It’s a good metric because you see the – all the balance we generate, 34, we invest 17, we delivered 16 to [indiscernible]. It’s a good balance. And so one way is to continue to divest. Divestments will come part of it, by the way, from what discussed about the farm-down of renewables. Because we, it’s not a divestment, it’s more we divest because we reinvest part of it. So when we have, at the end, $5 billion, it’s – in fact, it’s plus $7 billion, minus $2 billion, etcetera. So we have to – this machine of divestments has to be put in place. And that’s one of the target for Stephane teams in the year. But we have also some assets in the Upstream, but it’s no secret. But in Nigeria, for example, these onshore assets are complex.
We want to divest our share of SPDC, and we are looking to reshape the portfolio. So it’s a permanent, for me, good philosophy to oblige ourselves. We buy in Malaysia, where do we divest on the other side? By the way, in – you noticed that in ‘24 we will benefit from the divestment to Couche-Tard to the Netherlands and Belgium because we didn’t sell it in ‘23 but in ‘24. So I think we are fine. And the level of activity should be around about $5 billion on one side, $5 billion on the other side, and I think it’s part of the strategy, is also to benefit from – and we have the balance sheet to do that. Not too big, big M&A. I don’t – I’m not consolidator of Shell in the U.S., I’m not there, so – but I can perfectly understand what our peers have done.
But we are not in that business. But we can – we have the balance sheet in order to be, I would say, to be active on both sides, both selling and divesting. That’s the philosophy. That’s I would say what I would say.
Renaud Lions: Lydia?
Lydia Rainforth: Thank you. It’s Lydia Rainforth from Barclays. The 100-year milestone is a great chance to look forward and back as well. When you think about the structure of the industry, it’s been – it has been remarkably stable for the next – for the last 20 years. How do you see it going forward? Because it does seem that we’ve got a lot more volatility, a lot more regionalization. And almost back to that chart of Olivier’s of CFFO versus Brent. Is there opportunity for that to kind of diverge more as we go forward? And then if I think basically a little bit looking back this story around the safety side, there is obviously changes in processes that are being put in place. Do you think you can make those changes both quickly and safely in terms of just the – there is going to be more and more processes that need changing in a world where there is more digitalization?
Patrick Pouyanné: Okay, safety. It’s a little frustrating to discover that you need to have a fatality to put into question – honestly, this example is a good example. Myself, I’m a little frustrated, but it’s because we have a fatality, but we take the topic and we say, I remember, I said, you stop and we find a way, and it was provocative from us at the top, why are we obliged to put somebody in these reactors? The reality is that it’s a whole industry is working. It’s the most efficient in terms of cost because it’s shorter. And we have the feeling it’s safe. But it’s not safe. And I think, okay, it’s a decision. It’s where safety is a value. That means that maybe it’s longer to go with the water and etcetera, but at least you’d have nobody inside a reactor, I feel much more comfortable.
And it’s good to see that we are sharing that and our colleagues in the sense our big peers are thinking on the same[indiscernible]. So that’s true, that is quite frustrating, but we could have done that before. The reality – and I think at least what is positive, that we have reacted in a way which forced our team because of initial reaction, they just know, there is no other way. No, no, we told them, if you give us a target, no human being inside these reactors, what do you do? They came with a solution. Honestly, I’m not an expert on this type of technologies. And we say, okay, let’s push on it. Yes, it’s a little more costly because it takes a little more time. Okay. It’s an arbitration. But I feel more safe. So this is a good question, but maybe we should look to other processes where we expose people in this type of environment.
And again, people always think that it’s a question of putting in – it is a good element. So we think we share it because we need to look again to avoid any, I would say, unsafe situation we could avoid, even if it has a cost. But at the end, it’s safety first. So thank you for the remarks, and it’s true that there is positive point we’ve done it, but we could have maybe done it before. On the first one, so volatility of the structure of the industry. You mean the strategies or you mean – I’m not sure to have captured fully…
Lydia Rainforth: Just in terms of – obviously, we’ve had – it’s been relatively stable in terms of the structure of the industry. And now as we go forward for the next 20 years, it seems like there is a lot more volatility as we add more renewable…
Patrick Pouyanné: With more M&A, more renewables, more…
Lydia Rainforth: More renewables, yes. But just in terms of that chart of cash flow versus brand, that kind of – that’s the point that I was making, that ultimately we’re getting more that do you end up having to be able to break that successfully longer-term, that that you continue to get more upside from that part.
Patrick Pouyanné: I think it’s a question of, again, continuing to have – if you keep in mind that your portfolio on the oil and gas will be on one side, breakeven, you maintain it, and that you look to what is the right assets in order to capture a part of the upside, you can continue to build any time. I’m absolutely conveying there is opportunities to do that. If you keep that in mind as a real target, yes, you – it’s a question of being focused. So what do I want to achieve, including it’s a case, it’s always the same discussion between growth and value. And that’s the arbitration. We should not be suddenly obsessed by the 2% growth, even if we have declared 2% growth, or 2% to 3%, because we have the portfolio to execute.
Now it’s a matter of execution, including on the LNG part where it’s part of the – keeping part of the upside, that’s part of it. I agree with this. Do we see more diversions because of the renewables? I would say it’s another business. You see some strategies diverging. I think some other companies will come 1 day of electricity even when you want to produce, no. When you decide to produce your green molecules, the famous molecules, what is hydrogen when it’s green? It’s electricity. It’s electricity. So you have to manage this energy as a fundamental feedstock even when you want to produce these e-methanol or whatever it is, e-fuel tomorrow. So I think it’s part of – and from my perspective, I think all the efforts we have done, we are doing to be – to manage the cost of electricity, the process of producing the electricity will help us tomorrow to go to these feeder molecules, knowing that today the demand for this molecule is not big.
You were speaking about EVs, I could say the same, but hydrogen, there is a lot of enthusiasm in media. When you look to the reality of the demand. By the way, we got $500,000 a ton per year that we are putting on the market. It’s quite a good success, by the way. We have 50 offers. I’m not sure if we will need to qualify that. But we have 7x more of the volume, which is offered, is 7x more than what we are ready to buy. So we will see the competition in the price now, because that’s really a question of volume of price and probably part of these offers are not completely in-line. But we are optimistic that we could get some good products, including maybe investing in some of the project ourselves. We will see as a way too. So I think it’s question the demand there is, so, yes, there is some divergence.
But honestly, we are very comfortable. And as long and as I said that we can remain at the top of profitability globally in the company, building the second pillar, this pillar on electricity, is okay. I would be worried if I were a shareholder, I see a decrease of the profitability. That would be more questionable. We are comfortable at the Board with that.
