TotalEnergies SE (TTE) 2008 Q3 法說會逐字稿

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Total's Third Quarter 2008 Results Conference Call.

I now hand over to M.

de la Chevardire.

Sir, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Hello and thank you for calling in.

I'm sure you heard the other major oil companies comment on the changes in the environment that we have seen over the past weeks.

So, let me go directly to the third quarter results and after that I will describe how we have prepared Total to weather the storm, even one like this.

For the third quarter, Total posted another new record for results.

Compared to the third quarter 2007, adjusted net income increased by 48% to $6.1 billion thanks to the high oil price in the first quarter.

Earnings per share increased by 50% to $2.73.

And the royalties for the business segments rose to 29.5%.

Total is benefiting strongly from its integrated model, with the downstream and chemical performing particularly well.

Looking at the cash flow for the quarter, cash flow was $11 billion, an increase 126%, including the positive working capital effect following the drop in the oil price.

CapEx was $5.1 billion, which is in line with our 2008 budget of $19 billion.

And we sold $0.8 billion of non-strategic assets, essentially this was a sale of some Santa Fe shares.

So, our net cash flow was very strong at $7.1 billion.

As a result, we have reduced our giving from 25% at the end of June to 15% at the end of September.

This is below our target range of 20% to 30% and it reflects our desire to be prudent in the current environment, by strengthening the balance sheet.

Finally, for buy backs, since the beginning of the third quarter, we have bought back close to 12 million shares for about $0.8 billion.

So, our third quarter results are pretty clean and straightforward.

I will comment briefly on the business segments, then the environment and how we are positioned for the coming months and after that, we will go to your questions.

Starting with the upstream, adjusted net income is after tax and includes the equity affiliates, was $4.4 billion for the upstream segment in the third quarter 2008.

Our reported position volume was 2.23 million a day.

This represents a decrease of about 5% year-over-year and sequentially.

The difference is largely mechanical.

Compared to the same quarter last year, we have the benefit of starting up more Jura plus the production ramp ups of new fields like Dolphin and Rosa.

These positive effects were globally in line with expectations.

They were partially offset by normal declines on existing production, which are on average running close to 4% per year.

Another offset was a negative price effect for about 2.5% and this is in line with our published average sensitivity.

So, the remaining decrease reflects mainly one-off impacts.

In our case, this was a shut down of Al Jurf, which we talked about last quarter, the unscheduled shutdowns on Bruce and Alwyn in the North Sea and more disruptions in Nigeria.

To get a better picture of our performance in production, I think it is best to look at the year-to-date comparison.

For the first nine months 2008, versus 2007, production decreased by 1.5%.

The price effect had an impact of minus 2.5%.

Changes in the portfolio had a negative impact of 0.5%.

So, in terms of underlying production, we have increased by 1.5%.

And this means that there were new fields started that have more than offset the natural decline and these one-off items.

Looking at the fourth quarter, Jura recently reached its plateau on time and Moho Bilondo will continue to ramp up into next year, but at the slower pace than initially anticipated.

The Al Jurf field, offshore Libya, was shut down in the second quarter, and it should be back in production at the end of the fourth quarter.

In the third quarter, we had some problems with the Bruce and the Alwyn Fields in the North Sea, and also OML 58 in Nigeria.

They are all backing production now.

It is too early to say how the price effect will impact the fourth quarter because of the offsetting effects of lower prices on cost of oil versus the thresholds effects.

Looking ahead, we are on track to start up Yemen LNG and the the Akpo Field, which is deep offshore Nigeria, in the first part of 2009.

But by the way, Akpo as we saw arrived on site on October 18th.

We expect Qatargas II will start up soon after Akpo.

We also had some exploration success this quarter, including a very promising well on West Franklin.

This discovery will allow us to increase recoverable reserves by about 120 million barrels and double production capacity with only one well.

We are currently completing a few other interesting wells and we should have some updates for you soon.

As part of our strategy to make targeted acquisitions, we completed the Synenco deal in Canada and we bought 60% of the giant Bemonlanga heavy oil field in Madagascar at a cost that is very competitive with our finding costs.

These are nice long-term options that do not require significant CapEx in the short term.

We have made several significant final investment decisions since the end of 2007, including back flow, [Usan, Velongi] redevelopments in Gabon and OML 58 in Nigeria.

These projects are well into development now and they will create significant value even with oil price at $50 to $60 per barrel.

The next wave of FIDs, fall out, capital intensive projects, is not expected prior late 2009 to early 2010.

These include Joslyn in Canada, Shtokman, [diesel] LNG and some new deep and new ultra deep offshore projects.

We have a lot of time to assess all the environments, including costs, may adjust, and determine how we can capture any potential benefits.

If our analysis indicates that we should delay a project, then we will delay it and it is that simple.

But at this point, there is no significant risk of long-term projects being postponed or delayed because of the current environment.

So, despite some one-off impacts, we are continuing to execute our strategy well.

Let me switch to the downstreaming chemicals segments.

As I said at the beginning, we have reported another new record level of results and this was made possible, in large part due, to the very strong improvements in the downstream and the chemicals.

Comparing the third quarter 2008 to the second quarter, the adjusted net operating income was $1.4 billion for the downstream an 88 increase.

This is new recoverable for the downstream.

And $0.4 billion for the chemicals, which is 18% above last year.

We have said many times that we believe strongly in the integrated model for major oil companies and these results clearly support our position now.

In the downstream, turnaround activity was low.

Down time was limited.

And even with the negative 3% impact from the shutdown of Port Arthur for hurricanes in September, the refinery throughput increased by 4%.

Refining margins went up to $45 per ton in the third quarter.

This is an increase of 88% compared to last year and 12% compared to the previous quarter.

We benefited from a strong capture of these margins and we have pretty good performance in optimizing the supply of our system.

Marketing performed well, largely because of good margin and lag effects.

Marketing volumes, on average, were 3% lower than last year.

Base chemicals in Europe benefited from prices that were set when NAFTA was at a record level and from SN-based projects, despite a decrease in demand.

And specialty chemicals performed well, so despite some signs of a slowdown in demand.

So far in the fourth quarter, downstream and chemicals are performing well.

Volumes are weakening a bit.

But margins are still good and there is no significant maintenance planned until the beginning of next year.

Finally, on corporate and strategy guidance.

We are in very good shape, with a strong balance sheet and plenty of cash to execute our strategy.

We have reduced the gearing, which is a prudent course in a volatile environment.

Our net debt to equity ratio was 15% at the end of September.

We will pay interim dividend on November 15th, and this should have the effect of bringing the gearing back closer to 20%.

You have our balance sheet and you can see that we have $19 billion in cash at the end of the third quarter.

In addition to this cash, we have several billion dollars of standby credit lines available to us that are essentially untouched.

And we have about $10 billion of Santa Fe shares that we are selling progressively.

On the debt side we issued about $4 billion of bonds earlier this year so we are in a position now where we can wait for an improvement in market conditions before we issue new bonds.

So, that is liquidity.

Now, what is our view of the medium to long-term environment.

Despite the recent and very dramatic fall in oil prices we continue to believe that the supply/demand balance will be tight over the long term and our investment reason is long-term.

Obviously, we expect to see some near-term weakness in demand related to a slow down in global economic growth.

But OPEC seems to be serious about maintaining a proper supply/demand balance in the market.

There are decline rates for existing production and the potential slowdown in project development in the near term because of the current oil price.

So, we have some difficulties supporting the argument that that the market should price in another supply of oil for the long term.

Having said that, we are running two main scenarios for the 2009 budget, one at $80 per barrel and another one at $60 per barrel.

For CapEx the budget for 2008 is $19 billion and I think, we will end this year close to that number.

We have not approved the 2009 budget so we will have to wait and present the numbers to you in February.

Our near term CapEx reflects mainly the portfolio of long term projects that we are currently developing and preparing to start up.

We are not in a situation where we need to make significant changes.

All projects currently in development create substantial value at $50 to $60 per barrel.

And as a last point, it is too soon for us to estimate the impact of all-in costs on our CapEx program.

We will do our best to push them down, but it is too soon to say.

What I can tell you about CapEx is that we are very serious about financial discipline and we will not launch a project if it does not meet our strict criteria.

For OpEx, we have a track record showing that we are the low cost major.

On average, our technical costs are about $5 per barrel lower than our peers, and this advantage has been increasing over the past years.

This is important in the current environment.

We are always reviewing our cost base and implementing performance plans to maintain and increase this advantage and Christophe De Margerie recently asked the group management to formally and specifically address this point in the 2009 budget.

In closing, let me also say that ten years ago, when the oil price was at $10 per barrel, we maintained our CapEx and continued to increase our dividend.

We believe that consistently investing for growth is the best way to create wealth over the long term.

Let me emphasize again that we have a great deal of financial flexibility and I am confident that we will be able to maintain our dynamic dividend policy over the long term, even if oil prices remain in the current range.

So now, we can start the Q&A.

(Operator Instructions).

We have the first question from Mr.

Alastair Syme from Merrill Lynch.

Sir, please go ahead.

Yes.

Good afternoon.

Two quick questions.

One, in the countries that you operate within OPEC, have you been asked to scale back on production in line with the OPEC cuts recently announced?

And then secondly, you mentioned two oil price scenarios for next year.

I know you're not going to tell us the absolute CapEx number, but is there a substantial difference in the CapEx that you would run under those two scenarios?

So, on oil, Alastair.

The first question was on OPEC.

As far as I am aware of, we have not been asking for any cut off production.

This does not mean that we will not be asked, but as of yesterday, I have no information about it.

Okay.

You asked me then if we will change our CapEx program, depending on the oil price scenario.

Is this correct?

That's basically the question, yes.

Yes.

For 2009, you have to keep in mind that most of our CapEx program is already committed.

About 80%, or more than 80%, of that is already committed.

So, whatever is the oil price, those CapEx will be implemented.

Are we going to adjust?

I mean, we are in the budget process and I cannot comment more because we haven't seen yet the figures.

But I know that the E&P division is working on how to control and maintain our CapEx program as far as we can.

Okay.

As a related question, could I ask, as you look into 2010, how much of the CapEx is committed?

Does it drop off a lot?

Well, I don't know the exact figure, but obviously there are less amount committed for 2010 than 2009, but I can't say more.

Okay.

Sure.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We now have a question from Mr.

Michele della Vigna from Goldman Sachs.

Please go ahead.

Hi, Patrick.

I would like to ask two questions.

The first one is, BG announced yesterday that they have locked in the margin on about 50% of their LNG supply.

You have a lot of new LNG coming on stream in 2009.

Are you thinking about a similar strategy of locking in margins there for '09 and 2010?

And the second question is relating to the large percentage of new projects that you have.

Are you planning to function any of those in the next six to 12 months or do you prefer to keep flexibility on future spending?

Hello, Michele.

On our LNG strategy, as a policy, whatever is the energy, either electricity, LNG, gas, oil -- we do not put in place any coverage use range.

So, it is not our strategy to lock in price in the future.

Okay.

We now have a question from Mr.

[Leon Ackman] from [Sense Investing].

Please go ahead.

I'm sorry, I didn't answer the second question of Michele.

Oh, sorry.

That's okay.

For new projects, we have big projects like Joslyn in Canada, like Shtokman, Ichtys, Brass, which will be at FID by year-end 2009 or beginning 2010.

So, let's say, roughly, we have more than one year to assess the environment and it -- maybe to review our assessment for those projects.

The main question is how deep will be the consequences of the financial crisis on the economy.

And we need to have more time to see what will be the consequences on the economy of the financial crisis.

And in parallel to that, we need to seek what will be the consequences of the costs of our projects.

Yes.

Thank you, Michele.

We now have a question from Mr.

Leon Ackman from Sense Investing.

Sir, please go ahead.

Hi, it's Neil McMahon with Sanford Bernstein.

I've got a few questions.

First of all, given the recent weakness in demand, in Europe, could you give us an updated view on how diesel demand is being seen in France through your retail operations?

And also across Europe?

And I've also got a few other questions.

Thanks.

Rough figures coming from the top of my mind, from the month of July and August, I think the drop in Europe is about 5% to 6% if I will remember.

And you've got no more up-to-date data points than that?

No, I'm sorry, I don't have any figures for September.

Okay.

Maybe just turning to Madagascar and your new lease there.

Maybe you could describe a bit more in detail, up fights, the lease in Madagascar and why in particular you're getting involved in the onshore rather than the offshore permit?

Okay.

It's an onshore, heavy oil field.

Which we bought at the extremely reasonable price.

It is more than a billion barrels of -- to be reserve and more than 10 billion barrels of resources, basically.

It is a long-term option for us and we need time to study it, so that we can figure out how to develop it.

Will you be able to book any of these reserves for 2008?

Not yet.

No.

And then I've just got one last question, in terms of oil service contracts.

I know Christoph De Margerie is being very vocal on his feelings about oil service price inflation.

What flexibility or potential do you have within the oil service contracts or more specifically your drilling contracts to renegotiate over the next -- for drilling contracts over the next few years?

I don't know to answer precisely to your question because we usually, when we are committed to something, we fulfill our commitments.

But what it is obvious is that we will use the time we have prior -- both FIDs, I mentioned in the previous question, to put pressure on the contractors so that they reduce their costs.

That's could be -- that would be my answer.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We now have a question from Mr.

Dave Thomas from Citigroup.

Sir, please go ahead.

Yes.

Good afternoon, gentlemen.

Dave Thomas from Citigroup here.

I've got three questions, please.

Firstly, in the third quarter, we saw the run rate of your Sanofi shares accelerating.

Is it to ensure you divest all of your stake by 2012?

And so, can we anticipate a similar quarterly run rate in terms of cash flow from share sales?

And on the second question, you mentioned, obviously, pushing back on having any major FIDs before the end of next year and into 2010.

Can you comment on what implication this may have on reserves bookings as a consequence?

And the third question was around acquisitions.

These were flagged in the mid-year review and equity values have obviously dropped since then.

So, can you say what sort of type of acquisitions you might be interested in that make strategic sense for Total?

In other words, any regions or type of resource?

For example, the resume in the oil sands are less attractive, given oil prices are currently below the level that you need to meet hurdle rates, returns or any color you can provide there would be much appreciated.

Okay.

Dave, Thank you for your question.

I will cover the last one first about acquisitions.

I'm not going to tell you why you should invest to enjoy the premium.

But we -- I would say that we are open to plenty of opportunities.

We are interested in long plateau production, that's what I would like to say.

I don't want to make the whole list of potential acquisitions we could make.

We are open too and that's it.

And the market is obviously a little bit favorable currently.

Your second question was FID and reserve bookings.

For this year, we would book Usan, OML 58, some reserve in Gabon and maybe West Franklin.

I think you should wait until February to have more precise data and -- because the whole process of booking reserves is made in December, in our company.

Your first question was about Sanofi.

Yes, if you remember, what I said last conference call, about Sanofi, that we will do the job.

And that's what we are currently doing.

Are we going to maintain this rate or are we going to take an opportunity to sell a package of shares?

I don't know.

This will depend on the market conditions.

Really in regards to the Sanofi question, you said the 500 million round terms was sold in the third quarter and I guess that's the sort of rate that you'll need to divest the remaining stake by 2012.

So, could we anticipate it will be something around that, not less than that, from now on?

The objective is to have more Sanofi shares in our balance sheet by 2012.

And we will use all means available to us to do it.

I understand.

Thanks.

Thank you.

We now have a question from Mr.

Jon Rigby from UBS.

Sir, please go ahead.

Hi.

Yes, two questions.

The first relates back to costs and CapEx again.

I think you've IDed the CapEx flaw, which is development that I think you were saying [flawed] with the inflation, it had a [negative] effect.

And also I think you indicated that you are in the process or have been in the process of ordering long lead times for your Saudi refinery.

I just wondered whether you have any ability, under activities or items that you've already ordered, to revisit costs in those developments?

The second is, I think there's some news stories yesterday concerning [Soffel's] review of your gas and manufacturing capacity across Europe, saying you're the largest refiner in Europe and having notable ex-one sale of refinery of being normally participating in any restructuring so far.

Is there a process of review taking place on your downstream assets?

Thanks.

Hello, Jon.

Hello.

Your first question, about can we revisit some costs.

You know backflow is done.

And as I mentioned, when we are committed to something, we fulfill our commitment.

And I remind you that backflow is extremely profitable even at the $60 per barrel scenario.

On Dubai, we may play a little bit with time in order to push the costs down and we are currently discussing that.

We are, with our partner.

About the refineries in Europe, we are in the process of thinking out to adjust our refining system to the market.

We have already sold our refinery in the UK, if you keep that in mind.

If you have that in mind.

And we will adjust, if necessary, and when necessary, our refinery system.

Is it focused on what you're producing or is it -- would it be a wider view than that?

So, would it be extended beyond just trying to reduce your exposure to global gasoline markets?

Your line is very bad.

I'm sorry, Jon, because I can't hear you.

In fact, I can't hear exactly your question.

Sorry.

Is that better?

No.

Oh.

Okay.

All right.

Well I'll finish there.

Maybe take -- maybe come back offline.

Okay.

Sorry for that.

Oh, no worries.

We now have a question from Mr.

Mark Gilman from the The Benchmark Company.

Please go ahead.

Hi, Patrick.

Good afternoon.

I had three questions, if I could please.

First, on your comments, you referred to a slower than expected ramp in Moho Bilondo, and I wonder if you could give us a little bit more color as to the reasons for that?

Secondly, the release refers to losses at the Dalian refinery in the third quarter, which, given my understand, that it's an export refinery.

And with the expansion having come online, it is surprising.

I wonder if you can just give us exactly why that had occurred.

And finally, could you give us some idea how the renegotiation of fiscal terms in Libya will impact your volume and financial reporting with respect to operations in that country?

Thanks.

Okay.

Moho Bilondo first, Mark.

You -- the point is that we, one well was lost at the beginning.

And that roughly explains why the ramp up will slow down -- the ramp up will be lower than expected.

An additional well will be drilled by November in order to recapture those volumes we don't have today.

Roughly we are missing about 10,000 barrels per day.

Basically, today.

By this missing well.

So, that was on Moho.

On OPEC, it's all about the refining margin, which is under the administrative control of the Chinese currently.

So, it has nothing to do with operational performance, but it is only due to the regulation in China.

And now that we see the oil price going down, I think we should expect at least that will recover some flexibility in the last quarter this year.

The last question was about Libya.

Just to give you an idea of who -- what was the -- we have fields operated by [Rexhold] and those licenses has been renegotiated already.

And we book that in the third quarter.

The overall impact, and this renegotiation has a retroactive effect since the first of January this year.

To give you a magnitude of that, the retroactive effect of both renegotiation for our share is about -- has a net operating income of about EUR150 million, EUR170 million.

For our operated fields, negotiations are currently on, but there will be less effect, less impact than for the Rexhold, there's also circular Rexhold field, which were much larger than our fields.

And Patrick, could I just follow-up?

Is my understanding incorrect that the Dalian refinery export -- is strictly an export refinery?

Well, it has been initially, the initial contract was that Dalian was an exporting refinery, but all the projects are going -- were all at least 70% of the products are going on the local market.

And one follow-up on Libya, in parallel with the retroactive effect of the new terms, we also enjoy the benefit of an extension the licenses by 15 years for fund block and five years for all the blocks.

Okay.

With respect to that EUR150 million to EUR170 million impact, I assume that's a one-time negative in the third quarter results?

Is that correct.

That's correct.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We now have a question from Kim Fustier from J.P.

Morgan.

Please go ahead.

Yes, hi.

Good afternoon, gentlemen.

Just three questions.

First one is on Nigeria.

Can you comment on Nigeria and what potential do you see for production returning in '09?

And how confident are you in being able to make the FID in '09 on LNG train seven in Brass, given the increased emphasis from the Nigerian government on prioritizing domestic gas supply?

Secondly, it feels like in a couple of years, you've relied more and more on [sudsy] tie backs as [Marshall Fields] to the North Sea.

And when taking FID on these types of projects, do you use the forward curve or do the economics have to fly on your own internal assumptions?

And thirdly, you've talked in the past about your preference with dividends over share buy-backs.

And can you just clarify your share buy-back policy?

Are they linked to disposals in some ways?

For example, the Sanofi disposals?

Or more generally to your overall cash position?

Thank you.

Thank you.

I will try to answer slower than you asked your questions, Kim.

On Nigeria, frankly we -- the situation is extremely difficult.

There are still security issues.

I mentioned the one we had on OML 58 during third quarter.

And in our assumption, we are not assuming a big recovery in Nigeria for 2009.

Your question about FID of Brass and LNG train seven, the -- for LNG train seven, what I now know is that the field, the front-end engineering, has been completed.

As far as the FID is concerned, honestly I don't know.

I'm sorry.

And I would make the same comment on Brass, where the field also has been completed, but this is all of what I know about.

Your second question was about if we use the forward curve or if we use a flat price assumption of our own.

We don't use forward curve to assess our projects.

So, we have our own oil price in the UN, we use it.

For the buy-back, we, as per se, we have no policy for buy-back, I would say.

We use cash available, if in excess, to buy back some shares and that's it.

And currently today we are not buying back any shares, but we will see what will be our cash position in two months time and we adjust it and that's it.

That's great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kim.

We now have a question from Mr.

Colin Smith from Dresdner Kleinwort.

Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Patrick.

Three things.

One, you comment in the release about sort of non-strategic holdings.

And we can see, as was mentioned earlier, the backup in the Sanofi, last year.

So, I was just curious as to whether there was anything else you had in mind that might turn to the non-strategic holding up for sale?

Second thing was just in your remarks, you mentioned the loss of volume from Bruce and OML 58 in the third quarter.

I was wondering if you could just give us a flavor of how much fall you may expect to see return in Q4 as a result of those issues being over?

Thank you.

Do we have non-strategic assets in addition to the Santa Fe shares?

The answer is -- yes.

Do we have in mind to sell other assets?

I don't think there is anything significant that could be expected now.

But as I mentioned, there are assets we don't believe are strategic and if there is opportunity to divest them, we will divest them and that is it.

Okay.

Could you maybe provide a little bit of color around what you consider those to be?

No, I'm sorry.

Okay.

Now, Colin, you asked too much for me.

The loss on Bruce and -- the loss of volume.

Obviously we face technical problems in the third quarter on Bruce and Alwyn.

We lose something about 2%, 2.5% of production.

Those problems are sold.

Those fields are back on stream today.

On OML 58, we lose something like 1% last quarter and once -- and again, on OML 58, it's back on stream today.

Do you have a number in barrels of oil equivalent, for example, that we could use for short hand in that?

On OML 58, it is in the range of 20,000 barrels per day, I would say.

And on Bruce and Alwyn it is between 40,000 to 50,000 barrels a day.

Thank you very much.

We have a question from Mr.

Dominique Patry from Cheuvreux.

Sir, please go ahead.

Yes.

Good afternoon.

I have a follow-up question on the shutdowns of the third quarter.

Given the fact that Alwyn is a high margin field, could you maybe quantify the impact of the net operating results in upstream from the temporary shutdown of Alwyn during the quarter?

And then I have a second question.

You have mentioned the two oil prices under which you are going to base your 2009 CapEx -- $60 and $80.

I was just wondering, with regard to the operations spending, given the fact that you have quite sharply increased your exploration effort for the past years.

How do you see your 2009 exploration maybe under those two different scenarios?

Thank you.

Okay.

On the shutdown on Bruce and Alwyn, we lose about 40,000 to 50,000 barrels per day.

I don't know what will be -- what is the exact impact to net operating income.

It is something significant, return to the year-end and we will give you that figure that I don't have.

I'm sorry.

For the budget, I remind you that in '98 or '99, when the oil price was up $10 per barrel, we did not cut our programs.

And I remind you also what I said is that most of our program for 2009 is, obviously, at 80% at least already committed.

That would be my answer.

So, you propose that it's the same for exploration for your exploration spending in 2009?

It's mostly committed?

It is not only the fact that it is committed.

I don't know what is the percentage -- I am assuming that we may have more flexibility in our exploration than for the CapEx program.

But as of today, there is no intention for us to reduce our program.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We now have a question from Mr.

[Jeffrey Terrence] from Cheuvreux.

Sir, please go ahead.

Yes.

Good afternoon.

Just a quick question.

You mentioned earlier in the conference call, the potential effects of lower proxies on the price insuring contracts in Q4, but could you clarify a bit this point, please?

Okay, Jeffrey.

You know our sensitivity, which was given when the oil price was around 80.

The sensitivity is set for $1 per barrel.

The volume effect is between 1,000, 2,000 barrels per day.

In addition, I'd like to mention that we have some special effects, which will start in Q4, on the year.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay?

Okay.

Thanks.

Thank you.

We now have a question from Mr.

Neil Morton from MF Global.

Sir, please go ahead.

Good afternoon.

Just a couple of issues left please.

You've reintroduced your $19 billion of CapEx this year.

There has been a strong move in the dollar recently.

So, just so that we can better model that number in euros, could you remind us what -- roughly what proportion of your annual CapEx is in currencies other than the U.S.

dollar?

And just secondly, on Santa Fe, you've obviously been quite clear about your long-term commitment to sell down your stake.

But Santa Fe does have a new CEO starting, I think, in the end of December.

I understand that both Ital and L'Oreal were quite instrumental in his appointment.

So, I just wondered, as a sign of support to him, would you perhaps envisage slowing the pace of buy-backs, or is it just business as usual?

Thank you.

For CapEx, roughly, 70% of our CapEx are denominated in U.S.

dollars.

The rest is denominated in sterling, Norwegian kroner and euros.

Basically.

On Santa Fe, keep in mind that we always make sales of shares without hurting the market.

We do take care of the Santa Fe share itself.

And it is not for us.

We are not going to change our policy of divestment, our Santa Fe shares because of the change of management in Santa Fe.

We make this policy clear one year and a half ago and this is -- this policy is still valid.

That's very clear.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have a new question from Mr.

Mark Gilman from the Benchmark Company.

Please go ahead.

Patrick, in response to a prior question, you mentioned, I believe, a threshold impact, I believe, on Dalia in the fourth quarter.

Could you give us a rough idea of the barrels per day impact of that?

15,000.

Do you have it?

Thank you.

And in response to my prior question regarding Libya, is there a retroactive volume impact associated with the EUR150 million to EUR170 million that you quoted?

And is that an operating income or a net income figure?

It's a net operating figure I mentioned to you.

And the volume impact?

There is no volume effect, by the way.

Because we -- when you book volume, it's already done.

It's done.

So, you're -- you cannot retroactively change your production, technically speaking, anyway.

Thank you, Patrick.

Thank you.

We have no questions at the moment.

(Operator Instructions).

We have no further questions.

Thank you very much all of you and have a good day for all in the US and good afternoon for all those in Europe, by the way.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for attending.

You may now disconnect.