with the US ones about it. We are moving on the financing of it as well, the second workflow.

The third workflow, as you said, is the discussion with the government. There are well progressed, I would say.

I could almost say finalized, but I didn't see the ink on the paper, but between the government and ourselves, there is an understanding on the agreement. Of course, it will have to be again approved by the all partners, we are, I would say, now in the process to close the loop, I would say, between partners, governments on fiscal terms.

The idea there is somewhere to protect the projects. The CapEx will be around $14.5 billion, it's not too cheap.

It's much better than the $18 billion, but it's still cheap. The idea is to protect projects when the price of oil are low and to give back some when the price are high above $90, I would say.

There is a sort of trade-off, which would be good. The fourth one is the marketing.

On the marketing, there is some progress, quite a lot of progress. Again, on our side, the more we look to Papua LNG, the more we have appetite for the LNG located in that region and diversifying our portfolio.

It's possible that we could market. Because we market not only our LNG, but the one of Kumul as well, we could market maybe 1 million ton on the long term and keep the other 1.5 to 2 for our own portfolio.

We are looking to different options. All that is progressing.

I would say the target is to sanction the project for sure before the end of the validity of the offers, which is, I think, around November. Because in this market, we don't want to reopen and to negotiate to extend offers.

We could face some inflation there. I think, and we are aligned, I think, with the partners on moving to the FID second half of the year.

With the governments, for sure. There is a last point to clarify if I want to be exhaustive.

We need to be sure of the way that the Kumul financing, there is a Kumul back-in, and we need to know exactly what is the back-in, which will be exercised. All these workflows, we are working on them in parallel to converge to the FID.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, and good afternoon to you both. Two questions, please.

Could you just touch on the early closing of the EPH transaction and what options that now gives you? Then secondly, could I come back to the cash return side?

I just want to be clear about what sort of the message is around where we see cash returns going through here, because obviously, you're at the top end of the guidance that you've given, but that was at $60 to $70. I'm just trying to work out whether you would go beyond that, or whether the priority then is the debt side coming down.

I just want to be clear on the messaging around cash returns for the rest of the year. Thanks.

Okay.

First point, EPH. First, teams have been very efficient.

By the way, the antitrust supervisory have been super-efficient, because even in Europe, it's been three calls to get the approval on this transaction, which allow us to close early for end of April instead of end of June. That means that we are now entering into this new company, TTE EPH, at a time which, by the way, not too bad, because as gas price are higher in Europe, and the electricity price in a country like Italy, we have a big exposure now to Italy, Italy is facing some increase of electricity price, and so these gas-fired power plant fleet will have a little higher margin, in fact.

Several euro per megawatt-hour beyond, I would say, the normal average margin, it's positive. Another good news, recently, the EPH team managed to get very attractive new capacity contracts for some plants in Ireland, around 200,000 200 pounds per kilowatt-hour.

We come with a tried time where it's good news. First, I'm happy to join, to make it earlier.

It gave us, of course, options, as you know. Now we will have access to 50% of the electrons of all this CCGT fleet, and so this will allow our teams to increase our trading business, but also to go to customers to sell them clean, firm power with combining gas electrons coming from the gas-fired power plants, flexible electrons with the renewable electrons.

That's exactly the case. We will move forward.

We gave you some indications, I think, in the press release that because it's from 1st of May, I think we evaluate the impact on the production around 10 terawatt-hour, and we told you that the cash flow should be at least two-third of an annual cash flow, which means at least $500 million of impact, maybe a little more. We'll see.

Let's enter in the venture. I would say, it give a push to the Integrated Power business, and you should see next quarter and third and fourth quarter, I would say, in the results and the cash step rise compared to this level where we are today.

Cash return, let's be clear. We are going step by step.

Yes, you're perfectly right. On the buyback, we gave you at the beginning of the year $750 to $1.5 billion, but it's $60 and $70.

We told you immediately on the second quarter, we'll monitor that quarter after quarter, to be clear. We go to a high end of the range, to $1.5 billion for this quarter.

Then, I have added in my comments that we are guided by another objective, which is 40% of payout. If you make the math, you will see that if we are at $90 per barrel, for example, as an average, it's an example, we'll need to go beyond 1.5 for the second and third quarter.

I think the idea is to monitor it progressively, because again, I don't know if we'll be at 80, 90, 100, but we reiterate this commitment, and the board reiterate the commitment in the press release to give you the guidance at least more than 40%. I have added to you that because more than 40 could be 40, 45, I just added to you another guidance to tell you that if we were in a scenario of 90 of $100 per barrel, if there is some cash, priority will be also to deleverage the company, and that if we are able to combine low teens of gearing and higher buybacks, we will do it.

That's the idea. I hope I'm being clear.

I will not give you a precise scale, what happens at 75, 80, 85, 90, 95. It's mathematical formula, I'm not a perfect engineer, I prefer you to guess now.

That's perfect. Thank you, Patrick.

The

Thanks for taking my question. I've got two, if I may.

I wanted to ask you about the two to three months sort of restart time that you mentioned in the release. I was hoping you could elaborate a bit on what really happens in that period.

What are the steps that are on the critical path that make this longer or shorter? Is it getting tankers back into the Persian Gulf?

Is it well intervention? Are there critical components in some of the LNG facilities?

Can you please make that sort of operational, logistical, sort of what really drives that? Secondly, I wanted to ask you about Mozambique, where we are now with the total budget for the project, and the timeline.

I remember a $15 billion, but I also heard a $20 billion. Could you just give an update on where we are now?

On the second question, it's easy. $20 billion has been consistent for the last two years.

15, it was long time ago. We have told you that there were some interim costs because of force majeure.

We have been obliged to renegotiate some of the EPC, I would say, contracts, because four years after, of course, there is inflation. I've repeated $20 billion in all my speech for the last two years, I repeat $20 billion today, and this is the budget on which we are, and which will put the financing, by the way, on the basis of $20 billion.

The rest is rumors, but this is the point. This one is easy.

The timeline, we have restarted since January, we have 6,000 or more people on the ground today, I've been there with the President of Mozambique, and construction has begun on the first train and jetty. Timeline is that the objective and the timing is to produce first LNG by 2029 on the first train.

That's where we are sticking to that timeline, and the mobilization and all this is on his way to reach this target today. On this project, in fact, we spent some money not only to safeguard equipment, etc., during four years, but also to progress all the engineering and the procurement.

All that has been done that is very advanced compared to a, I would say, traditional projects. We have a progress at end of March of the project, if I see the global progress of the project of end of March, is 42%, in fact.

We are not starting from scratch. We have progressed on this project, and so it's a matter to be able to construct.

By the way, since January, the security situation in Cabo Delgado is quiet, I would say, and well under control, thanks to the support of both Mozambique and forces, but also Rwanda forces, which are committed to remain in the area. Then on the first time.

Probably I was reading the press release the same time, because in fact, no, to restart facilities, it does not take two to three months. The two to three months is covering the whole cycle that I described in my introduction speech.

It's also the fact between the way you will restart all production, you will bring tankers, because the tankers which are today in the Gulf are all full. You have, as I think, something like several hundreds of tankers, you need to exit, you need to bring some empty tanker back, then you need to ship the new oil to, I would say, some destination in Asia, 25, like I said, it's 25 days of shipping.

It's longer if you need to go to Europe. It's more a matter of the delays, not only because restarting the wells is not very complex.

In the Middle East, production is generally quite easy production. We don't expect difficulties from restarting the wells.

It's more restarting the whole system to restabilize it, to come back to the flow where, before the war, you had every day 50 oil tankers moving in, moving out the Gulf, etc., and charging, loading oil or loading products. That's this cycle where we estimate two to three months.

It's not exactly what the word is restarting, it's not restarting production facility, is restarting or coming back to, I would say, a normal mode, we should have been more correct in our statement. What I said on the LNG side, I spent some time in Qatar.

On Qatari side, it's clearly, of course, we cannot afford to start on again liquefaction plants, then start off again if the crisis come back. I think Qatar, very wisely, wants to observe, I would say, some certain stability in the situation before to be able to restart.

That might take a little more time knowing that LNG tankers, the fleet is not as big as oil tankers, we need to move the LNG tankers, and then we don't use the Red Sea, for example, with LNG tankers, the voyage to come from Qatar to Europe is longer, you go around Africa. This is again an estimation more that the time that it will take to come back to, I would say, a normal situation, just to come back.

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. I wonder if I could also squeeze in two to Patrick and Jean-Pierre.

Maybe for Jean-Pierre or whichever one wants to answer this. You're getting an opportunity with these windfall oil prices, obviously, to address your capital structure, perhaps.

Obviously, working capital bumped up your net debt, but you also, I guess, added another hybrid bond pending the redemption later this year. I'm just wondering, where would you like to see the capital structure, and in this environment, why hold any hybrid bonds given those were something of an emergency issue during COVID?

That's my first question. My follow-up is very quickly, Patrick, I wonder if this environment, as it relates to refining margins specifically, has changed your view on Port Arthur as a core asset.

Perhaps on hybrid. The intent was not to increase the hybrid bond portfolio.

We are opportunistic at TotalEnergies. The hybrid market was very good in January and February.

By the way, it was before the crisis, before the $100 per barrel price. We decided to do liability management, just to anticipate, in fact, the bond that will mature end of the year by replacing it at good conditions.

It was €1.5 billion. That's all.

Our intention is not to increase this portfolio, just benefiting from good markets beginning of the year to in fact anticipate the redemption of the bonds. On the hybrid,

yeah. What about the capital structure generally, Jean-Pierre?

Why not take the opportunity to lower the net debt?

I said that. I just told you that the objective, if I want to reach a gearing of low teens, that means lowering the net debt,

in fact,

fundamentally. That's the way to reach low teens.

I told you that one of the primary objective, and that will be if we are at $90, $100 per barrel environment, the board, and I convey to you the message of the board, in the arbitration, we have on one side the 40% of payout to shareholders that will stick on, but if some of you ask me to go to 50%, I might answer to you, "No, 40% 40 more than 40 is our commitment, and the extra cash, we prefer to deleverage and to lower the net debt going down to a gearing of 10%, in 10s and maybe lower, in fact." For me, that's clearly, I would say, the direction we want to give you today.

We share your view. On Port Arthur, you have a buyer for Port Arthur, Doug, or what?

You have an idea in the head, or No, Port Arthur is a very good asset, it's, by the way, today making good results, I can tell you. It's a very positive asset in this environment.

It has a value for trading teams, because it's the only asset. Trading is in fact optimizing, I would say, our asset, molecules, and they optimize molecules around of assets.

It's the anchor point, and we have a strong trading arm in the US, and Port Arthur is, I would say, a tool for them. It's, on one side, for the refiners, a profitable asset where we have also, I remind you, integrates a lot of petrochemical assets with BTP and Baystar crackers, it's an integrated platform, and today, we benefit from good margins.

For example, today, we have engaged and we are on the verge to sign some trading contracts with Venezuela, with PDVSA, and part of the destination of PDVSA heavy crude oil will be Port Arthur, and our traders are developing a trading scheme around flows from Venezuela to the US Gulf Coast. I think that's the idea on Port Arthur.

Yes, it's a good asset delivering and contributing to the strong downstream results that we have experienced.

Very clear. Thank you, guys.

thanks very much. Patrick, I wondered if I could ask you about the UAE news overnight and the decision to exit OPEC.

What your personal thoughts are, how it leaves you thinking perhaps about the future and the robustness or otherwise of oil prices, just general comments. Secondly, if I can be greedy, any observations on Namibia over the last 3 months or how your sentiment towards that opportunity may or may not have changed as you've continued to look at the data?

Thanks very much.

Yeah. On UAE decision, it's a sovereign decision by a state, which we are heavily involved.

We knew for some years that the UAE were not specifically happy with the quota which was allocated to them. I think it's quite public by the OPEC, because the UAE have made, and we're contributing to it, we are one of the most exposed company to the UAE, onshore and offshore.

They had a program to raise their capacity from first to 4, and then to 5 million barrel of oil per day, where there was a test in January, an official test for the OPEC, by the way, where we reached during a week 5 million barrel of oil per day. By the way, it contributed before the war to the good production which was delivered by TotalEnergies in the first quarter.

This is their decision. On our side, as the CEO of an oil and gas company, we always supported the OPEC role in the market, but I've seen that OPEC or OPEC+, I've seen that Russia will continue with OPEC, with Saudi Arabia and OPEC+, and I think the UAE has also said that they will coordinate with the OPEC on the market.

I think, clearly, the statement, when you read the statement of the UAE, they are investing for growth, and they want to benefit for the growth, I would say, that's the way I'm reading their statement. Future for oil prices, honestly, Lucas, what happens today, you can see that the oil prices are not only relying on supply and demand, and a pure logic.

I think, after 11 years of CEO, I've seen more period of, I would say, external events to the market than really the market itself. We'll see what will the way that the different countries and the role that each country will want to play in that context.

On Namibia, I would say, good news for me in Namibia. We have engaged in January with the authorities at the highest level.

I went myself with chairwoman of Galp together. For sure, this combination of TotalEnergies and Galp in Namibia has been very welcome locally, very welcome, and it will help everything.

First, the sanction of Venus, then on Venus, we have an agenda with the government, which is to make our best on both sides to sanction the project by I would say, end of July, because we have again some offers by end of July, the tenders. Why is it positive?

Because they see our company as being the operator of choice, and we can discuss with them not only on one project, but they see not only our commitment to one, but to at least two projects, if not more, with Mopane behind Venus. The plan is clear.

We want to sanction Venus this year. There is a discussion with the government to amend a very old oil and gas law, in fact, from the beginning of the 2000s, which has never been really used in Namibia.

In fact, we are the first, in fact, to develop very large projects and ultra-deepwater projects. That's the point on which I think the authorities understand that these ultra-deepwater projects require some, I would say, some amendments to the standard terms.

This is on what we work today with them, and again, there is a good dynamic, because we are both sides in a win-win situation, and both, we see the perspective of the second project. On the second project, Mopane, our plan, and again, it will be approved soon, the plan is to, in fact, have an appraisal program with three wells.

We want to drill the first one. It's an appraisal program, let be clear, not to check if there is a development, there is a development.

The question for us, do we have 800 million barrel to develop, or do we have 1.2? It's a question of rich, and we need to appraise not to miss some resources by rushing to a first development, which would be not optimal for getting if there is more than 1 billion barrel.

We might adapt geographically when you look to the map. It's linked to the last well, which was well Brightguard, by the way, which opened some doors.

We want also to drill some seismic, OBN seismic to be sure that there is some resources. The rock on Mopane is better, I would say, the permeability is much better, we are more in a standard development, which will not require some fiscal discussions, I would say.

We could do that with the terms, because it's more classic. This one, I would say, the idea and the plan, which is approved with Galp, is to drill '26, '27, finish the appraisal, and then to move to sanction by '28.

One sanction in mid-'26, one in '28, and many more, because on this licenses, there are also still to explore. For me, Namibia will become for us a new anchor country, I would say, and by the way, it's a good I know that I will have some questions about the Middle East, but it's a good diversification, again.

To have options and to develop the options is a big lesson of what is happening, and on Namibia, we are in a good momentum. I hope I will be able to report to you by end of July that we have really materialized the first project.

Is that still the completion date, Patrick, for the transaction?

The transaction should be completed the same time, or a little before, in fact, a little before.

Thank you.

It's more on the transaction, it's more paperwork, to be honest, because the partners have lifted their preemption right, we are more on the paperwork with the Namibia government in order to move forward, and that's it.

Thanks very much.

Hi. Afternoon, everyone.

Can I get you to talk to the profitability of chemicals in the current environment? In oil and gas, looks pretty clear, but I'm not sure how to think exactly about your chemicals business.

Then my other question, and this might be a very, very short answer, but what is your trading business doing with tankers in the Straits of Hormuz? Do you have any traffic moving or do you see any arrangements where traffic can move?

Thank you.

I have good news for the second one. We had 10 tankers before the last weekend stuck in the Gulf, now we have nine, because one of the tanker has moved out of the Gulf during the weekend.

When Friday evening, I think, they both parties announced that the strait will be reopened, we gave instruction immediately to our traders to try to get out. There were two tankers which were in the queue.

The first one exited, the second one, unfortunately, was just after the Indian tankers which was attacked. In fact, all that was governed, by the way, by the insurance companies, because in fact, we were insured to go through the strait on the Friday evening, and when there was an attack in the Sunday afternoon on the Indian tankers, then the insurance companies told us, "There is no more insurance," so we went back to the Gulf.

This is the situation. Honestly, we are following on this one, of course, if we can exit, it's the best, but we are following the news, and we depend completely on the discussions between the different parties to the conflict, and that's the situation for us.

This is where we are. We have done a small business within the Gulf.

We managed to offload one of the because we have some refined products tanker which was full, we managed to offload it in one country and then to load it with some of crude oil. We try to do what we can inside the Gulf, trading inside the Gulf with these few tankers, but it's limited.

On chemicals, obviously, in fact, there are two different impacts there. First one, naphtha is more expensive because it's rare.

Because it's scarce, we've seen that the cracker margin went down in March. The good news is that at the same time, there is a scarcity globally of naphtha in Asia, and as you have a scarcity of Asia, you have some people in Asia with crackers looking for naphtha.

Then the price of the polymers have increased, and in April, for the first time for long, I've seen a positive results coming from my polymer business. I would say, by the way, I've observed in April that on all our business, including biofuels everywhere, in fact, the beginning of the scarcity implied by the crisis is pushing all our products in the green, I would say.

We are benefiting from that, and that's the beauty of the integration we have, but I see that on the end product. There are on the chemicals some downside on the cracker, but the polymers are much better.

In particular, and in the US as well, by the way, because when you are and that the advantage to be on the petrochemicals not only on naphtha, but we know part of our chemicals in the US and is on gas, and then when you have polymer price going up and you Henry Hub or ethane in the US is stable, the margin is much better. I see some, I would say, some good signals on the chemical business, which are completely the consequence of this crisis.

Net-net positive earnings in chemicals?

Exactly.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. I think one area you haven't covered yet is refining.

You're about the only company that breaks out your refining very clearly in the annual report. In total, it's grown to just under 1.5 million barrels a day, and jet fuel, aviation fuel is about 10% of that, just over.

Could you give us the dynamics between the different main products? Do you have the ability or desire to move the amount, for instance, of aviation fuel that is produced versus diesel and others?

Do you see cost headwinds as well as margin as we move through the year and into 2Q, as has been mentioned by other companies? Thank you.

Clearly, let's be clear. All our refineries today there was an instruction with the limit of a refinery.

A refinery, unfortunately, you distill it, you have a slate of products, but there is ways to optimize. All of them in Europe, the instruction is max jet first, and then max diesel, and then result in gasoline.

We try to maximize the two cracks, and in particular these days, which are the better, jet fuel, even is better than the paper jet fuel, is really high. Maximizing jet and then maximizing diesel, in particular because in France, we are big consumer of diesel, and diesel crack was quite high.

Then gasoline, we know that we have enough European refineries are producing a lot of gasoline, there is less incentive to do it. That we do at the max.

We don't go from 10% to 20%, it's a matter of adding 2% to 3%, but each percent, of course, is good for the global refining margin. That is clear, and we have done it immediately and systematically in order to be able because these are the critical, I would say, products, jet fuel and diesel, where which we are more relying on imports for the European continent, of course the margin is better, it's very logic, we've done that.

I'm not sure to have understood the question of the cost headwinds, what it is related to?

There's obviously been a lot of talk about the availability of feedstock and competition for crudes and certain grades of crudes, is that any impact? Yeah.

In fact, today, yeah, I understand. Some feedstock are, I would say, yes, are scarce, and so they are more expensive.

Again, yes, it's an impact. We see some, by the way, the refining margin were exceptionally high in March, around $25 per barrel, I would say the I think Jean-Pierre told you that, but it was very poor in January, February, and the 11.4 margin was the result of very non-linear, I would say, margin.

In April, there was some volatility in the margins linked partly to more volatile, linked partially to the feedstock which were coming in the refineries. That's true.

That's true, but again, on this one, clearly, I tell you, there is a very strong connection between refining in the company and trading. All that is optimized between both of them.

In fact, they are, by the way, the suppliers of the refinery are exactly next to the traders, and we interface between both of them in order to optimize the slate which will go to our refineries and what we should sell among all our crude oil that our traders have access to on the market. We make it as an optimization for the company.

It may be not optimal for the trading itself, but if it's an optimum on the refining and trading as a combination, then we will take the feedstock to the refinery. This is one of the advantage, I would say, to have these strong integration, and to think in particular in this type of period.

I know some people were thinking that we might have a lack of crude, we will never have a lack of crude, and so we optimize the type of feedstock we need to our refineries according to the access to many of these flows that our trading can generate.

Thank you very much. I'll hand it over.

Hi, good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions.

Firstly, on Qatar, how are you managing the force majeure situation in Qatar as it relates to your LNG portfolio and your commitments to customers, just noting that one of your IOC peers who's also a partner in Qatar LNG had to declare force majeure? Related to that, what is your view on the timeline of the Qatari LNG expansion project?

I also wanted to ask about SATORP. What's the repair timeline for the damaged units?

Again linked to that, what is the potential impact on the timeline of the Amiral project? Thank you.

Okay. Qatar, again, I repeat, I don't know why people do not believe us.

QatarEnergy has declared force majeure to its customers, that means that in Qatar, we have some JVs with QatarEnergy, and the marketing of this JV is done by QatarEnergy. Our JV, which are reported in the upstream part, which are, I would say, like the rest, are not producing today, there is no production, no revenue, and very logically, and very professionally, I would say, QatarEnergy has immediately declared force majeure to its customers.

That's one point. From this perspective, TotalEnergies is a customer for QatarEnergy only for our own offtake.

The difference between our competitor and ourselves is that because we are very exposed, and we know that to Qatar through the JVs, we have some limited contracts with Qatar as for our own offtake, for our own portfolio, and so the amount is around 1.5 million ton per year. We have this 1.5 million ton per year, we receive the force majeure from Qatar, because we are a customer for them, but then we decided that we will not transfer it, because by the way, in the way we work with our LNG portfolio, when we sign a contract with a Korean or Japanese buyer, or Thai, we don't assign, we don't tell them it is coming from Qatar, because we are a portfolio company.

We took on ourselves, and by the way, we told them we are a portfolio company, we produce in 11 countries, we secure you the supply. We decided, yes, we received the force majeure, but we will take it for us.

We could have done it probably, but we decide that it was in terms of commercial, in terms of what we advocate every day for their customers, the best position, because probably 1.5 million ton is absorbable in a portfolio of 40 million ton that we will deliver, we will not transfer the force majeure to any of our customer, that's what we've done. I know that our competitor is more exposed, because if I read correctly in the press, it's more 6 or 7 million ton than 1 million ton, 1.2 or 1 to 2.

Probably with 7 million ton, it was for them more logic. To be honest, my energy traders were ready to exercise the force majeure, but the management said, "No, be careful what we do," and so we've done it like that, no problem.

Timeline on Qatar expansion, I think the Qataris themselves, they have said that today the impact is evaluated to two months or something like that, I would say on the expansion on NFE first train, because NFE underground, Technip and the teams are continuing to work, in fact, offshore. The offshore works have been stopped.

I think it was planned for Q3 2026, probably today we are more on Q4 2026, and again, there is a difference in all this wording between when you put the gas in and when you offtake the first LNG. If you want my bet in my plans, I would say first LNG offloaded from NFE is probably right on the end '26, beginning '27, that's if I'm taking a bet on that.

That's where we are, and again, this is completely linked to how long this war will last, because as long as we cannot restart works offshore, of course, this might impact the timeline. SATORP, there are three units.

One, I told you, the first unit will be repaired very quickly, the VDU. That means that SATORP is able to produce some VGO in 10 days.

We could produce in fact full capacity VGO, but then you need to find somebody who buys the VGO. As we cannot export VGO because the Strait of Hormuz is closed, we will be limited to something like 300, 330 kbd thousand barrel per day.

Then we need to recover the two other units. The two other units are the conversion units, which allow us to transform this VGO in, I would say, diesel, and noble products.

This one, honestly, today, we don't know. We have sent some experts, and they are working together with Aramco.

There have been some damage to these units, it's a matter of at least six months, maybe more, we don't know, we are working on it. As we have been very transparent since the beginning of the conflict, when we'll have better news on it, but I would say not the Café du Commerce news, we will report to you.

At this stage, the teams of Aramco and TotalEnergies are working to evaluate really the damage, and more to evaluate the repair that we need to do. By the way, TotalEnergies, we have an insurance on this type of war events, which we might activate if the damage are higher than $150 million, this is our own limit, I would say, of threshold for ourselves.

Impact of Amiral, no, there are 22,000 people working in Amiral today on the ground. That's why we have all secondees Aramco.

I went in Riyadh, we discussed a lot about Amiral, we have the full support of the authorities for Amiral. Amiral, again, is progressing, and the progress of Amiral is today at 70%, this project.

The startup is planned by end of '27, I would say, beginning '28. Again, of course, what I just tell you today, if the conflict was worsening, which I don't hope, could change, this is just an update today with validity, but this is the situation for Amiral.

Thank you very much.

Hi, thanks for taking the questions, and congratulations on the performance of the integrated model in what's clearly been exceptional times. I wanted to ask, you guys engage extensively with host governments globally.

It's early days, but are you seeing any change in the tone of conversations as a result of recent events towards greater urgency, let's say, from some countries to develop domestic production and better secure energy supply? Then second, more specific to the financials, price and timing lags are an inherent part of several parts of TotalEnergies' business.

Wondered if you could just talk a bit about how that impacted Q1 given the sort of surging commodity prices more kicked in in March, and how that then sort of plays out as we look forward to the coming quarters. Thank you.

Okay. The on the second question, the obvious case is the LNG, because most of the contracts on LNG are based on have a time lag of one, even two months.

Obviously, we don't see, by the way, we and the average price of the quarter was $8.5 per million Btu, exactly what we planned in in February in the trading statement, in not in the guidance that we gave in February. That means that there was no impact on the March oil prices or gas prices, we expect to see the impact of the March high price, clearly, will be in the second quarter.

That's why we gave you a guidance, by the way, of $10 per million Btu, which, again, is reflecting price of March and assumption for the other months of $80 per barrel and TTF around $14-$15 per million Btu. Again, if it was if the crude oil was higher and remain higher, that could impact positively the this $10 per million.

This is the obvious case. On the crude oil, we have some few things, we have one country where by the way it's which where we have a a formula which is with one or two months delay, is the UAE, which creates, by the way, some difficulties when we and we are trying to solve them, because when you have a two months delay, that means that we could face the day that it will reopen and the price could go down, you could have to pay with two months delay, that's not a good situation.

We are discussing on that, but honestly, these are the main two. There are also some impacts on polymers and things like that, you know.

In plastics world generally, it's also you have also some delays in all the formulas. For example, answering I should have commented that in March, we suffered the naphtha that we bought was on the spot market, but the polymers and all the pricing do not reflect immediately the increase of the naphtha, you know.

That's what was negative on the naphtha, and this will be recouped in the second quarter, that's the time. Beyond one to two months, we don't have many time lags longer than that, might be exceptional situation with six months, but it's very rare, in fact, in the portfolio, okay?

Host governments, I think I answered in my first answer to to Michele, that was more the same question. Yes, I said to Michele, "Look, it's quite clear that today you begin to see, for sure, again, the governments are looking to what could we could we develop our domestic production, could we" That's obvious, securing the energy supply.

I said electrification, I said more more coal for countries who have coal, they will develop their coal, that's sure. India is more coal.

Renewables as well, so that's positive for renewables, I think, in many countries, including in Europe. Nuclear will be again, I I would not be surprised to see there was already a good momentum, but to see a country like India againChina, it's already done, but with nuclear programs, like some European countries.

We have been new France, after '73, we are French and Japan, and we will see no new country, coming to that. That's that's obvious to me, which is, as I said, to for sure, a challenge for the gas, because it's a competition, if you produce electricity.

Gas to electricity, gas is not only used for electricity, also used for heating, by the way, but it's it's it will be a some for sure a challenge. The other governments where I see a change of tone, it's I told you that I visited, of course, our our friends in the Middle East.

It's clear that on the agenda today, you have the question of of can we get around the Strait of Hormuz, you know? All we are discussing again on projects to build some pipelines, to double the pipeline to Fujairah, to double pipelines through Saudi Arabia.

Iraq, obviously, is in a situation where they need to revive some old pipelines which are stuck today, there is a pipe that was a pipeline crossing Syria, you have the pipeline through Turkey. It's for me, these countries, for sure, today, the question of their own, not security of supply, the security of delivering and of evacuating and commercializing will become high on the agenda of all these these countries.

Yes, this this crisis, and again, because it's not only an isolated one, we had '22, now we have '26, you have these question of security of supply and affordability, which is linked to that. Again, for me, it means, how do we remunerate more capacities?

We need to invest more in all these energy capacities will be high on the agenda and on in in many countries around the world.

Super. Thanks, Patrick.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone.

Just two more questions remaining. When we think back to February, and you gave us your outlook for cash flow during the year, you were referencing a 60 to 70 Brent range with refining margins at five, etc.

We're now in a different world, you've talked yourself about 80 as a as a, good starting point for the year. What what can you tell us how should we adapt your sensitivities that you've published, which I believe were meant for a 60 to 70 world rather than for an 80 to 100 world?

Where would you like to make some adjustments or or give us some warnings other than the volumes, of course, that you're not able to to sell right now in terms of the validity of these sensitivities? Then maybe as a quick second question, considering you haven't been active in the farm-down market, maybe I can ask you my favorite question, Patrick.

What do you think is the current state of M&A? I know it's not one market.

Power is very different from oil, from gas, but where would you rather be right now, a a buyer or seller? Thank you.

First question, Chris, I invite you to read page 14 of the press release, I think, and you have the table of the sensitivities, and fundamentally, they are between 60 and 80, you can extend 60-70 to 60-80. I've no doubt about it.

The only point is that if we remain in a situation of today, without the Middle East production, then, of course, we must correct it. That's why we gave you a sensitivity of 10% on the Middle East production.

I've made the math, just to give you, if we were in an environment around $80 per barrel, $15 per million Btu, $7 per refining margin, without the Middle East, we would be around $32 billion cash flow, $32 billion. It's again, if the situation remains the same, and if my scenario is not good, to be honest, because if it remains the same, we'll not be at $80 during the whole year.

If we lose really the production of the Middle East during the next nine months, I think you can correct my 80 to 100 or 110, again, you can take around $3 billion for it's 2.8 officially, but $3 billion for and it's a little more, you're right, because in fact, when we go high at $100, the Middle East impact of the production, the loss of this 15% is no more 10%, it will go down to 6-7%, which means that the higher will go, the more the sensitivity will rely on the barrels outside of the Middle East. Your question is good, but we need to make the math correctly at 100.

We will do it, and I think Renaud and his team might publish it if you want, because this information is important, we might publish it on our internet site. There is less impact from the production of the Middle East at 100 that we have at $60, that's true as well.

That's what I can comment. All that is, to be honest, any high scenario is a good news for integrated companies like TotalEnergies.

Great. Thank you.

Looking forward to that, Renaud. You're great work.

No, no, it's okay, it's not so complex. Renaud is not able to make the math, but the budget guy is able, don't worry, he just needs to correct it.

No, no, with what I said, he should be able to do it. Just a joke between us.

Okay. M&A, M&A of M&A, M&A on oil, honestly, today is difficult, because where is the right price deck for the oil asset in the next three years, you know?

There was a sort of consensus until the crisis, I think oil was more or less assets were more or less exchanged around $70 per barrel, I would say, in the market. It was more or less the market, and was some few good debate, but it was more or less the average assumption.

Today, and of course, to put $70 for the next for '26, '27, '28, I would not agree if my teams are proposing me to sell at $70, I would say, "No, no," and it's very difficult, because there is no certainty at all about where will establish the market. You could say it's 80, 75, you could say also maybe it's 100.

I think M&A on oil today is not an easy game to play, and and I'm sure neither from the of course, the buyer would love to buy at $70, but I think the seller will be a little more difficult to convince. That's where I see that.

On the gas, different, we are looking on our side to the gas US gas business on the other side, and these US gas market has been stable, I think that means that by the way, the when you look to the assets on that side, it doesn't it didn't move a lot valuation, so that's more easier for on this side. Power, power, is they are all crazy in the US with gas-fired power plants, it's not a good market to buy gas-fired power plants.

They are more reasonable in Europe because we we don't we are not in love with gas with gas in Europe, it's good to continue to buy M&A, to make M&A on gas plants in Europe, and we are looking to some opportunities in to complement the portfolio. An obvious country for us to look at is Germany in Europe for from a power point of view.

That is the situation. Then if I continue, M&A on renewables, by the way, I have a good news for all of you.

You didn't ask me the question, but we got the money from the US government on our account yesterday. We have the the the famous $928 million.

By the way, the share for TotalEnergies out of the 928, because we had some partners on one of the of the concession, is 550. We'll have this cash in coming, is already in, is already in.

On renewables, the market is influenced by higher interest rates, it's is not so, but it's much, the multiples in that field are quite high compared to oil and gas, but I see a sort of impact on raising raising interest rates on the valuation of these assets.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Yes, hello, everyone. Thank you for the update.

Just one quick question left for me. Going back to the trading great performance in the first quarter in both oil and gas, I'm wondering if you have any comments on the second quarter.

Should we be expecting a continuation of a strong performance given we've seen already one month with significant volatility, and maybe a full quarter of significant volatility in both markets? Thank you.

I cannot answer that question. We have no idea.

No, trading is not a matter of running a plant and taking the production, multiplying by an assumption on the price minus the cost. It doesn't work like that.

I can only comment that there is a very volatile market, that the traders generally are happy when they see volatile power market, up to a point, when it's too volatile, there are some danger and when the volatility is not related to supply and demand, but to the tweets of some authorities in the world, it's even more dangerous, because you could face suddenly a reverse situation. We are not betting on price.

The trading of TotalEnergies is an asset-backed trading, and we are not betting on the oil price, we are not exposed to flat price in the trading we do. No, it's impossible.

I wish they will reiterate a strong performance. When we say in a press release that there is an exceptional performance or a strong performance, to qualify it compared to the normal run rate.

The normal run rate of our trading is quite good, by the way. Again, I have no information.

They make their book. By the way, there was a lot of comments in newspapers on one specific position which was taken by our crude oil traders, but when they take a position on one side, they have some other position on the other side, it's not one-sided.

Yes, they made a position which was long in the Gulf at the beginning of the war, that's true, but there were other positions which were not as positive. By the way, our product trading team was quite good to benefit from the fact that in Asia, there was a scarcity of products, and to be able to supply Asia with products.

There were a strong performance there. I would say, different markets, different flows.

We'll see. By the way, just to confirm to you, when I mentioned a figure to Chris, I think I said $32 $32 billion of cash flows, I have normalized the trading to a normal run rate, our run delivery, and not an exceptional one.

If there was repeating quarter after quarter same performance, then my 32 is a little short of the reality. Okay?

I cannot answer to you more than that, Henri. A book of trading is plenty of trades, and we'll see the results at the end.

What I can confirm is that the trading division of TotalEnergies is quite successful, and I never see them underperforming the market, either they are I would say on the average or they make strong performance. That's it.

Thank you.

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

Just one from me. I just hoped you might be able to provide us with a bit of an update on some of the key projects which are due to come online this year, perhaps if you could comment on Ratawi Phase 1, which I imagine is affected by the current situation in the Middle East, and then maybe also Tilenga due to come online later this year.

That'd be really helpful. Thanks.

On Ratawi, we have, I said, that we have 5,000 people working on the ground, but there is no way to export the crude oil. We were planning to start up by Q2.

I would say, logically, what I can answer to you today, it's not Q2, it's more Q3 than Q2. The question will be not only to build the plant, and the plant is almost done, in fact.

It was a question of one month and a half on Ratawi. It's more a question to be able to produce the oil and to export it, which is today, I would say, the limit to start up Ratawi.

As quick as we can, obviously, and no problem, the wells are drilled, is ready to produce, restarting Ratawi, it's a matter of few days, and we have teams on the ground, it's easy. By the way, just before the conflict, we started up the solar plant in Ratawi, the first project which came on stream was the solar plant, the 300-megawatt phase, and the authorities were quite happy, because facing a lack of gas for making electricity, we are supplying some solar electrons to the Basra area now since end of February.

Tilenga is moving on. We told you that the startup of production for Tilenga will be end of Q4, end Q4, end of Q4, I would say.

We were explicit in February, I think, there is no change on this part. What is progressing well is EACOP.

We think that EACOP might be completed September, October, and by the way, as Kingfisher, the other projects in Uganda, where we are partner, will be probably ready by summertime, it's possible that we'll begin to flow the oil from Kingfisher first through EACOP, it's a long pipeline to fill, but operations and crude oil production from Uganda might start up just after summer, I would say, September, end of Q3, and then Tilenga is Q4.

Brilliant. Thank you.

Thank you for taking my question. It relates actually to the offshore US where you just announced you had the cash back.

Do you consider offshore wind US as a dead zone for the foreseeable future, or do you still see it as a future development zone in case an administration would become more receptive to this kind of developments?

No, I was clear, I commented that in a US newspaper, I think. I could use the word of Darren Woods, it's non-investable.

It's non-investable, because the cycle of an offshore wind project is much longer than the duration of a US administration. Offshore wind requires a long cycle of permitting, developing, negotiating.

If every four years you are stuck because you have a change, no, it's not possible. More fundamentally even than that.

When we studied all these projects in front of New York to Jersey, and frankly, it was very difficult. The offshore part was quite in line with what we expected, even if there was some cost increase from the, I would say, the turbine point of view, but what was very expensive was the subsea cable, and landing a cable, subsea cable to serve a New York, very urban city, New York to Jersey was much more expensive than planned.

At the end of the day, we would be able to deliver electricity to around $150 per megawatt-hour. It's much more expensive than what you can do in the US.

In terms of allocation of capital, and considering the various ways to produce electricity in the US with plenty of gas, solar, onshore solar, onshore wind, it's better for us to develop our position in the US, but with the most efficient allocation of our own capital. For consumers as well.

No, the answer is definitely it's not a matter for the US, but as TotalEnergies, we consider that it's not a good market for developing offshore wind. In fact, what I also say, I think developing offshore wind requires some specific market.

It's a question of cost-merit curve to produce electricity, and it's linked as well. UK, Germany, France are some interesting countries, because they have less capacity to develop onshore renewables, because limited space, in fact.

There is a market there, we will concentrate on these projects. The other lesson we draw is that it needs to be big to be profitable.

We are cleaning our portfolio. We had a small projects in Denmark, we are just exiting it, because it does not fly.

Honestly, Brazil, Philippines, India, forget all that, it has no interest. There are plenty in Brazil, you can produce plenty on onshore wind in Nordeste with Casas dos Ventos, which cost much less than offshore wind.

Offshore wind is more expensive, it should be dedicated to markets which could afford it and which need it. That's the conclusion which we draw for ourselves.

We will concentrate on some projects which are large, by the way, and on which we believe that the fundamentals are good. That's the reality, you will not see newspapers and press release that Total is back in US offshore wind.

As long as I am CEO and Chairman of the company.

Thank you.

Thanks. Good afternoon.

I wanted to ask about battery storage, and especially in the context of seeing Europe having its earliest curtailments of renewables this year, the record level that's expected this year, and the extreme negative pricing. I just wanted to get what's your view on battery storage growth in Europe, how you see the Iran conflict accelerating this, and then what's the role of Total and Saft within this context?

Fundamentally, it's not linked to the conflict. When you develop renewables, you should put battery.

The good news on the last two years, in fact, the cost of batteries have been divided almost by two, battery cells, thanks again, by the way, to Chinese suppliers, but it's a reality. You have a strong decrease of batteries, and I think it's absolutely necessary in order not only to avoid curtailment, but also it's a matter of grid management.

When you develop a renewable farm, you should have some battery. I'm against the CFD scheme in Europe, because in the CFD scheme, the developer, solar wind developer, has zero obligation to build a battery.

He is securing a price from the state, and sometimes the states are smarter, they say, "We don't pay you if it's negative," but in fact, it's just a strange scheme, in fact, the CFD. The scheme which is working in the US where you have some fiscal support on your CapEx, ITC or PTC, is much better, because in fact, if you are facing the market when you develop your solar plant, and for sure, you always build a battery storage with the solar plant, otherwise, you are dead and your profitability will be low.

I think it's obvious that and the more we see, by the way, as you said, investments and development of new solar farm in Spain, for example, but even Germany, we begin to see the limits, and the curtailment is higher and higher because there are no batteries. Yes, I think it's time to really incentivized in battery storage.

On our side, we are investing in batteries, we have in particular in Germany, where it's a good market, because there's a lot of renewables. We have a company that we acquired two years ago, and we are developing 2 to 3 gigawatt of batteries.

We just farmed down part of some of them at 50% to Allianz with a good profitability. Yes, we think there is a real market, in particular in Europe, and not only because of the Iran conflict, it should be accelerated if Europeans are serious about, I would say, developing the penetration of renewables in Europe, it's absolutely fundamental to do it together with batteries even to stabilize the grid and to be able to absorb the most of this renewable production.

Saft, to come back, Saft is good, is strong, is developing very well on these energy storage system business. We think they are number four, five in the world, and they are taking quite a lot of markets.

It was one of the reason why we acquired Saft, it was a little long this market to, I would say, to take off, but now it's really full speed on it. There are also some technology improvements which allow to think that the cost could also, when I was discussing with the Saft CEO, he thinks that the battery storage has already diminished by 50%, but another 30% decrease is possible on the cost thanks to higher density of energy storage, et cetera, et cetera.

Thank you.

Yes, hello. Sorry, my mic was off.

It's a follow-up on Mark's question on refining. One of your competitors explained yesterday that because of various factors like major dislocation and crude differential, product yields, or freight costs, its realized refining margin in April was about $5 less than its headline margin indicator.

Do you see that, and can you also tell us what is the average of Total refining margin indicator so far in April? Thank you.

I didn't see such a dislocation, to be honest. I know that the ERM, Normally, we have an indicator in the company, but my team does not have it.

Okay. In fact, the realized refining margin of the first quarter was around 10.5 while the indicator we gave you was around 11.4, there was a little lower, but not $5.

We suffered less. That's true that, honestly, today, one of the issue, to be honest, and including today in April, we have some yes, and it's true.

I'll give you another figure just because I want to be solidarity with my colleague. In April, the indicator was around 25, and the realized margin on variable cost was around 21.5, you had not five, but $3.5 of difference.

Why? Because, honestly, these paper markets today, these indicators are difficult to follow.

That is going that way, the other month, it could be the other way. Each of us are trying to trace an indicator to give a sense of what is happening on the market, but there is dislocations, and it's perfectly true today.

By the way, it was an extraordinary situation, March where you've seen high oil price and high refining margins. Normally, it's rebalancing, it's countercyclical.

That's not the case. Again, at the end, what I know is that I've never seen in my life such high margins on the paper, it's good, even if there is a little difference between a paper indicator and the realization, it's still delivering very good and strong results, so that's the situation.

Again, I know we have a debate internally because daily our teams are calculating this famous refining indicator based on the market, and we have some big doubts, because on the other side, when we see that we can sell jet fuel at more than $200 per barrel, we are not sure that all that is completely consistent. Today you have, in fact, as you have a dislocation between the physical market and the paper market, which is quite astonishing, at a certain point, it should converge.

This type of indicators are not so reflecting the reality of what is happening on the day-to-day marketing of the products.

Thank you very much, very helpful answer. Thank you.

Thank you, Bertrand.

Okay. Thank you for your assistance.

Thank you for your comments. I think it was a quarter where, once again, we demonstrated the strength of our model.

I think we will not disappoint you in terms of return to shareholders. The share of TotalEnergies since we have been listed in the New York Stock Exchange on December 8, I'm looking to that as a starting point of the renaissance of the company as outperformed all our peers by quite a margin.

I hope that this set of results will help to maintain it, and again, if we can attract more shareholders to this TotalEnergies and to globally the sector, it's good. Thank you for your attendance, and I think we'll have opportunity to meet in coming months, and all shareholders, for sure, will meet on the annual general meeting on May 29, I think, in Paris.

Thank you again.