Good morning or good afternoon to you all, and thank you for joining us today. Our program today will start with a presentation of 2020 results and outlook by Patrick Pouyanné, Helle Kristoffersen and Jean-Pierre. And this presentation will be followed by a Q&A session. Then we'll come to presentations on how we progress our climate roadmap. Arnaud Breuillac will drive you through how Total reduces carbon emissions from operations. And then Adrien Henry, Vice President, Nature-Based Solutions will explain how such solutions will contribute to net zero emissions. And this session will also be followed by a Q&A session. So before we start, I'd like to share with you a safety moment. As you know, safety is a core value for Total, and we start all our meetings with a safety moment. [Audio/Video Presentation] Patrick Pouyanné: Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening for whose we are in Asia. And welcome to this session of our 2020 results and our outlook. I'm happy to welcome you today together with my colleagues of the Executive Committee. Jean-Pierre and Helle and Arnaud will take the floor during the presentation. But Alexis, Bernard, Namita and Philippe are also there for answering your questions. I'm sure you will have for them as well. So all of us will remember 2020 as a landmark here that brought unexpected challenges and led to significant changes. We'll look back and think of our lives in terms of before COVID and after COVID. The pandemic has taken a terrible toll on people with global estimates of more than 100 million cases and more than 2 million lives last thus far. In response to the virus, widespread lockdowns disrupted the global economy on the world-wide scale, wrecking businesses and livelihoods to an unimaginable extent. We'll look back at…

Thank you, Patrick. And so now just a few words. As you all aware, 2020 was a year of a global economic recession, except in China, due to the shock of the pandemic, the energy demand due to repeated periods of more or less severe lockdowns. And 2020 was a year of extreme volatility in commodity prices due to supply and demand imbalances. Against that backdrop, the chart here shows you the contrasted evolution of various energy markets, as Patrick just mentioned earlier. Global energy demand was down by 5%, more or less in line with GDP. Oil markets, on the other hand, were down 9% because mobility is a key contributor to oil demand. What's striking on the chart is that LNG demand and wind and solar power generation did remarkably well, growing, respectively, 3% and 13%. This confirms the role of these 2 markets in the ongoing transformation of our energy systems and as key growth pillars for Total. Then I also think that this market picture underscores the benefit of being a broad-based energy company, TotalEnergies. Regarding oil markets. In demand, in the end proved very resilient last year. But the key question right now is, of course, how fast global demand will rebound and to what levels. The jury is out on that. We need the vaccines, obviously, and we need the implementation of the massive economic recovery packages that have been decided around the world. What's clear on the other hand is that there is a risk of supply crunch in the midterm, and that's the message of this chart. We've seen in 2020 how OPEC managed to bring back market discipline. We've seen the cracks in the U.S. shale model, and we've seen continued under investments in the oil industry as a whole. Given…

Thank you, Helle. Total has been following a strategy to strengthen the group since the collapse of oil prices in 2015. We started the year 2020 with a gearing below 20%, with a cash breakeven at around $25 per barrel. So to some extent, we were prepared when the crisis began. As COVID virus spreads and markets began to collapse, we reacted quickly. We adapted by implemented an immediate action plan, and you will see we delivered. The Group demonstrated in 2020 its resilience during storm, which allow us to continue investing in profitable projects, support the dividend and maintaining a strong balance sheet. We were disciplined. We were flexible, and we have not overextended. In 2020, we generated $15.7 billion of cash flow from operations. Relative to the plan we announced in 2019, the most significant change for 2020 was flexing the level of investments, including M&A. 2020 CapEx was $13 billion versus an initial guidance around $18 billion. I will come back later on this saving. But at the same time, we maintain our commitment to grow renewable energies to support the transformation strategy of the group. We did not overreact to the crisis. And instead, we chose to support the dividend through the cycle, as Patrick mentioned already. Return to shareholders of $7.2 billion include the cash saving decision to propose the final 2019 dividend shares as well as the 500, 550 -- sorry, $550 million of buyback in the first quarter. Gearing, excluding leases, increased to 21.7% at the end of 2020. But on the right-hand side of the slide, we show that Total has the strongest financial position amongst the majors with the lowest gearing. That means that we're able, despite the crisis, to preserve our balance sheet strength. We reacted quickly to the crisis.…

[Operator Instructions] We have the first question coming from the line of Oswald Clint from Bernstein.

I had 2 questions, perhaps on the IGRP division. I mean the cash flow, you mentioned it in the results, they had a positive offsets from renewables against the weaker LNG prices, which was good to see. You've given us your new proportional EBITDA metric today as well, which is great. It's likely small, but I wanted to boil it back down to the cash flow. Last year in September, you told us $0.1 billion of cash flow in 2019 and how that might get up to $1.5 billion, I think, by 2025. So I mean, the question is, given everything you're saying here and the business development you've done in January, is it fair to say that, that's a de-risked number at this stage or an easily achievable cash flow number for kind of electricity by 2025, please? And then -- I'm sorry, the second one, I mean you've made Patrick, some very interesting comments here around the valuation of renewable companies and how you'd like to tap into that. The disclosure, I guess, of your new EBITDA will help and that will certainly help it. I guess the question is what happens if it doesn't happen quickly enough. And I'm just asking you, have you considered or will you consider, would you consider other examples of showing that to the market. I just can't help be struck by companies like EDP, who spin out another -- a little part of their business at 17%. And suddenly, it's -- they're both EUR 20 billion market cap. So some of the parts has clearly worked in some of these names. So I just wanted to get your thoughts on that, please. Patrick Pouyanné: Yes, okay. First question, I mean, I'm not sure it's easy to do $1.5 billion to be…

We have the next questions coming from the line of Biraj Borkhataria from RBC.

A couple, please. Looking at kind of the announcements over the last few months, it looks like almost every week, you won an auction on the renewable side or done the deal. Could you just talk about what proportion of the renewable bids or deals you tried to secure in 2020 you won? It looks like you've just been more successful than many of your peers over the last 12 months. And the second question is on SunPower. You've owned that stake for a few years now, and obviously, the value of that investment has gone up 10x over the last year. Can you just talk about the strategic rationale for holding that asset now, given your growing renewables portfolio elsewhere in different geographies? Patrick Pouyanné: In fact, we did not win a lot of auction, to be honest. Last year, we win in Qatar and this year in the U.K. and it's not us, but Adani Green has won auctions in India, but it was not Total. Why? Because we lost. We lost in Abu Dhabi, we lost in Saudi Arabia. So in fact, I think we lost more than we win. Why? Because auctions, as always, are not the best way to create value. And you know when you have a target of 10% IRR post farm down on equity to be competitive on auctions, it's tough. You've seen that the last tender in U.K., pricing were quite high, but we consider we have the capacity together with Macquarie to deliver what we want. In fact, what we've done are more, I would say, direct negotiation there. And all what we mentioned, Hanwha JV in the U.S., it's a direct discussion with them because we have a partnership. The Sanchez portfolio, it was a direct approach by all…

We have the next questions coming from the line of Michele Della Vigna from Goldman Sachs.

Patrick, it's Michele. Congratulations on the very strong and consistent delivery through this year. Two questions, if I may. The first one is about cash return to shareholders. So we are just exiting a deep recession. You're prioritizing financial degearing, which makes perfect sense. But as we look to the longer term, given the health of your business, what do you think is the right long-term cash return to shareholders? I believe in the past, you mentioned 40% as a level you could aim for, for the long term. I believe on your cash generation, the current dividend gives you about a 30% return. And how would you put in that context, the importance of buybacks? And then my second question really is about decarbonization. Gas has, without doubt, a key role to play in the transition in the next 20 years to decarbonize the industry, transport, heating, power, especially in a lot of emerging markets. But there is a rising wariness about potential stranded assets in the long term. I'm wondering what is the ability today of actually building this gas infrastructure in a way that it can be easily retrofitted with clean hydrogen in the longer term, effectively avoiding any kind of stranded assets and accelerating the hydrogen transition in the long term. Patrick Pouyanné: As always 2 interesting questions with Michele. The first one, by the way, this year, I'm afraid that the cash out is more 47%, 48% than 30% with the dividend. So we have been above the 40%. I think this idea of 40% was, I think, for me, is not a bad metric to -- it depends, of course, at the level of the code of price that we get. My conviction is that as we want to support the dividend for the…

You have the next questions coming from the line of Lydia Rainforth from Barclays.

Two, if I could, Patrick. First of all, what happens to the CapEx budget higher prices in terms of the oil side? Obviously, it gives you a little bit more flexibility. But does extra spend go into the renewable space? Or does it go into the upstream to capture some of that potential uplift in prices? And then secondly, just in terms of the cost of decarbonization and the work that you're doing in terms of bringing forward, it must be emissions, the reduction of it. Are you finding that the cost of reducing emissions is coming down as you do more work on it? Patrick Pouyanné: The second question, I think I will leave it to Arnaud during his presentation because he will show you the whole exercise we have done internally. We can lower our emissions, and you will see that we find a lot of tons, we have a very low cost, in fact, which we are not just a question of concentration. So you will have to be patient on the second one, and Arnaud will answer in his presentation. On the first one, let me clear. I think that again, the $12 billion is a good level. We could go to $13 billion, maybe. And there are 2 ideas. One, of course, we have some flexibility. We have some flexible short-cycle CapEx, which have been stopped last -- this year in 2020 in E&P, which are mainly infield wells on which it will take a little time, so we cannot reactivate that immediately because it needs to remobilize, I would say, rigs and things like that. But it might be done and so that's an idea because this providing a short cycle means payback for 2 years. So if we have a vision that the good price could remain at a good level, then it's an opportunity, and that's --but at this stage, I'm not yet there. It's not because I've seen yesterday evening, $60, but I consider $60 is valuable. And when you see that Saudi Arabia has decided by itself to cut to $1 billion -- $1 billion more, it means that I think they see some fragility in the market. So don't become too short sighted, too short term, into short-term assumption that dominate our decision. Then renewables, it's possible, but you need to have opportunities to do that. And again, we have -- I mean, there is -- it's a matter of maturing opportunities and it's not because I decide to spend $1 billion, but I will spend $1 billion. Does not work like that. Opportunities needs to be profitable to reach a target. So there is a maturity of the portfolio. And we, so again, consider that in 2021, might be $12 billion, might be $14 billion, but we'll see. Let's stay on the $12 billion, which is my -- again, my priority is, first, to come back to strengthen the balance sheet.

We have the next questions coming from the line of Thomas Adolff from Credit Suisse.

I guess my first question is on LNG. And perhaps you can share your latest thoughts on Qatar and your potential participation of fiscal terms, they are more acceptable and entry costs more digestible. And then secondly, just in terms of the pre-FID production contribution in 2025, can you remind me whether a large part of it is going to be driven by Surinam and Uganda? A simple yes or no, at this point. And then thirdly, I do apologize. Just a quick one on how to decarbonize heavy-duty transport, obviously, you can use hydrogen, you can use renewable diesel, you can use bio methane and you're involved in all 3 different technologies. As it relates to heavy-duty transport, which technology are you the most excited about? Patrick Pouyanné: I will let Helle answering on the exitation on technology for transport, maybe. And Surinam will be -- your question, is this in our -- in 20 -- by 2025, I think it's quite minimum with something like potentially 20,000, 30,000 barrel per day. So it's not important. Uganda is more important, it's 100,000 barrels per day. That's why we -- because we have a large stake in the project. And by the way, it's a very risky. Why? We are working hard on to launch Uganda, and we are very near this FID now. And before I let this time to Helle to think, but -- and maybe, by the way, Alexis, you can complement, if you want, Helle. LNG...

Qatar. Patrick Pouyanné: Qatar. It's Qatar, yes. I don't know. You know better than me, what are the entry because I don't know. I'm waiting for -- to see the terms. I think that Qatar is moving forward. They have announced that they have awarded the EPC, so which, by the way, is good because part of the first approach they've done 1 year and a half ago, there was a big uncertainty on CapEx. So of course, it was difficult to manipulate some fiscal terms and entry costs without having the CapEx. So I think that will be clarified. I understand from Saad al-Kaabi, that I met recently, but he intends to bring partners. I think, fundamentally, what Qatar will ask is to -- some offtake because now in LNG, what happened, we also know that -- and so we'll see what level of commitment on offtake different players will take. So for me, at the end, it's a matter of reward -- of risk and reward. I mean we know what they are expecting, and then we'll see the rewards. If there is a good balance, we'll move forward. And obviously, we have a strong history in Qatar. But again, it's not a matter of emotion. It's a matter of at the end of the day of -- and I think, by the way, Saad al-Kaabi thinks exactly like me. It's a question of risk and rewards. And there are good -- plenty of good advantage in Qatar, which -- in particular, the cost of production and the cost of LNG efficiency. And then we are waiting. I think it will come soon, and then we'll take some decisions, better commitment on Qatar. Helle, Alexis?

Yes. Thomas, I think the answer is we're excited about everything, and then we have to keep, I would say, an eye on both the cost and the benefits. Renewable gas, biodiesel, great technologies, no big deal in terms of engines. But then I'm not sure that there is enough opportunity worldwide to switch the whole heavy-duty transport to those 2 decarbonizing technologies. So then you have to consider hydrogen, which is less mature, but over time, probably has a higher potential source of supply. You didn't mention it, but we will also be seeing electrical trucks going forward, not immediately. So it's also a question of maturity and time line. And then, of course, you can combine a little bit of everything by doing e-fuels. So I would say at this stage, as you pointed out, we are involved in the 3 major technologies for the next 10 years, and then we'll see what happens after that. Patrick Pouyanné: Yes. Alexis, you want to add something?

No. No, I think that, honestly, so biogas story for EV duty, I think as the volume of biogas might not be sufficient, but that's the point. But let's see. I mean let's see what -- because there is a lot of policies behind it. And let's say as well what the truck manufacturers will decide. They may decide for ourselves. So we are there fundamentally to be able to provide energy products at lowest possible cost and to adapt ourselves. If we can help them in our choice, it will be good, but we'll see that. So I think Helle is right. At this point, we have to be ready and to understand in which -- for which of this fuel, the one we can produce in the best efficient way, and where we can produce them in the best efficient way. And this is what we can bring to our customers and to the policymakers.

Our next questions come from the line of Irene Himona from Societe Generale.

I actually have 3 questions, if I may. Firstly, a results question. In the fourth quarter, the E&P tax rate was very low, I presume, due to pricing. With brand back to a more normal $50, $55 this year, what can we expect the upstream tax might be this year? Secondly, Patrick, you target 30% of all the management bodies at Total to be women by 2025. What was that proportion in 2020, please? And my third question, you said you raised today the portion of capital expenditure on renewables to all the trend and you show how by 2030 oil product sales will be down quite materially. And today, oil is a huge part of cash flows, even in the very low-price environment of last year. Is it totally premature to ask whether by 2030, we might expect the renewables business to turn perhaps cash neutral or even cash positive? It doesn't seem to matter today for the valuation of renewable utilities. They have no free cash flow, but obviously, it does matter to your investors. Patrick Pouyanné: Okay. Jean-Pierre will take the second one. I will answer the first one. As we have more or less a 20%. In fact, today, in all the management committees, I ask all my colleagues to have at least 2 women out of 10, we say, and we intend to go from 2 to 3, I mean, fundamentally. And I think it's an important move. Remind you that 5 years ago, there was no women at the Executive Committee. Today, I'm happy and lucky to be surrounded by Helle and Namita. Surrounding is the right word. And so I wait for somebody else coming. And I think it's important, again, for me because diversity brings some collective intelligence. We are better groups…

Yes, E&P tax rate. Yes. For the fourth quarter, the E&P tax rate was at 20%. So benefiting from some particular tax elements. When you look at the full year, so on average, over 2020, with Brent around $40 per barrel, you have a tax rate at 29%. So it's fully in line with the guidance we gave, 30% at $40 per barrel. And if you remind the 2019 figures, so in an environment around $60 per barrel, you have an E&P tax rate around 40%. Patrick Pouyanné: And so you can think 35% with $50?

Exactly. Patrick Pouyanné: If it works. So that's more or less a guideline. Again, you could have some quarterly effects because of tax deferred. And with COVID, all the systems are not perfect. But at the end of the day, when I look to the average on the year, it's -- we are always the same type of guidelines. So it works...

In line with the guidance we gave. Patrick Pouyanné: So you have a precise answer for your model, Irene. And then it's because maybe you will not have a precise answer on the last one because I observe that you want to have more clarity. I would love that you ask the same questions to all my energy colleagues of -- I'm sure that you are asking the same question to all our big energy new competitors in the renewable fields. Because for the time being, I'm not sure it's really a question that the market are asking. So to tell you the truth, yes, I think by -- I mean, I hope it will be cash neutral by 2030 because, again, that's true but the more we invest, the more the gap increase, but we said $1.5 billion by 2025. By that time, let's say, we'll spend something like $3 billion, I don't know the figure. So by 2030, yes, you can take this assumption, but the cash neutrality should be an objective for the company. And I'm not -- let me clear it for me, it's nothing surprising then when I'm entering into Russia in 2011, you know the cash neutrality of the investments of NovaTek will be reached this year, 10, 11, 12 years after because we have to invest in energy, it's always long cycles. It's sure as well when I remember, we made a lot of works on Angola. Before we obtained the cash neutrality in Angola, which is today one, I would say, of the cash cow of the company, it took more than 10 years; it got 15, 20 years before we really obtained. So in energy, requires a lot of investment because you continue to -- are willing to grow. So growing means investment. And there is a point where you can get the fruits out of that. And that's part of the model that you need to put in place. I can tell you, by the way, it's an interesting discussion I had with Gautam Adani about the future of AGEL because obviously, I was ready to take 20%, but I want some my money back like a UK Prime Minister said one day to Europe. So I use the same way to work. Now, but okay. No, let's say, it's a good horizon, a good objective that you just put us, and I adopt it.

Your next question is from Christyan Malek from JPMorgan.

Two questions, if I may. First, so I really appreciate the detail on the path versus getting up returns in the low carbon business. And as it further matures, would you, the Board, consider an IPO as part of unlocking a lower cost of capital? And what would the key triggers be? The second question is about disclosure. And it's not fair because I could ask this of your peers, but you clearly seem to be leading the way here, Patrick. Given there seems to be the dislocation valuation relative to pure plays in the low carbon business and in the renewables business, can we expect greater disclosure to demonstrate progress towards this 10% equity IR target? And would you consider disclosing carbon intensity levels by asset or region, given it seems investors want greater transparency of everything, whether it's financials, carbon intensity in the portfolio, not just a holistic target. So probably more than 2 questions there, apologies. Patrick Pouyanné: So the first question, I think I answered to one of your colleague. I think, again, no. I mean, it's not on the table today at all. As I said just before, we changed our name to Total Energies, not too suddenly IPO, the energies. I mean I want to keep the energies within the company. I think it's a strong move by the Board, which means that, really, we think that it's a question of patience, as you just said, that the more -- the larger the stake will be in our portfolio, the better it will be understood, and it will be value-add. So but it's clear that we are willing to invent a new category of energy company. And I don't see why today there is a debate about the legitimacy of oil and gas to…

Our next question is from the line of Jason Kenney from Santander.

Hi, there. So truly impressive level of disclosure from Total. It's a critical culture shift, I think, and I really do hope it appears in the share price given the obvious value in the business lines. I'm really enjoying this roller coaster that Total is on as well. Material portfolio additions over recent months. And I know that in comments, you've mentioned the renewables could be 40% of sales or revenues by 2050. And I know it's not going to be a linear process, but do you think you could give us a percentage of revenue by 2030, 2035 from renewables? That's my first question, really. The second, maybe to Helle. Could you envisage a macro scenario where we have 80 million barrels a day of demand for oil only in 2025? So no more than 80 million barrels a day of demand? And what kind of oil price do you think that would entail, if we were to see that demand? Obviously, there's 2 sides of the equation here. And then one more, if I may, and it's on a technology question, really. Because of the amount of solar that you do have and the shift to hydrogen over time, I'm wondering if there's an investment in photoelectrode catalysis that you could maybe combine with those solar panels and just create hydrogen directly without using electrolyzers? Patrick Pouyanné: So the first answer is 15%, 20% by 2030, 2035, I would say, fundamentally. 15%, 20%, I think it's already at the horizon. The second question I will ask Helle. I'm sure she has that scenario. If she has that scenario, I think she will be fine, in fact, tomorrow morning. So I'm just looking...

Jason, I'm not allowed, of course, to say that this is a credible scenario. But honestly, I don't think it's a credible scenario. I think there will be tons of other issues. If oil demand drops to that level, I think we'll have -- the world will be undergoing -- be on the wake of disappearing. So I think that's science fiction, honestly. We told you back in September that we see oil demand beginning to peak at the end of this decade. We have no reason to believe that it will be declining rapidly from here on until '25. I don't think that exists. Patrick Pouyanné: And by the way, I mean, just to comment on it. The only scenario you can think is that it's not 1, but 2, 3 pandemics on the world, that we think that we are all locked down, that there is nothing, nobody is moving anymore, which I hope not for all of us. But I mean, we've seen something incredible in 2020, so -- but I hope it will not happen. But by the way, let's be clear, the oil price is not only given by demand and supply. I don't know if you notice today, honestly, at $55, the demand is not yet very well -- very high. The inventories are high because you have some players in the market, which have been quite efficient...

Disciplined. Patrick Pouyanné: Disciplined, I would say, in terms of which -- who are clearly willing. And there is probably a debate, is it $45? Is it $50? Is it $60? But we are targeting to get $50, I would say. And it's back to what is the competition between oil in Russia, oil in Saudi Arabia and oil in the -- shale oil in the U.S. But -- so my vision is that today, you have -- because these economies of these countries are not able to transition in 5 years. So they absolutely need a certain level of oil price. And they will prefer to diminish their production by letting the oil price crashing to I don't know which level. So I mean, for me, you have a -- and again, the oil demand, I know that everybody is very -- today thinking to -- the world transition means something. It means that the world today, let's be clear, the -- our world is working because we have oil, and we should not forget it. I mean, 80% of the world economy is carbonized. And we will not shift it just because we are willing it somewhere. And so it will take time. So my view is that the oil price, at this level, I would answer to you, it's $45 or $50 per barrel. Because as a supplier -- because of the supplier discipline, not because of supply and demand.

I was probably thinking more about efficiency gains and substitution effects where other fuels switch in to take out some of the oil demand with the oil pricing.

We talked about that back in September, Jason, and we absolutely look at that, of course, but it's impossible to do as quickly as 2025.

Fair enough. Okay.

I think we showed you some very aggressive assumptions in the Total Energy outlook, very aggressive assumptions, but we can't reach that level that you just suggested in 5 years. Even by being super, super aggressive. I didn't catch your last question, please can you...?

Yes. I mean, it was basically cutting out the middle man of the electrolyzer and just going straight from photoelectrode catalysis on solar panels directly producing hydrogen.

That's still very early stage, I think. Patrick Pouyanné: You are the expert on solar panel, on hydrogen. If we have an expert?

Yes. Well... Patrick Pouyanné: Helle is the R&D, in-charge of innovation.

Yes. It's being looked upon as far as I'm aware. Philippe, I'll leave you -- but very early stage at this point in time.

Yes. Well, Helle is perfectly right. To produce hydrogen, we have 2 molecules that are invented on Earth. Methane on one side, and you have to separate hydrogen from carbon, it's easy, but it goes with CO2. Or we always to separate in water, hydrogen from oxygen. And you need a lot of energy because it's a very stable molecule. And to get from solar direct, level of intense energy that you need to separate a certain molecule is a real, real challenge. So I don't think that we will see -- photo catalyze it. High temperature electrolysis is much more promising to me. Sorry to be boring. Patrick Pouyanné: None of us. But I think Jason is willing to see if we need to -- he wants to invest in which company. So high temperature technology. As the hydrogen companies are just becoming crazy in terms of valuation, everybody is looking for the next -- the next golden mine, where is the next golden mine? So clear.

The next questions come from the line of Paul Cheng from Scotiabank.

On carbon sequestration, you haven't mentioned anything on that. There seems to be big differences in approach between the European and the U.S. companies. If we're looking at the low carbon wind and solar power, the technology is quite established and well defined. Carbon sequestration seems like it's early stage. So trying to understand that, is that a business that you think, sometime in the future, will be a major business for you and could be as big of a focus and emphasized as your solar and wind power? If not, why not? That's the first question. The second question is that you have been talking about net investment, $12 billion for this year, $13 billion to $16 billion for the next several years. Is there an organic CapEx estimate that you can share? What -- out of that net investment, what the organic CapEx may look like? Patrick Pouyanné: The first question, I didn't mention it because, in fact, you will have just to wait for Arnaud because when Arnaud will speak about Scope 1 and 2 and net emissions, obviously, we will not speak only about NBS, natural base solution but Arnaud will cover carbon sequestration. And honestly, I will tell you, just reveal something today to you is that I asked Arnaud, the E&P President, to speak about carbon sequestration, that I think because I have the feeling that he's best positioned to speak about it rather than Philippe in charge of renewables. I don't know why, but carbon sequestration is obviously, for me, something in particular, been public. Total has invested in Northern Lights, but I consider that having some positions in the North Sea with depleted fields, it might be a future for us. Is it a business, that's more a question? It's a necessity…

The next questions come from the line of Martijn Rats from Morgan Stanley.

I've got 2, if I may. First of all, the ESG bond, so the bonds linked to climate KPIs, that seems a rather big deal. And I was wondering if you could talk about it perhaps a little bit more. Specifically, I was interested in the sort of the magnitude of the sort of cost of capital advantage you think you could get relative to more traditional bonds by using this approach? And then secondly, yes, not something that gets an awful lot of attention these days, but I was wondering what your outlook is for your European refining portfolio? And what levels of restructuring we might expect there in coming years? I was a little surprised that you, for example, mentioned that you would still restart a refinery that is currently closed, for example. So if you could talk about that a bit, that would be great. Patrick Pouyanné: The second question, no, I did not mention I will restart refineries closed. Donges has been just temporary shutdown to face the low margins. But we never announced that we are closing Donges. No way. So maybe I was not clear. The one we announced that we are really closing in terms of the refinery is Grandpuits, like La Mede, these ones will never come back as refining capacity at all product capacity. When we did took that, I would say, conjunctural decision to shutdown launch, it was clearly announced as a temporary shutdowns because to wait for better margins. And I think Total has done a lot in its portfolio in terms of restructuring in the last 10 years. So other players around Europe should also take their responsibilities. Jean-Pierre will tell you everything about these ESG bonds.

Yes. The idea is to use climate KPI bonds in the future for our bond issuance. It's not directly linked to a cost advantage. I know that on the market at present time, there is what we call the Greenium. I don't know exactly perhaps 5 bps, but the main driver is to align our financing policy with our climate ambitions. And it's a matter of sustainability, a matter of acceptability rather than a way of reducing the cost of our bond issuance. Patrick Pouyanné: But the bond issuance by Total today, at which level as an average? We issued bond at which level?

At present time, we issue bonds less than 2%. In 2020 during the second quarter, we issued $3 billion -- sorry, $9 billion of new bonds with very long maturity, and we are able to capture 40 years maturity as less than 3%. So on average, I would say, around 2%. Patrick Pouyanné: Yes. And I think it's an important for me, a decision of the Board this one. As you said, it's quite a big deal, Martijn, you're right. Because all that is back to, for me, all these debates, in particular in Europe around taxonomy and the fact that there is even people pushing the ECB to decide that they should know -- today, ECB, as a monetary body, has to be neutral when they buy some bonds. They have to be neutral bond, neutral buyer and to buy all their share of all the bonds. There are people pushing the ECB to align the way they will purchase bonds from the taxonomy. And taxonomy is quite, I would say, a stringent approach, maybe too stringent, by the way. But I think what we propose today is a way to say, "Okay, look, you have some corporations, some companies like Total who are in transition. We need to finance the transition." And so -- but at the same time, by the way, Total is very useful because, again, the economy today is a carbon economy. So if we cannot finance our future, there is a real problem, it could create a problem. So linking all our bonds tomorrow to become ESG bonds, like you said, I like your idea, ESG bonds, we call them sustainability bonds, by the way. ESG bonds, it's clearer. To KPI -- to climate KPI, for me, is making this link of transition in…

We have the next questions coming from the line of Alastair Syme from Citi.

I just have 1 question really on that Slide 28, where you sort of talk about the renewables financing model. And I'm just intrigued around the farm-down strategy, whether you're seeing any signs that, that strategy is changing over the years? Is it getting more competitive? Are you finding the terms more difficult? I guess just reflect -- I mean, the strategy works until there's a lack of buyers that are just taking on that risk or helping you derisk. Patrick Pouyanné: Of course. Yes, of course, you are right. But today, the market is huge. When we make some farm-downs, I can tell you, the price we obtain are always better. So it's clear that it's linked also to be very low interest rate, but the attractiveness for -- you have many, many financial institutions. You know that perfectly, who themselves want to decarbonize their own portfolio. Everybody is the same transition. And so you have more demand for these type of assets than for supply.

Supply. Patrick Pouyanné: So it's clear. So it might change in the future. But with the maturity, I mean, all that is a question of market maturity and we'll see. But honestly, I think for the next 5 years, I'm comfortable that will be -- we'll be able to execute this approach. And that's something -- so there is a lot of appetite for that. Patrick Pouyanné: Okay. Maybe it's 4:30, Ladislas. Maybe we should move to the next -- because I'm afraid we could go too long for our auditors. I think we have something like 30, 35 minutes of presentation coming on. So maybe we should introduce -- we should keep the questions for the last session, if you are right, and introduce Arnaud and Adrien.

All right. Yes. And we -- after the presentation of Arnaud and Adrien, anyway, we'll have also a Q&A session. So you will have time to present -- to ask your questions. So now comes the second part of the day with the climate road map in action. And so there will be Arnaud and then Adrien Henry, as I mentioned earlier on. So I switch directly to Arnaud Breuillac.

Yes, Ladislas. Good afternoon, good morning or good evening, wherever you are. I think Patrick gave you a good reason why I'm making this presentation. Another one is that you will have noted our capacity to relentlessly reduce costs over the last 5 years. And you will see through this presentation how we have engaged in a similar journey to reduce emissions from our operations. We are committed to reduce by 40% the Scope 1 and 2 emissions from our operated oil and gas facilities between 2015 and 2030, with an ambition to get to net 0 by 2050. Our main levers are to reduce, avoid, capture and offset. Reduce our emissions by optimizing the energy used to produce our refined oil and gas. This can be achieved by electrification of the process and by increasing the energy efficiency. Avoid by ensuring 0 flaring or venting and keeping methane emissions near to 0 and capture with CCS projects, and I will come back on that and also methane emission later in my presentation. Of course, portfolio management will impact emissions, but we scrutinize all new projects to ensure that the marginal impact to our Scope 1 and 2 emissions is positive. Finally, in parallel to optimizing the energy used and minimizing the energy lost, we are developing carbon sinks notably with nature-based solutions, and my colleague, Adrien Henry will come back at the end of this presentation to cover these projects. All together, we are developing a strong low carbon culture in the company, and this is illustrated by the next slide. In 2020, our CO2 fighting squad has launched a company-wide systematic review of all opportunities to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions. The first phase allowed us to identify more than 500 projects in Upstream and Downstream operated…

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. As introduced earlier, the purpose of the nature-based solutions activities is to build carbon sequestration capacities and to provide for volumes of high standard carbon credits for the group. The plan is to build these capacities and volumes from now to 2030 as a first milestone. And these activities shall contribute to get to the net 0 emissions balance from 2030 onwards, as said by Arnaud earlier. And this is a final and necessary piece of effort and achievements coming after reductions as detailed before. To this end, in 2030 -- 2020, sorry, we assembled a team. We defined and built a model for our operations around a few pillars I will detail. And we started originating, designing and achieving some operations. Of course, there are multiple ways to sink carbon in nature, but the very first pillar of our model is to focus on the quality of the underlying operations that will come because, ultimately, the quality of this operation that sequester carbon through leaving nature are the guarantee for the robustness in time, the sustainability of the sequestration and also ultimately, the guarantee for the environmental integrity of the verified emission reductions that can come from these operations. As a consequence, we decided to focus on some of the ways that nature offers to sequester carbon and mostly photosynthesis and soil carbon absorption. And this, by difference to other possible ways like dissolutions in the oceans or more complex mineralization waste that we consider not fit for such operations today because of uncertainties and progress of operational ways to deploy. Another important point is that we will, as far the underlying operations are concerned, consider both conservation activities and creation of new carbon sinks. This is for many reasons, but mostly because we…

We have first question coming from the line of Anish Kapadia from Palissy Advisors.

I just had a question going back to the upstream. When -- just looking at the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, I had a couple of questions around that. With the federal permitting and potentially coming in, could you talk about how that could potentially affect your Gulf of Mexico operations and further developments? And then if you could also say something about the potential FIDs in the Gulf of Mexico, I think you have a few projects that are close to FID. And in particular, if there's been any effects on -- or your thoughts on the Ballymore discovery, given the disappointment that Shell has had with Appomattox? Patrick Pouyanné: Okay. Gulf of Mexico, we are fundamentally -- we have 2 portfolio has been -- is either we are linked to Chevron as an operator, and I trust Chevron as being very well positioned to be an operator in the Gulf of Mexico. We had Ballymore, we had others. The one last year, we sanctioned...

Anchor. Patrick Pouyanné: Anchor. And we are also with them on other assets.

Tahiti, Jack. Patrick Pouyanné: Tahiti and Jack. So we have a good partnership. But this year, it is true that we have, on our side, one project, which is for the North Platte as an operated project together with Equinor. I think it was -- it's part of the projects on which we did not -- what -- we were a little suspended, to be honest, in 2020, North Platte, because we had some arbitration to be done in the CapEx and its projects, which we have to work on in order to lower the cost. The difficulty in the Gulf of Mexico is the size of the reserves, the size of discoveries, contrary to Brazil or to maybe Suriname. We have pools of ores, which are not so big, and so we need to work hard in order to reach our targets in terms of technical cost breakeven. The beauty of the U.S. is normally that the fiscal terms is lowering them. So attractive fiscal terms are lowering the breakeven in terms -- and there is, of course, an upside as soon as the price of oil is going up. So we need to review. So I would say my answer to first, let's -- I don't have all the details of the permitting, but I don't think it has a direct impact on our development because we are well in control, I think, as the license on which we want to develop our projects, North Platte in particular or Ballymore. So I don't see -- as it could have on other properties. These ones are well controlled. So it's more, for me, a question about how does the Gulf of Mexico fit in our exploration strategy and our global low-cost oil strategy. And to be -- we are reviewing that independently, I would say, of the decisions of the federal government. So beyond Ballymore and beyond North Platte in which we will restart the work, I'm not so convinced, but we will have an aggressive exploration strategy of the Gulf of Mexico. But again, it's not linked to the recent decision of the federal administration. It's more -- I said during my presentation that we want to refocus our exploration on these large, low-cost developments. And obviously, when we have made a large review of what we've done in the last 20 years, I cannot say that it will deliver really these very large developments, which are offering low cost. So it's more for me a potential mismatch between the type of targets in the Gulf of Mexico and our global oil strategy for the future. Having said that, these 2 projects, we are working on them. And if they can reach our threshold, we'll approve them. So I don't see any impact again on -- specifically on the federal -- new federal policy on these 2 projects.

The next questions come from the line of Alessandro Pozzi from Mediobanca.

The first one is on macro. You have a nice slide showing how tight the oil market could be within the next 5 years. But when we look at the LNG, I'm not sure if the market is so tight. So I was wondering if you can spend a few words on how you see supply and demand evolving over the next few years. Of course, we're coming from a big spike in the gas prices, but maybe some of those factors behind that are maybe normalizing this year. So anything you can say about short period term outlook for LNG? And my second one is on offshore wind. In the U.K., it looks like you left some of your competitors who are upset because they haven't won any acreage in the U.K. also because of the option fee. That keeps me wondering whether maybe the renewable economics in OECD countries are getting a very competitive and compressed maybe below your 10% equity threshold. And the final one on Mozambique. I was wondering whether you have a time line on when onshore work can restart there. Patrick Pouyanné: No. Situation is not the same between LNG and oil. It's clear. We know, but what has been good with the year 2020 is that there was a pause on many of the potential FIDs around the world, in the U.S., but also the other project in Mozambique. So we could have feared last year, but we have too many projects rushing to FID in 2020. 2020 has put a pause, and I think it has also put back to reality a number of projects. In this LNG market, there was a sort of -- I mean particularly in the U.S. projects, we have developed by transferring a lot of risk on…

The next questions come from the line of Peter Low from Redburn.

I just had a question on the ambition to green of power used in your European operations. Have you structured that as a corporate PPA with your Spanish solar business? And can you give any color on how that contract works? Then perhaps as a follow-on, are you seeing demand for similar PPAs from third-party companies who want to reduce their own emissions? And is that, that earlier Total will seek to grow it going forward, kind of moving away from kind of government stock PPAs towards kind of more commercial ones as completely to decarbonize? Patrick Pouyanné: So yes, it's organized clearly as a clear contracts. The way we work within Total, even if it's to spare our free subsidiaries involved. You have Total Solar Spain, which signs a PPA with Total Trading Power, I would say, which is based on a 15-year PPA with a price, which is within the market, with a negotiation, which will allow, on one side, Total Solar Spain to develop the projects, having secured a PPA, which is part of the renewable business. And then you have another contract between Total Trading Power and Total Refining and Chemical division, which is, again, selling SunPower. Of course, they don't have exactly the same pricing because in between somebody is supposed to make some money. And the beauty is that when we compare today, in fact, Total Refining and Chemicals is buying SunPower from, I would say, on the market with some more or less medium and long-term contracts. And so at the end of the day, the question was that it makes sense for Total renewing -- Total Refining and Chemicals to buy SunPower from versus why the trading is interfacing. Because, obviously, once the solar plants are in Spain and the other plants…

The next question comes from the line of Christopher Kuplent from Bank of America.

And I'll keep it to just one question, Patrick. I mean, look, 2020 has been a very challenging year. When you look back, you obviously highlighted to us, you've come out with one of the few dividends intact. And yet, your dividend yield is 7.5%. The oil price is knocking on $0.60. So what do you -- what is your answer? What else do you have to do to show to the equity market that your cost of equity is not 7.5%? I wonder what possible explanations you would have. Is it perhaps linked to the fact that a lot of your growth, whether it's Adani, whether it's SunPower is sort of a little hidden in listed subsidiaries? Or do you have other more important explanations? Patrick Pouyanné: My only explanations I have is that the yield, the Total is lower than some of our peers. And that it takes time, okay? Clearly, you have today -- I was clear in my introduction. You have the fact that the equity market is no more in love with oil and gas companies. In fact, the fact that they are able to deliver some cash flows. You have a question about their future, I mean, sustainability of the model. I think that, that is working hard to show that there is a sustainable model. And again, if we are willing to establish this strategy, is to show -- to demonstrate to the market, we install Total Energies in the long term. So I don't think it's a question of either in equity affiliates, all that is technicality. It's not the case. It's more fundamental. And I think that the fact that today, we want to disclose -- I think we need to convince the market that you can be somewhere black and green. That clarity. We have part of a business model. But again, I'm not -- I'm proud to be black and green. I'm proud to be able -- because if I don't have the black part, which is delivering cash flows, I cannot grow the green part. So it's part of what we do. So it could take time. But again, I think -- and -- but fundamentally, it's permanently where I'm convinced as well is that keeping the dividend intact is at the core of the investment. And of course, from this perspective, not we are -- I see that it's -- today, the challenge is there. It's a question of sustainability of the model. So let's -- but not in terms of cash flow, it's more about climate, CO2 impact, et cetera.

The next question comes from the line of Dan Boyd from Mizuho Securities.

I have 2 questions. The first one is just when I look at your TCF guidance out to 2025 at $60 a barrel, it looks to be a bit lower, sort of 5%, 6% lower than what you presented in September. You commented on most of your major projects being on track. So I'm just wondering if there are some conservatism based in that new update or if you can kind of go through what the moving parts were, that would be helpful. My second question is related to divestments and where that incremental capital would likely go. You correctly pointed out that the asset market hasn't been that great. You've held off on upstream divestments. But as we go forward, if commodity prices hold, presumably, you would go back to the market to sell assets. And in that scenario, where would we expect the incremental capital to go? Would that primarily accelerate the low carbon ambition? Patrick Pouyanné: On the first one, I think the increase of 6 billion was more or less what we said in September, so maybe you are -- it's a question of millimeter on the slide. But having said that, there might -- I'm not sure. But of course, no, I think for me, it was more or less the same guidance. So I'm -- the team will check, and we'll come back to you, but I think the increase of 6 billion was what we had -- I had in mind. No? Jean-Pierre?

We gave the guidance by sectors between LNG, between downstream and E&P on the slides. So you have all the details. And so we see that it's more or less in line with what... Patrick Pouyanné: Okay. So maybe only, it's a matter of the 5%, but I think the fundamental. We did not rerun all the figures, to be honest. The second one, as I told you, I mean, let's be clear, for the time being, proceeds for asset sales, we need to look at them. But what I told you is that I think I answered the question. In fact, it will be either poor possible to look to some short cycle, flexible CapEx on the upstream, which have a quick delivery payback. That's possible. The other part is accelerate renewables. Again, it's a matter of, I think, the opportunity. So you -- but people are working. But I'll be clear. What we have done recently does not mobilize a lot of CapEx. I mean the acquisition cost is quite low because what we've done in Spain, which we've done again in the U.S., these are stage payments what we pay, in fact, according to the progress of the projects. And so that's not changing a lot. That's not requiring a lot of capital expenditures. And the rest of the projects, we cannot accelerate the portfolio because we decide, it's a matter of putting all that together. Do we have more M&A make renewables? No, honestly, I think that what we've done this year with Adani was a big chunk, 2 billion, and we don't work on things today. Today, we don't have something else in mind. So I would tell you that if we have -- but again, I answered several times the question, consider that the 12 billion is a good guideline. But maybe we could have 1 billion more, but it will depend. But then if we have more cash flows, we will allocate that to deliver at the company.

We have the next question coming from the line of Ryan Todd. Patrick Pouyanné: How many questions do you have? Yes, but I think we'll stop at 5:45. So I take the questions quickly. And so let's go, Ryan, let's go. The 4 questions, but no more after that. Okay, Ryan.

Great. Maybe a couple of quick ones. One on the PPA on the renewables business. Your disclosure shows kind of a steady decline in the PPA price from 110-megawatt hour or dollars per megawatt hour to 55 to 45 on the projects under development in 2025. Can you talk a little bit about what's driving that? Where you see the price going in the future? And what does it mean for project returns going forward? And then in that bucket of projects to 2025, where 40% of the takeaway is currently covered by PPA, do you expect that to eventually reach the 90% plus as in the other buckets? Patrick Pouyanné: Yes, of course, the idea is that we launched projects if we have PPA. We don't like too much to launch projects based on merchant markets, to be honest. It's not the fund -- the business model of Total is fundamentally to link so we need to work to continue to find the PPAs, but I'm -- I know that there are different ways. Either some projects will be, like I said, for example, in UK, there will be some CFD auction brands, which will allow us to have access to some state PPAs or we'll have to develop more corporate PPAs. So the second question is quite clear for me. And at a certain point, maybe in the future, we'll see if we accept a certain level of merchant risk. But I would say it's not the business model, and it's not what we are developing with the renewable team. On the first one, no, it's logic. I think we inherited from the portfolio we had from which is already operated. We inherited from, in particular, Total Quadran when we occur direct energies, some very old PPAs with…

Okay. We have another question coming from the line of Lucas Herrmann from Exane.

Two if I might. The first one is, I guess, that's an English saying, which is there are 2 ways to skin a cat. And in terms of shifting your business, clearly, one way is to accelerate capital going into green, but the other is possibly to think about doing something different with black, and I don't mean just limiting the rate of investment but perhaps spinning out. Could you see a point where -- or would it make sense at any point for refining and chemicals to be a separate business? Or is the tie between electrons, et cetera, and some of the options within refining and chemicals too tight? And second question, if I might. Just on the Natural Carbon Solutions business, I'm getting slightly confused as to whether this is just an offset business for you or whether actually it's a business that you think you can also drive value from through selling offsets to industry. Again, maybe associated with electrons, maybe associated with what they're doing. So is it a profit center in its own right? Or is it just an offset center? Patrick Pouyanné: Second question is very clear. It's strictly for us. We clearly consider that we have to be -- it's a question for me. Even we consider that as clearly linked to our capacity to go to carbon neutrality, and so we develop all this business fundamentally to be able to offset our emissions because we'll need them as soon as long as we want to be carbon neutral. We know that we need to all this carbon credit. So the second question is very clear, and that's where we are. The first one, no. Honestly, I mean the business model we want to develop is clearly a multi-energy company. So we…

That's not really the question, Patrick. The question is much more about the way the market thinks about capital employed and the value that it's willing to put on your equity. And the faster you shift towards low emission, the more rapidly you're likely to see an appreciation in your price. And that's the rationale behind the question rather than the questions, which have simply been spin-out renewables, attract a multiple that way. Patrick Pouyanné: Okay. Understood. Understood. So -- but the question is for Bernard. Bernard was the voice -- speaking voice for E&P and R&C, as you've seen. So Bernard has to work hard to lower its emission quickly at the point. But at this stage, I don't think it's -- I see that globally as a group. And yes, it's true. But refining and chemicals are part of the Scope 1 and 2 emissions. But today, when you look to our global emissions, it's only part of the issue, but we are not there. We are not there.

We have the next question coming from the line of Jason Gabelman from Cowen.

I ask 2 quickly. First, on the downstream growth, which I think is stable with what it was previously guided to at $2 billion cash flow growth from 2019 to 2025. But it seems like now there's some component in there for higher margins. So I'm just wondering if you could split out that downstream growth from 2020 to '25 between refining margin improvement, marketing growth and chemicals growth. And then my second question, just on -- back to the farm downs of the power business. I mean you mentioned the market is currently valuing these assets pretty attractively. Is there a situation where you could accelerate the farm downs and maybe bring some of that cash forward, given you've already hit your gross portfolio target in terms of what's in the backlog? Patrick Pouyanné: Okay. First one, the 2 billion, no, there is no margin growth with 2 billion. It was explained before, it's 1 billion coming from fundamentally from the various chemical projects, which we have the cracker in the U.S., a cracker, I mean I am speaking about the control of Alexis and Bernard. And Bernard, you can elaborate on the component of the 1 billion. And Alexis, same, he has some growth in some retail markets can elaborate on the 1 billion. It was 1 billion from the refining, 1 billion for marketing, and maybe you could explain. So it's not linked to an assumption on it's 2 billion as an absolute. I mean, yes, Bernard, Alexis?

Yes, there are 2 components. There is -- on the petrochemical side, of course, all the big projects that you mentioned, Patrick, starting now in the U.S. Gulf Coast with a new cracker next year with the PE line, our joint venture with Borealis, Borstar. And we have also, by the, let's say, by 2025, the start-up of our larger petrochemical projects in Middle East. And the second dimension is on the renewable diesel. As we will grow our production, we will generate more cash flows. We released last year that 1 ton of renewable diesel generate $350. So you multiply that by the million tons we will do and you come up to the $1 billion additional cash flow. Patrick Pouyanné: So petrochemicals and renewable fuels. And Alexis, is your $1 billion extra that you will bring to the group.

Not $1 billion, but the -- our plan at 5-year plan was to add $100 million per year of cash flow. It comes from the existing business, which are a stronghold, which is Europe and Africa, where we can manage our growth of the cash flow, especially from nonfuel revenues in Europe and developing our strong market share in Africa. And we have launched some new developments in new markets, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and we will also get some growth from there. Patrick Pouyanné: Okay. So it's $500 million from growth, and it's $300 million coming from the recovery of the COVID that we lost this year as we rebase it, considering that the demand will come back. So that's $800 million. So you have the fee. Now, but the accelerating farm down, unfortunately, you don't give -- we don't receive the same amount of money if you farm down with a entity. So I mean there is -- it's a matter of maturity of the project because financial institution of these guys, they love projects with no risk. So if you have more risk because you accelerate, because you farm down your interest earlier in the development process, that will give you the same way that today. We acquired this pipeline with a low cost of entry. I want to keep this low cost of entry for Total because we have the balance sheet to support the development rather than putting them in -- rather than divesting that to people, but I prefer to derisk. So for me, the only point that we could ask ourselves is once we have all the elements in our hand, including the PPAs is there a possibility at a development stage to farm down quicker than waiting the COD. That's something on which we -- but clearly, our strategy is to get access to pipeline with a low cost of entry to mature the pipeline and then we are able to pay the risk. And if we farm down, we want the people to pay with no risk. So if they accept the execution risk, the project execution, maybe we look and look at it. But generally, our experience is that this type of -- you obtain the better valuation if you wait for, I mean, having put your assets into production, and then it's just a matter of -- it's like a pipeline. They love pipeline. It's an infrastructure at the end. So if you want to risk your infrastructure fund, it's better not to ask them to be a part of the risk of construction of the infrastructure. That's simply the logic. The last question. Who has the honor of the last question? The best one. No?

We have the last question coming from the line of Paul Cheng from Scotiabank.

Two quick one. First, in your production guidance for this year, that's flat to 2020, that seems a bit low given last year that we have the government curtailment. So what's the underlying assumption in the government curtailment in this year? Is it similar to last year? Or that you actually have a higher number? The second one is on the gas and -- the gas and low carbon business in the fourth quarter, at least comparing to what we see seem side earning is low. Just curious is that any one-off item that have negatively impact such as in trading or in derivative that we should be aware. Patrick Pouyanné: First question, no, it's clear. I mean you have a natural decline of portfolio, let's say, 3%. So 3% of 3 million barrels, 2.9, so let's say, 90,000 barrels per day. And so we think that it's difficult, but it's not -- no, we think that between the quarter, Libya will offer something like 30,000 or 40,000, 40,000, 50,000 barrel per day. When we make an assumption about at which rate, quota could be relaxed and it's difficult to guess. So again, I'm not sure we are very prudent. Honestly, I think we are reasonable. So curtailments, no, I think we stopped curtailments. Curtailments were mainly in Canada, and I think we had -- we don't have any more assumptions curtailment in this figure. So the big -- the question mark again is that which rate quotas might be relaxed and it's difficult to anticipate. I don't think we are. So the reality is that it's not new, is that we don't have start-ups in '21. We have experienced a lot of start-ups in previous years, but we don't have new projects coming on '21, except, I may say, the Libya coming back onstream is a sort of start-up for us as we didn't experience much production in 2020. The contribution of GRP, I will give that as a final question to our CFO. Or to -- no, I will give it to Philippe. As Philippe is the last answer to this type of AES. So Philippe, for your -- it's a good question for you. It's a tricky one, but you will explain this as you -- it will be your last answer to this group of people.

Yes, I must confess that, yes, performance of trading gas and power in Q4 was disappointing as it was the case for most of our competitors. I could add that we kept some option for the month of January, which was much more interesting than a boring month of December. Patrick Pouyanné: I think, in fact, our traders did not anticipate the boom of the gas price. They were -- they are not -- we should hire a metrologist, I think, in the team. I think they didn't see all these boom coming up, but they've seen it in January. So the good news, I think, in fact, Philippe is very nice to Stéphane, which will lead the President, who should become President for gas renewables and power, giving it off the good results for the first quarter 2021. So that's, I think, the answer. Patrick Pouyanné: So on this note, I would like to tell you to all of you, thank you. Thank you for your attendance to this results and outlook session. I think you had the opportunity to dig into all what we are building within Total, in particular, in the new businesses, but also the important ones in E&p, Refining and chemicals, marketing & services. And again, I wish you the best for this year, including, of course, a good health, and hope to see you soon physically. Next session for us will be end of September. In the meantime, all of you will be vaccinated probably, and we might meet again. So thank you for your attendance and have -- see you soon. Bye.