Oswald Clint: Thank you very much, everyone. Oswald Clint, Bernstein. I wanted to ask on LNG, and I wanted to ask about appetite into your portfolio from new demand from Biden’s policy recently from the Red Sea disruption. I think you answered that already by saying China is having some discussions with you, etcetera. So perhaps I’ll change it to, are you, I mean, really leveraging – and I know Stephane is behind me, but leveraging the LNG trading and optimization piece, I mean, a couple of your peers this last quarter here in Europe, even in Texas, are now delivering gas and LNG trading profits on top. It doesn’t look like you captured a lot. It looks like the others are a bit more aggressive, potentially a lot more capital financing is being allocated to trading, and it’s coming through.
So perhaps your business is more tightly controlled. Just to get your thoughts on, are you happy with that? Is there more you could do around the LNG optimization pace, please?
Patrick Pouyanné: I’m very happy with what we do. And by the way, maybe when you look to our peers this quarter is better, the previous quarter was not so good. So we are more consistent in the trading part quarterly after quarterly. We know our policy, and Stephane can elaborate, but we have no – we are, honestly, I think, are doing a lot with that. It’s [indiscernible] we are managing 40 million tons. So of course, a part of it and the number of spot deals which have been done 16 million tons. So again, it’s quite active and our traders are doing a lot around it. But I will deliver the message that they can do better when I see their bonus. I think they have done well. You can ask to Jean-Pierre what he thinks about that.
No. I think, honestly, we are not more. We are very active on that. It’s completely in the business model of LNG trading. Again, we benefited from the fact – we have this policy to hedge most of the portfolio 1 year in advance. It’s true. But because we have quite an open position, and I think it’s – so we benefited from that in ‘23. Next year $7 billion. Again, I think one message of the slide, by the way, when you look to the improvement of what we were delivering in ‘21 to ‘23, it’s quite a big improvement. And it’s coming fundamentally, in particular, the European position. In Europe, we have access, we control 16% of regas capacities. We have added these two FSRUs. So it help us to trade around that. So maybe we make less noise when we have good results, but we don’t have any bad results in the quarter.
So I’m fine. No, we are fine.
Oswald Clint: Thank you. And maybe my second question is just on Iraq, 100 years. When you spoke about your new Iraqi project there, did you say it’s also a $30 per barrel cash margin?
Patrick Pouyanné: It’s much more than that.
Oswald Clint: Okay. And really, the bigger question was that my favorite chart is the one on cash flow relative to the oil price. Is there anything as we look out for the next 5 years that would be decreasing the slope of that with production sharing contracts, slopes in LNG contracts?
Patrick Pouyanné: It’s a good question. We have done it in the last 2 years, we can project it. I think it’s a good – Olivier, which is behind the door there, he is expert of making this type of charts. He is super good economist and engineer. No. But I think the point, but we can demonstrate that on the portfolio. Fundamentally, our new portfolio is much more accretive to [indiscernible] because we look to projects and we select the projects to find this, I would say, to improve not only – we were perceived, as I said, as a resilient company, we want to have also the upside. And Iraq is one of them, by the way, where we have quite a good upside. But I take the point and we can illustrate that maybe September next strategy.
We had that slide. It was too complex last time. So we need to prepare it in a better way. But this one, I think, that we had, which has been imagined by our colleagues, it’s a good illustration about this change of slope and which means higher upside to capture from the brand.
Renaud Lions: We can go Michele, please.
Michele Vigna: Thank you. Congratulations on the strong results and being almost net debt-free. I wanted to ask two questions. The first one is more industry-wide. We are getting a lot of very conflicting messages on EV uptake across the world. On one side, it seems to be accelerating in China, but then it’s decelerating in Europe and in the U.S. as some of the more generous incentives roll off. What are you seeing on the ground? And does that in any way change your strategy in terms of EV charging? And then secondly, I wanted to ask you on LNG. You clearly hedge 12 months forward your spot LNG exposure. But I was wondering, is there a way to quantify the sensitivity to spot LNG prices beyond that 12-month of hedging? Thank you.
Patrick Pouyanné: What is important in our portfolio is the difference between TTF and GKM, I think you can elaborate on that, Stephane, the second question, maybe you can answer too. On the first one, that’s one of the unknown. But we know, in fact, our strategy is centered on Europe, the EU, which has a clear plan, 2035. And in EU, it’s fundamentally the five, the core of the countries, France, Germany, Netherlands, the UK, Spain. In the U.S., I agree, but when you go to the U.S., you don’t see a big move. And when you observe in the streets and don’t see a huge move. So more – we are more careful. So we are more on the EV strategy is more Europe, where there is a clear regulation plan, where we think that it will happen, maybe not as quick as before, but as the government seems to be, even if they have less money, but they will be obliged.
At the end, maybe [indiscernible] of the car manufacturers, maybe there will be plenty of Chinese EV cars in the streets in Europe, the trend today, but it’s not my issue to me. So for us, EV equals Europe where we have a clear, I would say, [indiscernible] regulations. But I think, honestly, this transition is not only a question of offer. If you don’t have an incentive on the demand and a clear, I would say, policymakers, policy, low chance that people will accept. It’s a revolution, it’s a kind of revolution. You ask people to spend more money to get a car to have the same function, but I see car. Why should they spend more money? Tell me. So we have to lower – they have to lower the cost of the cars and somewhere to be supported, so without policy.
So you’re right. China is good, but China is using their own market in order to – but it’s, again, more for car manufacturing industry, is a challenge to bring all these cars to deploy their manufacturing capacities on the planet, in fact, which is what is happening, in fact, in particular, in Europe. So for us, does it change? No, fundamentally. But we will not deploy EV in Africa, where we have retail today, it’s Africa, I will continue to continue to develop our, I would say, traditional business in Africa. In Europe, you see that change, even if we are happy with the position in France. Again, as I commented, we sold our retail station in Germany and the Netherlands to Couche-Tard because the financial proposal was for us quite a good one.
So we had to – in a way to change. In terms of CapEx, it’s a matter today of $150 million, $200 million per year. So it’s not a huge commitment compared to what we spent. So Europe, yes. The rest, I will observe, just to go in your way. And what I’m observing is again, let’s see, depending on the policies. And particularly in the U.S., I have few doubts. Okay, another one? Stephane should answer. Sorry. Stephane, please, answer.
