And thank you all for joining here in the room, and thank you for participating on digital. So for Equinor, 2025 was a year of strong deliveries, but it was also a year of increased geopolitical tension and market uncertainty. Our job is to ensure we allocate our resources in a way that maintain a competitive business, creating value at all times. Today, Torgrim and I will show how we take the necessary measures to further strengthen our competitiveness, cash flow and robustness. This makes sure that we can navigate through and leverage market volatility and the current macro environment. So we have 3 key messages for you today. First, we are well positioned for maximizing long-term shareholder value. Today, we will share how clear strategic priorities guide capital allocation for 2026 and '27, and we will revert at our Capital Market Day in June to present our strategy towards 2030. Second, we take firm actions to strengthen free cash flow. We reduced our CapEx outlook with $4 billion and maintain strong cost discipline. This makes us more robust towards lower prices and ensure that we can maintain a solid balance sheet through the cycles. And third, we continue to develop an attractive portfolio, delivering oil and gas production growth. With this, we are prepared for volatility ahead. The energy transition is shifting gears in many markets with governments and companies changing priorities. Current oil prices are supported by geopolitical risk, but we are prepared for strong supply combined with moderate demand growth, putting pressure on the oil price in the near-term. For gas, the European market has seen cold weather and high draw on storage in late December and in January. Storage levels are now around 40%, significantly below average for the last 5 years and also lower than…

So thank you, Anders, and good morning and good afternoon, and thank you for joining us here today. So 2025 was a good year for Equinor. We delivered strong performance and record high production. But before we dive into the financial results, I want to expand on how we will manage through a period of volatility. So we are prepared for lower prices with a strong balance sheet, lower cost and CapEx and an attractive project portfolio. Our financial framework sets the boundary conditions for how capital allocation -- for our capital allocation and how we manage our company. So to start, our highest priority will be to deliver a robust and a growing cash dividend, in line with our dividend policy, and this reflects growth in our long-term underlying earnings. Then we will continue to invest in an attractive and high-graded investment portfolio with low breakevens and strong returns in line with the following priorities. First, our unique position on the Norwegian continental shelf gives us competitive advantages. And this is why we will continue to prioritize developing this area and allocating almost 60% of our investments to an area we know better than anyone. In '26, we have 16 projects in execution in Norway. Many of these are tie-ins to existing infrastructure with low cost and very low breakevens. Then we will allocate 30% of our capital to our international oil and gas business. This is mainly to sanctioned projects, and we expect to increase production to more than 900,000 barrels per day in 2030. And then around 10% of our capital will be allocated to building an integrated power business where the main focus is on delivering our offshore wind projects in execution safely, on time and on cost. Outside these 3 areas, we expect limited investments…

Congrats on strong results. So 2 questions. First on CapEx. You obviously reduced the guidance for 2027. I just wonder how we should interpret the run rate into 2028. Should we also assume that 2028 CapEx will be well below the $13 billion you previously announced? Or is that too early to say anything about? And second question, that is on MMP. Could you just explain what's behind the price review that boosted the results?

Thank you very much. So you can think about the price review, Torgrim, while I'm talking about the CapEx. Yes, you're right. We have reduced the CapEx. We have -- when we are looking into the CapEx profile over the last years, we have had consistency. You have seen that we have consistency investing into Norwegian oil and gas and in international oil and gas. And last year and this year, we are reducing the CapEx outlook for our renewables and low carbon solutions. And this is due to that 2, 3 years ago, we had a different market view than we have today. We don't expect that this market will change dramatically over the next years. We intend to continue focusing, investing consistently into our attractive oil and gas portfolio that Torgrim demonstrated and be market-driven and invest in low-carbon solution and power when the time is right, the profitability is right and the market comes. So I cannot give you the guiding for '28 already. But with this consistency investments in oil and gas and this change we have done in the CapEx for renewables and low carbon solutions and the market will probably not change very much over the next years, I think you will see somewhat consistency in our CapEx guiding going forward, and we will come back to more details about this in June.

And thanks, Teodor. On the price review, that is a normal mechanism in many of the gas contracts where sort of if the price in the contract dislocates from what the market should have been and the price should have been, we have a mechanism to renegotiate or open up that. We often disagree with customers in processes like this. And often, we take such things into arbitration as we have done in this case. So that has gone on for a while, and we won in that arbitration. Over the year, we have accrued revenue related to that because we consider that we had a strong case. We had an even better outcome than what we accrued as such. So this will be a one-off payment during the year. And from now on, there is a new mechanism in place on that contract as such. Bård Pedersen: Sorry, Teodor, I need to stick to the 2 questions because we want to cover as many as possible. And the next one is on my list is John Olaisen, ABG Sundal Collier.

First question is regarding Johan Sverdrup... Bård Pedersen: John, please use the microphone so people can hear you online.

Okay. Sorry. It's John Olaisen from ABG. My first question is regarding Johan Sverdrup. Anders, you quoted in the media today saying that you expect it to decline by more than 10% this year. I wanted to elaborate a little bit more on that. How much more? And do we expect the same for the next few years? So that's my first question on Johan Sverdrup production profile. The second question is regarding M&A. You've sold a lot of assets internationally. So I wonder, do you still have assets on the sales list internationally? And also secondly, it's a long time since you bought assets internationally. Do you have -- are you looking at potential acquisitions internationally? Those are the 2 questions, Sverdrup and M&A.

Thank you. First of all, when it comes to Sverdrup, I think we have demonstrated over many, many years how we've been able to keep up the production, even increase it due to the fantastic work that is done by the people working with Johan Sverdrup. Then a field like this is like all other fields, eventually, it will come into decline, and we see that now. So we see a decline in Johan Sverdrup for 2026, which is more than 10%, but well below 20% and that is what we put into our numbers. Still, we will have a growth in Equinor of 3% for 2026 and actually also a growth both on the Norwegian continental shelf and internationally. And of course, based on all the good work, drilling new wells, placing the wells better, retrofitting the wells, high production efficiency, have a high water cut and flow through the separators. The team is working to make sure that this decline is as low as possible. But above 10, well below 20 is what we see and kind of planning for in 2026. Well, we don't have a specific list of M&A sales candidates and targets that we disclose. But I think what you have seen, what we have done in the past, we have been active both in divestment where we think the timing is right to create value and where we see that future investment can be used better elsewhere that we have monetized those assets. And when we have seen opportunistic opportunities to invest, we have done it like twice in the U.S. gas in the Marcellus. You can expect us to be active going forward. And we have had a strategy of optimizing the international business, and we have optimized it now and set it clear for growth. And now is the focus to deliver on that growth finding more attractive exploration opportunities within those selected areas and at the same time, be open for value-accretive opportunities in the market. Bård Pedersen: Thank you. Next on my list is Henri Patricot from UBS.

Two questions from me. The first one on the cash flow guidance for '26, '27, you do show this meaningful improvement in '27 to $18 billion. Could you give us a bit more of a breakdown behind this improvement? I think you mentioned Empire Wind starting up, some tax lag effect. What else is contributing to this sharp increase? And then secondly, I was wondering, there's uncertainty still around Empire Wind 1. What would be the impact to the financial framework you presented today if the project does not complete or implications for the broader CapEx and shareholder returns?

So if you, Torgrim start with Empire Wind, then I can take on the CapEx reduction for '27 afterwards.

Okay. So thanks, Henri. On the Empire Wind, clearly, we are steered by sort of forward-looking economics and forward-looking cash flows when we make up our mind. So from now on, the remainder of investments will be covered by the ITC and cash flow from operations over the next 2 years in a way. So the threshold for not moving forward with it is extremely high in a way. I mean the total economics of that project life cycle is something else. But clearly, the decision that we have to make is actually how it look going forward. And going forward, it's actually pretty solid. So the threshold for stopping it is very high. Our job is to deliver this on time and schedule. And I must say, I am extremely proud of what that project organization has been able to do through all of this volatility this year to keep it steady on the track. So we are on track to deliver, and we have no other plans than that.

Yes. And then the cash flow from operation that is increasing from $16 billion to $18 billion towards '27. This is based on flat price assumption, $65 on the oil price and $9 and $3.5 for Europe and U.S., respectively. And the answer here is that this is the tax lag. We are this year paying a higher tax based on higher prices last year on the Norwegian continental shelf. And it's also a 3% production increase in 2026 that will also contribute to a higher cash flow. Bård Pedersen: Good. I have a long list also online. So let's take a few from there. The first one to raise his hand was Biraj Borkhataria from RBC.

Just the first one is a follow-up on Johan Sverdrup. You mentioned the decline for 2026. What is in your base case for 2027 and beyond? Because obviously, it's quite a big part of your portfolio. It'd be good to get some clarity there on the decline rates. And then the second question is just on the Empire Wind budget has obviously gone up a little bit. How should we think about how much contingency you have in that new $7.5 billion budget?

Well, when it comes to -- we are guiding now on Johan Sverdrup for 2026. And to say what it will be in '27 is too early. As I said, we have a fantastic team there that will do everything they can to reduce this decline. We will drill new wells. And I also remind you that in the end of '27, we will have Johan Sverdrup Phase 3 coming on stream as well. We have ramp-up of other fields on the Norwegian continental shelf, meaning that despite this reduction in '26 decline in Johan Sverdrup, we will still have a production growth. And then we will see now how Johan Sverdrup behave during the first part of the decline and how we are mitigated and then we will come back to it. So it's too early to say. When the increases on the Empire Wind, it's very much related to 2 elements, is tariffs that has been imposed to the project and is also an effect of the first stop-work order that we had. The second stop-work order, we were able to execute part of the project, most of the project in the beginning of the stop-work order. And the most important parts of the progress, we were able to do after the preliminary injunction. So very little effect of the project. So it's the execution part of it -- it's going well in terms of CapEx -- use of CapEx in this project, but there is a remaining uncertainty on tariffs. You might remember a couple of weeks ago, a 10% tariff due to Greenland that was removed a little bit a few days later, and that is some of the uncertainty that we are facing with this project. Bård Pedersen: The next one on the list is Alastair Syme from Citi.

Just one question really to Anders. I just wanted to reflect on the journey that Equinor has been on in recent years with respect to the transition because you are signaling today a further scaling back in ambitions with a lower CapEx and look, I know you're not alone in doing this in the industry. But if I go back a few years ago, you had outlined a competitive position where Equinor could be differentiated in the transition space. So I guess my question is, what are your reflections on this journey? And what do you think has happened that is different to what you anticipated several years ago?

Thank you. It's a really good question. And I think kind of this is where we were saying today that we are signaling a consistency. We have over the last 5 years, been extremely consistent in our communication around oil and gas and how we will develop the oil and gas portfolio, optimize it, and we have delivered on that. But we also had a different market view on offshore wind and the transportation and storage of CO2 in particular. This is where we were -- had experience. We saw a market growing for transportation and storage of CO2 going faster than we actually have seen. We -- for instance, also for hydrogen, a couple of years ago, we actually had head of terms contracts with customers. Those has been canceled, meaning that we have not been able to progress a lot of these projects within that area. But keeping in mind, we were able to -- been able to do Northern Lights -- Northern Lights Phase 2, Northern Endurance. So we see now that the licensing for or support regimes and applications for capturing CO2 goes slower despite that the framework and the laws are much more in favor of CO2 now than it was before. So to summarize very quickly, we had a different market view some years ago based on real discussions with governments and potential customers than we have today. 3, 4 years ago, customers called us to buy natural gas and was also asking for potential hydrogen and transportation and storage of CO2. Today, they continue to buy natural gas, but they have postponed their own targets for reducing emissions beyond 2030. Some years ago when everyone had a 2030 target, much more focus from customers to have this market up and running very fast. Now with different targets beyond 2030 to collect enough CO2 to have long-term contracts we have found it very difficult. That's why we are allocating no more CapEx into that area due to the market conditions. So that is what had happened. And we have focused on business-to-business with hard-to-abate industry that has postponed the targets. Bård Pedersen: Next question is from Irene Himona from Bernstein.

My first question is one of clarification really. You referred to your objective to build an integrated power portfolio. Typically, when your peers refer to integrated power, they mean essentially adding gas-fired power generation to renewables. So I wanted to ask what does integrated power mean for you? And how does �rsted fit in that? My second question, just going back to the share buyback. Previously, in the past, you had guided to a long-term sustainable through-the-cycle share buyback of around about $2 billion. Today, you lowered that to $1.5 billion. I'm just trying to understand what has changed between then and now essentially.

You can start with that, Torgrim, and I'll do the integrated power.

Okay. Thanks, Irene. So well, we have said at earlier years, $1.2 billion as sort of the sustainable level in a way. So $1.5 billion is actually above that. We retired the $1.2 billion a bit back. To give a little bit more context, Irene, it's the concept of having a stable share buyback through a cycle, comes a little bit theoretical. We're just coming out of a super cycle, and we have returned $54 billion over the last 3 years based on that in a way. So where we are now, we are actually the first year where the balance sheet is normalized, and we aim to manage within our means. So the number that we put forward today is $1.5 billion. We are leaning on the balance sheet this year, but you have seen in 2027. So we want to sort of give you an outlook for -- over a couple of years here. So the way you should think about share buyback is that it is a natural part of the capital distribution. It is something that is regular and is on top of the cash dividend. And the cash dividend, you should see -- consider as bankable. Share buyback clearly will be more dependent on macro environment as we move forward.

When it comes to integrated power, for us, that means both intermittent power like offshore wind, onshore wind, solar, in addition to flexible power, batteries and CCGTs. We do have exposure in all of this. We have gas to power in U.K. We have battery in Poland and onshore and offshore and solar. This was divided in different business area. Now everything is integrated into one business area power. And then we have Danske Commodities that are able to integrate this totality and add additional value to this. Having said that, the priority within Integrated Power over the next year is to deliver on the already sanctioned projects. And from that, we are able to potentially if we have the right investment opportunity to expand further on the integrated power. But of course, with our gas position in Europe and U.S., we are, of course, well positioned also for gas to power if we see the right opportunities in the future. �rsted and working together with �rsted and collaboration with �rsted, as we have said, fits into this type of integrated power. We can be exposed in offshore wind in different ways and working together with �rsted, collaborating with �rsted will fit into an integrated power in different types of potential structures. Bård Pedersen: Thank you, Irene, for that. I'll take one more on the phone and then return to the room here. The next one is Paul Redman from BNP Paribas.

My first question is just how do you think about growth at Equinor? The reason I asked that question is at the Capital Markets Day last year, you highlighted a flat to decline in production 2026 plus. And I'm assuming that included some Vaca Muerta production as well. You're heavily cutting the renewable portfolio spend. So just how do we think about growth going forward from here? And then secondly, when I look at MMP, I guess the long-term -- well, the annual guidance was $1.6 billion, $400 million a quarter. You generated about $1.25 billion to $1.3 billion for the quarter if I take out the long-term gas contract review from this quarter. Is there any reason the guidance isn't updated? And how should we think about MMP going forward?

I'll start with the growth, and we divide it so you can take the MMP. Well, let's start with the renewables. We have said that we don't want to invest more than what we have already sanctioned, but that will create a growth. We had a 45% growth quarter-to-quarter on the renewable business this year, 25% on the annual -- in 2025. So still growth in Integrated Power over the next year. And then as I said, we will have to think how we can create further profitable and disciplined growth into that area. When it comes to the international business, we have repositioned that portfolio. And you can expect from today's level towards 2030, growing this production towards 900 million barrels a day. So it's clearly a growth in there, growth in production, growth in free cash flow. On the Norwegian continental shelf, we will continue to explore. We -- it will be difficult to create further growth in -- on the Norwegian continental shelf, but we have received attractive acreage. We will drill 26 exploration wells on the Norwegian continental shelf next year. We're working on reducing the time from exploration to production from 5 to 7 years to 2 to 3 years, enabling more efficiency to be able to keep the production at the highest possible level on the Norwegian continental shelf and growing free cash flow from that portfolio. And that is what we're aiming for, for Norwegian continental shelf internationally and integrated power.

Thanks, Paul. On MMP. So if you strip away the price review, you get to around $400 million in the fourth quarter, which is very much around sort of what we guide at. So that's sort of -- that's what you should, in a way, expect on a quarterly basis. However, there will be fluctuations as you very well know. What typically drives results are volatility in commodity markets and also contango versus backwardation. I can give you one example actually from January, where there has been a lot of volatility in the gas market. And in Europe, we have a 70% day ahead exposure and a 30% month ahead exposure. So you can rest assure that sort of the spikes you have seen in January, it finds its way to our P&L in Europe. In the U.S., we don't have -- we don't sort of have a firm exposure that we want, but clearly, the traders keep a certain part open. So when going into January, in the U.S., our traders left 30% exposed to the prompt or cash prices as such. So at the most extreme, for instance, the in-basin price for Marcellus gas was $60 per MBtu, and we took that. And then we have a transportation capacity into New York, actually coming up at Penn Station. And we achieved more than $100 per MBtu in that weekend as such. So just examples of when you see volatility, you should expect us to be able to get it in a way. So that's why these results typically fluctuates. Bård Pedersen: Thank you, Paul. Vidar Lyngv�r from Danske Bank. Vidar Lyngvær: First, just another clarification on the renewable spending in 2027. You're reducing CapEx by $4 billion. I get the tax credit part. Could you add some more color on where the remaining cut comes from? Second, Johan Sverdrup, you mentioned the decline rates there. Are those exit to exit, so exit '25 to exit '26? Or is it average production decline in '26 versus average in '25?

Johan Sverdrup exit to exit or -- let's come back to the specifics on that. But I do think it is when you compare sort of the last year production with next year production as such. And just -- yes, and team is nodding there. So that is the way it works, yes.

Yes. Yes, a little bit more color to this. As I answered earlier, we had a different market view. So we had, for instance, potential hydrogen project, transportation of CCS project in the CapEx outlook that we showed last year, those projects are not materializing. In addition, we have reduced our onshore renewable CapEx as well. And in total, this adds up to those $4 billion and together also with the ITC as you have seen. Bård Pedersen: Good. Steffen Evjen from DNB Carnegie.

On the ITC, just could you please remind me on the milestones they are required for that payment to come in, in terms of first power and any other things that has to be fulfilled? My second question is just a clarification on Adura. I think you said $1 billion in dividends. Is that your share? Or is that the total share to both shareholders?

It's our share and then the ITC. ITC, yes. So the way it works is that you can recognize it when you start production and sort of that is sort of scale as you continue to start up the various turbines. So what we have assumed is that we recognize all of this in 2027 because that's sort of the plan. There is an upside that there is some ITCs recognized in 2026. We haven't based our analysis on it. So that is sort of the recognition part. And then there is -- so what is the cash flow impact of it. And it will take some time from we recognize it to the cash flow is in our account. So what you see on the slide is that we have assumed $2 billion impact of the ITC in '27, while the total number, the absolute number is $2.5 billion. So that sort of give you a little bit of a perspective around this. It is a significant financial operations to manage all of this, as you would know, but there is a large and growing market for ITC in a well-functioning market in the U.S. for this. Bård Pedersen: Next one is Martijn Rats from Morgan Stanley.

I've got 2, if I may. I wanted to ask you again about the CapEx reductions. I know there have been a few questions about it already. But when Equinor took the initial 10% stake in �rsted, very soon thereafter, we also had a reduction in the CapEx outlook for offshore wind, renewables in general. And in many ways, that had the character, therefore, when you put these 2 things together, it's like, well, we do less organically and we do more inorganically. It was sort of not a total reduction, but it had an element of we're swapping one type of spending for another type of spending. And I was wondering how we should interpret this reduction in CapEx on this occasion. If power and low carbon CapEx goes down, is that -- should we interpret that as well, the company is just going to do less of that stuff? Or should we anticipate that in the fullness of time, this also turns out to be a swap, less organic, but more inorganic. I was hoping you could say a few things about that. And then the other question I wanted to ask is about the 10% OpEx and SG&A reduction target. Like 10% in a single year is quite a significant amount and also because Ecuador has already been very focused on that for some time. I was positively surprised that there's still sort of that type of opportunity available. Could you talk a little bit about the key levers, where that spending can be reduced? And also just for the avoidance of 10%, how does that translate into absolute sort of absolute dollar amounts, that would be helpful?

Let's start with that question first, and Torgrim.

Okay. Thanks, Martijn. So on the 10% reduction. So over the last years, we have been able to maintain OpEx and SG&A flat even if we have grown our production and despite the inflation as such. So our people and organization has done a good job. Next year, we expect that number to come down by 10%. That is a very big number. However, it is a significant impact of divestment of Peregrino and the establishment of Adura that will be equity accounted as such. So the reported numbers will be down 10%. But when you adjust for structural changes, we expect to maintain OpEx and SG&A flat, growing by 3% and still inflation as such. So this comes from many sources. First of all, activity level. Clearly, we have taken down and prioritized that very hard. That has a direct impact on it. We have taken down early phase costs significantly in the portfolio, also a significant contributor. Staff are continue to high grade and take out efficiencies. And then the business areas are clearly working on this. So -- but on your question, is there more to come? And the answer is yes, we are never satisfied with where we are on this. And I can give you 2 examples of what to come. One is the work around NCS 2035. We do see a significant cost impact of that. So we hope to show more on that in June. The other one is actually artificial intelligence. So we have already see that in our numbers, NOK 1 billion or so, which is good. However, this is early days. And we do believe that with our large operations and our ability to take out effect across assets that AI can really be a significant contributor to further cost improvements. So we'll continue to fight and work this -- but the 10% is clearly colored by the inorganic moves we have done.

Yes. So -- and thank you for that CapEx question, Martijn. And let me elaborate a little bit how I think around this because you probably see now that several times, we have taken down the renewables and low-carbon solution CapEx. And it's not necessarily because we have done any inorganic moves. It's also because we have not been successful in some of the bidding because we have raised the bar for winning future CFDs. And a couple of years ago, we had several projects inside our CapEx outlook that is now not inside the CapEx outlook due to deliberately not being successful in those auctions. So a more positive view some years ago, as we said during the �rsted acquisition of 10%, we found it more value creating at that point in time, do an inorganic move than do organic move. This -- we have further taken down the CapEx for offshore wind, but also on onshore renewables. A couple of years ago and last year, we had a much more positive market view and direct discussions with customers for CO2 highway and the hydrogen project in Eemshaven, which are now pushed further out in time. And actually, the hydrogen projects in Eemshaven is stopped before FEED, and we will not move forward. And in these areas, I don't think there are many inorganic moves to be done that will create value. So you should not expect us to work much on this. We will continue to work on being a leading company in terms of transportation and storage of CO2, building on Northern Lights 1, 2 and Endurance, but we will not make investments before we see -- we have long-term contracts, we have seen costs coming down and we see profitable projects. And that means that there needs to be a better market than we see today. Bård Pedersen: Thank you, Martijn. Next one is Nash Cui from Barclays.

Two questions, please. The first one is on your upstream reserve life. I wonder how do you think about a reasonable level of upstream reserve life in the medium to long run, please could better technologies like AI to help extend base? Then my second question is on �rsted. I think earlier, you mentioned that you could collaborate more with �rsted in kind of different types of potential structures. And I wonder if you could elaborate what you mean by the potential structures?

Well, you have seen what we have done, just an example with Shell in U.K. There's always way to work together to create value for both shareholders. But there is no discussion at the moment, but we see that a further collaboration with �rsted could benefit both companies, but nothing new to elaborate today. When it comes to reserve life, I think this will also -- the ROP will be affected in the years to come that we have many more exploration wells, smaller discoveries and faster time from discoveries to production, meaning that the ROP will be lower than traditionally when we had the big elephants on the Norwegian continental shelf. At the same time, we are comfortable with our ROP where we see it today around 7 because we have so many exploration wells, we have discoveries. And last year, we had 14 discoveries, adding in total 125 million barrels in new resources. Lofn and Langemann, which is in Sleipner area is in an area where we thought there was nothing more to be found, but new technology, new seismic, use of AI has enabled us to make more discoveries. We have seen the same in the Ringvei Vest area. So we will continue to implement AI in exploration to ensure that we are able to discover new resources that was overseen in the past that we now can drill and bring to market in a quicker way. And by using AI, not only on exploration, but also in operations, and so on. We saved $130 million last year, and this is accelerating. So as Torgrim said earlier, we are really focusing on implementing AI to create value in the company. And this is something that you will hear more about in the future. Bård Pedersen: Next is Jason Gabelman from TD Cowen.

I wanted to first go back to the Empire Wind guidance. And I'm wondering if the $600 million of cash flow, is that what Equinor expects to receive? Or are there going to be some repayments on the project financing that are going to minimize that in the earlier years? And I wonder if you have a similar number for the Dogger projects. And then my follow-up is just on kind of broader exploration opportunities beyond what you've discussed. And we've seen companies kind of going back into regions where fiscal terms have improved like the Middle East and West Africa. I wonder if you look at those regions as potential opportunities for the company to exploit or given kind of the lack of footprint in those regions, is it not a core focus?

Yes. I'll start with that question, and you can do the $600 million and the synergy effects there. So basically, what you have seen, what we have done in the international oil and gas portfolio is to focus it. We were in 30 to 40 countries, high cost, high exploration cost. And we have concluded that we were not successful with that strategy, adding too much cost and too little of progress in putting new resources into the inventory. So we have worked very hard to focus and building an attractive exploration portfolio in those focused areas like in Angola, in Brazil and in U.S. offshore. And of course, Bidenor East Canada, we're working on the Bidenor field, where this will also have attractive exploration opportunities around it, similar to what we see on Castberg and other new fields. Then, of course, we will, of course, always be open for ideas and value-adding exploration activity outside this core, but the bar is high. We will not have a global exploration strategy moving around in all parts of the world. We have areas where we see now we have learned the basin. We have experience, and we think we can expand quite a lot on that one. Brazil, for one instance, by Bacalhau, the Raya, we have an attractive exploration opportunities there now, the neighbor block to the Bumerangue discoveries for BP. We have a block close to Raya, and we're maturing up to see what kind of exploration program we can have in that area. And next -- and in this year, we will actually also drill exploration wells in Angola. So we are curious about other areas, but we'll have most of our focus in the focused area.

And then Jason, on the $600 million in cash flow related to Empire Wind, that is related to our equity as such. There's no sort of money of that, that goes to the lenders. A couple of things. There is a portfolio effect in addition to the cash flow within the project. And that is related to that the depreciation that we have in Empire Wind goes into the IFRS results and the minimum tax in the U.S. is based on IFRS results. So it sort of reduces the minimum tax payments in the states as such. So there's a portfolio effect coming on top of the direct cash flow in the project as such. Bård Pedersen: Just to clarify in the CFFO, the interest payment is included, but not the payment to the lenders, as you said. Thank you, Jason. Kim Fustier from HSBC is next on my list.

I had a couple on the NCS, please. Firstly, I believe that back in November, you announced a reorganization of your NCS business along centralized functional lines like subsea drilling, et cetera. Could you give a bit more color on this? And how does that move help to set you up for a future on the NCS with fewer big developments, but more small developments? And then secondly, could you give an update on a couple of pre-FID projects, Wisting and then Bay du Nord in Canada, where there seems to have been some technical progress lately?

Yes. Thank you. So the Norwegian continental shelf is changing. With after Johan Sverdrup and Bacalhau, we have, as I said, much more smaller discoveries, smaller fields. Most of the developments will be now subsea tie-in projects. We actually have 75 of those in our portfolio over the next 10 years. So it's about making sure that we're able to execute on these projects faster. We are going -- that we can drill more exploration well faster, and we can create more value. So then we have actually started with looking into how we work. how is our work processes, all the way from working together with partners, internal approval processes, field development processes for subsea tie-in and so on. We have looked at 70 work processes, how to -- for drilling to development and so on. We have simplified those work processes, and we have looked at them together such that all these processes are streamlined end to end. And just to say a change that I will do, instead of making 7, 8 individual decisions on these projects one by one, we will group the decision. And twice a year, I will make a lump decision of several projects, enabling faster decision-making processes and ensure that we're able to move this project faster. Based on changing the way we work, we are also reorganizing both the project organization, the drilling organization and the operation units on the Norwegian continental shelf, not offshore, but all the onshore function, enabling to work according to the new simplified work processes. So this is actually one of the largest changes we have done developing the Norwegian continental shelf since we established the StatoilHydro company and merged StatoilHydro back in 2007, 2008. So it's actually changing the way we work because the geology…

I'll keep it to one question for Torgrim, and please forgive me for some quick mental math. But when you set your $1.5 billion buyback, are you effectively arguing over the course of '26 and '27, considering the lumps and bumps in your CFFO as well as CapEx, you're targeting to be free cash flow neutral after dividends and buybacks. Am I putting too many words in your mouth? Or is that a fair characterization of what you're trying to do over the next 2 years?

Well, Chris, I think I need to be very precise here. So I mean, you're on to it. So clearly, you should look across those 2 years when you think about sort of our free cash flow generation that we have available to cash dividend and share buyback. We aim to run with a solid balance sheet. However, we are going to lean on the balance sheet in '26, well aware that next year is a larger free cash flow. So it makes sense to look across those 2 years. And we have done that when we have set the share buyback level for '26 as such, we have. Bård Pedersen: Thank you, Chris. Matt Lofting, JPMorgan.

Just one on Empire Wind and read-throughs from it. I mean it seems Equinor has done a good job keeping the project execution on track amid the past hold orders. But I just wonder how the company reflects on implications from this and having retained 100% equity stake through it for best assessing risk management and risk-adjusted returns, let's say, on future capital allocations. Are there learnings that are emerging from Empire Wind for optimal sizing, taking into account perhaps above as well as belowground factors?

Thank you. That's a really good question. And yes, this is definitely something to reflect on. And we normally don't take 100% in any license, not on oil and gas and not in offshore wind. But due to a deal with BP, they took some and we took this. We derisked it somewhat with higher strike prices with a financing package. And then as you have seen, the political risk with the new administration was higher than anticipated. This is a trend we see now in several countries that energy investments are more and more politicalized and polarized. And we see it in Norway. We see it in U.K., we see it in U.S. And definitely, for us, this brings some reflections about what is the above-ground risk you can take. And for myself, I reflected quite a lot about to see bipartisan support for future projects. If there is a kind of a strong division for potential projects, then we need to think twice and really understand the political risk. And this is something new. It's not only in U.S. This is something new that we have seen lately in several countries. And kind of we need to adapt the learning, and we need to bring into future decision processes definitely. Very important question you raised there. And with the political changes we have seen, which were kind of outweighted all the other factors that was reducing the risk, we would have probably thought differently about Empire Wind in the past. Bård Pedersen: Thank you. We are on the hour, but let's take one more and hope is short and then we'll round it off, and that is you, James Carmichael from Berenberg.

Just one last quick one, I think. Just again on Empire Wind. I was just wondering if you could clarify your sort of best case estimate on the timing of the underlying court case and when we might be able to sort of put any uncertainty to be around sort of future hold orders, et cetera.

Yes. This is a little bit early to say kind of because it's a judge in U.S. to decide that timing when this -- the merits of the case will come up for the court. There's been indication that will happen fairly quick with some couple of months, and that gives us opportunity to elaborate on the case in a good way. I just want to also remind you that all the 4 other operators we're doing exactly the same thing, challenging this in court and all of them were granted a preliminary injunction. We mean that this stop-work order was unlawful. And at least with so consistent preliminary injunction, I think also we have a strong case moving forward. But I'm an engineer and not a lawyer. So -- but yes, we are moving forward with a strong belief that we will have a good case in the court, strong case. Bård Pedersen: Thank you. I would like to thank you all for participating and for asking your questions. We didn't manage all the way through the list, but I want to be respectful for everybody's time. And as always, the Investor Relations team remain available for any follow-up questions during today or later in the week. Have a good afternoon, everybody, and thank you for joining.