TotalEnergies SE (TTE) 2014 Q4 法說會逐字稿

Ladies, gentlemen, good afternoon.

It is always a pleasure to have you here and welcome to our results and outlook rendezvous.

I would like to welcome all those of you who are following us through the web.

Before we start, a few reminders.

Safety first, of course.

(Conference Instructions).

Patrick Pouyanne, our CEO, will start with opening remarks, then a few slides on safety, macro, and outlook.

Then we will have Patrick de la Chevardiere, our CFO, will present the results.

Arnaud and both Philippe will speak about their own sectors.

Then after, we will conclude with Patrick Pouyanne again, who will give some takeaways.

In about one hour, probably a bit more, we will open the session for the Q&A, then come back before the Q&A session.

Thanks for your attention.

The floor is yours.

Thank you Martin.

Good afternoon everybody.

It's the first time that I have had the honour to make this presentation in front of you as the CEO of Total.

I will not do it alone.

I will do it with a team of the Executive Committee.

I will come back on that.

And of course, the results have been not achieved by myself only, but we have achieved under the leadership of Christophe de Margerie until October, and please give me once again, maybe too shortly, the opportunity to honor his memory today.

Since the loss of Christophe, our company, Total, has been faced with two major transitions: an economic transition, asthe price of oil dropped for more than $100 per barrel to less than $50 per barrel and we will come back, obviously, on this challenge during the presentation.

But also, a management transition, not only for myself as CEO, but also for the Executive Committee team and I can tell you that during this transition, how important it has been for me to have the strong support of the Executive Committee and to work with and rely on this talented, experienced team.

This is the reason why today I wanted all of them to join us today for this presentation to the financial community.

And I would like to just once again introduce them to you.

So first of all Arnaud, Arnaud Breuillac; he is head of E&P.

You met him in September for the Outlook, which was presented to you.

Arnaud joined the Executive Committee on October 1st, and will present you the E&P part.

Then Philippe Sauquet, so you have two Patricks and two Philippes.

So P1, P2, Phi1, Phi2, or I don't know what by the way.

Philippe Sauquet is the new head of Refining & Chemicals.

He took my place.

So thank you Philippe to have accepted it.

And as many of you know, Philippe was the former head of Gas & Power , which includes our LNG business and which we can come back today.

Philippe will speak about Refining & Chemicals.

Then we have Philippe Boisseau that you know very well, who is Executive Committee member since 2012 and remains firmly at the helm of Marketing & Services.

Of course, last but not least -- I should not forget Patrick de la Chevardiere.

If you don't know him, that means that you don't do your job or work properly.

But he is P2, so as you know.

And he will help us to go through the 2014 results.

I should not forget, obviously, Yves-Louis Darricarrere, who is with us, our president of Upstream.

He shared with you many meetings.

And Jean-Jacques Guilbaud (inaudible): our Chief Administration Officer.

And, last but not least, the Secretary of Executive Committee and head of our Strategy, Helle Kristoffersen.

Helle will share with us many road shows and then you know, obviously, Helle.

Thank you, Helle.

So this is your team and I think it is important because a company like Total is not run by a man alone, but with many people around him if we want to achieve all our challenges.

Coming back on the economic challenge, economic transition, it is true that we have entered into a new oil cycle, we experienced at least four of them since 1980, in 1985, 1990, 1996, and 2008.

And in front of this challenge, what we want to do is to react, but not to overreact.

I used these words in November when I made my first visit to some investors.

I will maintain them.

Not overreact on the medium-term because we have the financial capacities, the flexibility to weather the storm and to maintain our medium and long-term growth strategy even if we will have to be more selective on some projects.

But also react on the short-term, because we have to face a $10 billion challenge -- cash challenge: when the price dropped from $100 per barrel to $50 per barrel, it represents for us $10 billion less cash flow.

But with every change, there is an opportunity.

It could be considered as a constraint but it could also be considered as an opportunity.

And we see the drop in the oil price as a real opportunity.

The time is right for us to learn how to do more with less, to be more efficient with the organization and the assets, and to get the most out of every dollar that we spend and invest.

And I mean this to apply to the industry -- to the whole industry, not just to Total.

Faced with far lower oil prices than anyone had predicted, we are responding with a significant and immediate company-wide effort to mitigate the impact, mainly by reducing spending, reducing CapEx, cutting operating costs, constraining our exploration budget voluntarily, right-sizing our headcounts, and accelerating the asset sales program.

As you will see, compared to last year and including the incremental contribution of our new startups, we will generate an additional cash flow of around $8 billion, out of which $5 billion are new action plans decided since the end of November and the sharp decline of the oil price.

This is equivalent to lowering our cash breakeven by $40 per barrel, and we will capture sustainable efficiencies from these efforts that will make Total a more efficient company in the future regardless of the environment.

The Refining and Chemical restructuring achieved its profitable target one year ahead of schedule, and I am sure that you saw that this morning we are continuing the effort to rationalize our European exposure by restructuring the Lindseyrefinery in UK and there will be another announcement to come about France refining system in the spring.

But fundamentally, this does not change our story.

Total is a growth story, and mainly on the strengths of our portfolio of 15 major projects that will have started by 2017 as well as increased results from more efficient Downstream, we plan to deliver more than $10 billion of free cash flow by 2017, I would say whatever the price will be.

By not overreacting, I mean that we cannot lose sight of our medium and long-term strategy.

And the best example of this is our new ADCO contract.

I don't know if I should use the word which is written by Martin in my speech here in UK.

It is written, "may I say, this is a triumph for Total".

Nothing about relationship between UK and France.

ADCO is a major building block for the future of the Company.

I would say in pharmaceuticals you use the word blockbuster.

It is like a blockbuster for us.

It is a 40-year concession, 10% of reserves, 6% or 7% of the production.

In a very low-cost production base, we have much better margins than what we had in the past.

So we are very proud in Total to have been selected as the first major to succeed in securing this strategic asset and to have the trust of Abu Dhabi.

It is good for the Company.

It is a recognition of the know-how of our technical teams, our commercial teams and of all the capacity to manage partnerships in this key area of the Middle East for an oil company.

To succeed in the long term, we need to -- the Company needs to indeed follow a strategy.

As I told you before, we want a certain continuity in the strategy.

We are following the strategy which was put in place: a growth strategy.

We need to execute it properly.

And we have still some challenge to execute it.

This is why we use and I use today in the oil company four keywords to organize our work to implement the strategies.

The four keywords are safety, delivery, cost, and cash.

And I hope that by the end of the presentation you will have a better sense of how we plan to overcome a period of lower oil prices and emerge stronger than ever in the years ahead.

So after this introduction, we will start for the slides and I will commence the first ones.

Safety first.

Safety is indeed our first priority.

I emphasized it for all the teams of Total in my first message to the company.

And in my mind, safety is important not only because we need to be among the leaders and it is a way to safeguard those assets, but is also because safety goes together with operational excellence.

There is a clear continuum between safety, availability, cost control, and energy efficiency.

You can see that in all the statistics, in all the benchmarks.

The best plants in Europe in safety has also the best results in availability or reliability, the best results in cost control - a question of maintenance policy generally, by the way.

And also, often, best results in energy efficiency.

All that is going hand in hand.

And it is why it is important.

It is not only because we need to safeguard these assets.

It is, of course, of primary importance.

It is also because it is a building block of improving the financial performance at the end of the day.

All that is the same path to excellence.

So we have improved our performance year after year.

Last year, again, as you can see, we decreased our number of recordable incidents by 15%.

You can also see the example on the left of the slide for Refining and Chemical.

You will see that I will use many examples of Refining and Chemicals for obvious reasons, because we have been successful.

So I will try to use it as a good example.

It is to put pressure on Philippe as well.

But there, we have been able in this sector, at the same time, to improve the reliability, the availability, which is really the reason why these results are so good today.

And, in the meantime, it was going clearly together to decrease by more than 40% the recordable accident rate.

Questions about environment as well -- the example which is taken there is a commitment that was taken by the company 10 years ago to diminish by two our flarings.

It's not only a question of preserving the atmosphere quality -- the air quality.

It is also a question of economic performance of monetizing the gas, which was lost in our operations.

We just started our Ofon 2 operations reducing by 10% the flaring of the company and monetizing the gas at the same time in our energy plan.

So once again, HSE, safety, environment, quality is really of primary importance because it participates directly to the improvement of the performance of the Company.

Moving onto market environment, let me start first before to discuss the slides to say that I am not Madame Soleil.

I don't think you can compare me to Madame Soleil, if you know what it is.

I am not able to read in a crystal ball.

Mine is not probably better than yours.

I am reading a lot of articles in the newspapers of many experts, but none of them were able to predict what has happened in September 2014.

And so I do not intend to make any short-term predictions today.

I do not intend to do it for a number of obvious reasons; it's not our job.

It is not our strategy.

What we need to do is not to predict the oil price, but to prepare ourselves to be competitive within a variety of oil price scenarios, because indeed, we are in fact in a commodity business where volatility is an inherent part of this industry, like a lot of commodity industries.

And so what we need to do is, of course, to understand why -- where the price could go in order to behave properly on the short-term.

But it is also, on a more permanent basis, to permanently think to our breakeven in order to reduce it, and in order to be profitable and at whatever the price will be.

So, coming back on the market, I will not make you the story once again in front of you.

We see that there is a strong decrease for two reasons: supply and demand.

And this -- I would say this is a little different than what we observed in 2008, where the cycle in 2008 was mainly due to demand, lack of demand.

Clearly, in 2014, we observed the beginning of a cycle due to two reasons: lack of demand, but also much more supply.

And so this makes a difference.

We have to keep that in mind.

The second remark I will tell you is that we can look to what happened in the history, and when we look to the history of cycles, we can observe that generally there is a sharp drop for all of them, from the peak to 50% of the peak.

And we are more or the less there today, in fact.

And then it takes time before to recover.

It takes 18 months to 24 months.

So we have to keep that in mind.

After that, we don't know.

We have to keep that in mind as a way we will manage the Company, we don't want to just go to church and hope and pray to have a better price to come very quickly.

I don't know.

Maybe it will come.

But we have to organize ourselves and to take the measures and the action plans in order to face a situation which could last for longer.

On the gas side, I would say it depends on the regions.

In Asia, as you know, there is a clear link between oil and gas prices.

We are using there a proxy, which is not exactly reflecting the truth, because, in fact, in most of the energy contracts there is a time lag of three to six months.

Which, by the way, we will benefit in our results.

In the US, the price today is at the bottom -- $2.50 per mbtu.

I think you have huge storage of gas today in the US.

So despite the liquids going down, the gas is even lower than before.

And, in Europe, clearly the gas is following, I would say, a driver with more the coal competition.

So these are the type of figure that we have today and we have, in this environment, once again the right industry and answer for us is to reduce our breakeven.

But as I told you, we will react to that.

We will react and act to reduce our breakeven.

But we have also to keep in mind our long-term view and medium and long-term view.

This slide is the same but you have one, but you had in September because it has not changed, in fact.

The truth is that in our industry we have a huge challenge if we want the supply to cope with the demand.

We are using there an assumption of demand of 0.6%.

It might be considered as quite prudent in the industry.

I hope it is prudent.

Maybe it will be less.

But, in fact, at the end of the day, even if you take 0%, what I will tell you will not change.

0.6% is only half of the population growth in the world, so it is not huge.

So we have the oil demand going from 2013, 87 million barrels a day to 97 million in 2030, if you take these assumptions.

But what's more important, as you all know, is that there is a decline around half of the present productions will disappear between 2013 and 2030.

So we will have to reinvest in new fields, the whole industry, if we want to be able to fulfill the demand.

Of course, the figures which are there, $60 per barrel, $60 to $90 per barrel, above $90 per barrel.

Our breakeven -of 15% nominal into this cost environment.

So we could imagine -- and I not only imagine; I am sure it will happen, but if the price remains low for a while, the cost will go down.

And what is important for a Company like us is the difference between price and cost, which is the margin, in fact.

But having said that, we know that if we want -- and you see, if we want to meet a demand (inaudible) we will have to put into production fields, which will require innovations and high technologies like [virtual deporter], like oil sands, like shale oil and we will require investments.

And all that will sustain a high price and I have little doubt at the price of $90 per barrel plus will come back.

The question is when.

But, as we are investing not for one year, not for five years, but for 25 years, it is important to keep this view in mind and not to be distracted in the way we want to handle the strategy.

Same type of slide, in fact, for the LNG.

We focus on LNG because we are one of the main players in LNG.

We have lowered our growth rate from 5% to 4% between September and today.

But, there again, if you look carefully to that slide, if we only consider the already sanctioned projects.

We would cope with a growth in the demand of 1.6%.

So, to be able to meet the demand growing at 4%, we need to put into production, potential projects, which will have cost up to $14/Mbtu.

And, there again, this would require high LNG prices if we want this investment to be sanctioned in the future.

So there are many reasons to consider that we need to stay the course on our medium and long-term strategy, and not do any shift even if we have, once again, to adapt ourselves to the short-term environment.

This is leading to the corporate outlook part of the presentation.

Before -- and I will present it to you before leaving the floor to Patrick, to P2, for a review of the results of 2014.

First of all, we need -- we have some fundamentals in Total which offer us a resilience, and we need to capitalize on them, and I want to remind them to you if necessary.

First, in the upstream, Total has the lowest technical cost, 20% lower than the average of major peers.

We will maintain, I think, this position and this gives you -- give us, obviously, an advantage when the price is lower.

The second point is that we recognized that the industry was facing, I would say, a cost challenge already beginning of 2014, even before when we began to be more disciplined on capital spendings.

And we launched in September our cost reduction initiative for the OpEx.

So we were already in that mood and we were ready to even intensify these efforts as we present you in the next slide.

The third point, the first strength is that you know that Total have the highest contribution of PSC production, about 34% among majors, and so we are already benefiting from an increase in cost recovery barrels.

And the most important advantage is probably that we are in the course to make many startups: accretive startups.

We have eight startups of new projects coming in 2015.

Three of them have already been announced -- OFon 2, West Franklin 2, Eldfisk 2. And five will come in the coming months, but Arnaud will come back on that.

We are also benefiting from the contribution of the Downstream.

And, by the way, we see today some advantage of the integrated business model.

Part of the value we are losing on the Upstream, we are recovering in the Downstream.

In Refining, there is parachute effect; not sure that it will last.

This is why we need to maintain all our plans to restructure our assets and not to begin to lose our way.

Obviously, today, we benefit from that because of the sharp decrease of the crude stocks.

And what is important and we are able to do it is to have a valuable plan to take the full benefit of that, which is done.

And so we need to continue the restructuring of the Refining and Chemicals to keep lowering breakeven, but we are underway.

And marketing and services are providing us not only stable -- growing and stable, but growing results through the cycle, so I will say some stability which is highly appreciated when you face such volatility.

And the last, of course, the strength and resilience of the group is our robust balance sheet which is very well managed by our CFO, and which is prepared to temporarily gear up as necessary, in particular in this environment of low interest rates.

Having said that, we need to organize ourselves to have a strong response to the 2015 environment and there is a challenge of losing $10 billion of cash flow.

And so we organized it around, I would say, three big action plans.

One consider costs, the other one startups, and the third one [asset] (corrected by company after the call) sales.

So globally speaking, we speak about $8 billion cash impact in 2015 compared to 2014, and this is equivalent to reducing our breakeven by $40 per barrel.

In fact, among this $8 billion, $5 billion are new measures that we have decided [and the other $3 billion] (corrected by company after the call) were resulting as for example, the additional cash flow coming from upstream startups.

Obviously it was already embedded in our previous presentations and our previous forecast.

So what we have done is, first, to review our CapEx and will reduce our organic CapEx by more than 10%, from $26.4 billion to $23 billion to $24 billion.

I am showing there a range to imply that we have a bit more room here if we need it.

So this represents around $3 billion.

We are also scaling the exploration budget back to a more efficient level of $1.9 billion.

This is 30% lower than last year budget.

I would say in this reduction, two-thirds is really a permanent reduction.

I would say let's consider that a strategic decision, which is to put under constrain our exploration team in order to oblige them to make some choices.

And, from that point of view, we took the lessons from the last three years where we increased quite a lot the budget -- exploration budget without the successes we were expected, so we need to take lessons and to react.

This is what we are doing.

With the budget of $1.9 billion we will allow exploration to still maintain a strong program and dwell the best prospects, but managing downwards our risk.

And then, on OpEx, we announced in September that we had what we call the cost culture program, I think, which was representing an effort of $800 million in 2015.

We decided to increase it by 50% up to $1.2 billion.

Most of the increase is coming -- if not all, by the way -- from the upstream segment.

We have heard some comments that we could do more and Arnaud took the challenge and will explain how we will do more and reach this target.

We have included in this plan, I would say, a human resources part of it.

Maybe in a different way than some of our competitors or service companies, we consider that it will require a long time to train operators, technicians, engineers in the oil and gas industry, and rather than losing this investment by laying them off, we prefer to do it another way, which is to freeze our recruitment in upstream, refining and petrochemicals for the coming year; to look carefully and to reduce our headcounts in marketing services in mature areas; and also, in order to be more agile, to engage in a plan to lower corporate staff by 15% by 2017.

This would represent a reduction of our headcount of 2000 by the end of 2015, which means $200 million of savings.

Then we have, of course, the benefit of the new startups, $1.5 billion.

And then, the net asset sales, which means it is the difference between sales and purchasing, we will increase that (inaudible) by $1.5 billion.

We announced in September that we had a $10 billion asset sale program on the years 2015 to 2017.

We were planning to sell for $3.5 billion in 2015 but we will accelerate this program and sell for $5 billion in 2015.

So, all that will help us to lower our cash breakeven by $40 per barrel.

If we want, on this last slide of the outlook, to give you a little more perspective of where we are going with this whole strategy of starting 15 major projects by 2017, you have there the sensibility of the $15 billion, which was given to you for 2017 at $100 per barrel, down at $70 per barrel.

And what you can see is that we can cover in 2017 more than the dividend -- without any doubt by 2017.

So this is our commitment.

The objective is to generate more than $10 billion free cash flow by 2017.

We are putting in place all the various elements that I already mentioned.

For 2015, you have an element of, I would say, free cash flow at $70 per barrel.

It will represent $3 billion to $4 billion and an average of $70 per barrel.

On the right part, the graph on the slide shows the WoodMackensie analysis that supports our view.

Relative to other majors, Total has the strongest upstream cash flow growth through 2017.

And with our portfolio of major project startups, we will benefit from the cash accretive of new production as well as a declining level of committed CapEx.

So largely because of this Upstream growth, but also because of all the effort being done in downstream, refining and chemicals, and marketing and services, so Total's underlying cash flow growth is strong and resilient.

We recognize that we have challenges in front of us, but we are confident that we have the right people and the right strategy to overcome these challenges and achieve these key objectives for investors.

That is good for my first part, and I will leave the floor to Patrick, for coming back to 2014 results.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone.

As usual, you know that I will go fast.

And then let's move to the 2014 results.

Looking at the financial result, we reported $12.8 billion of adjusted net income.

Compared to 2013, this is down by 10%, basically in line with the 11% decrease in our average realized oil and gas prices.

Upstream was the main contributor, and these reflect the return to production growth.

I remind you CLOV, which provides a strong contribution this year -- 2014.

The strong restructuring in the Refining and Chemicals lead to a 10% improvement in the Downstream results, particularly in the second half.

Of course, we enjoy also during the second half and the same today a good level of margin on the market.

On the right side, you see our after-tax impairment, basically due to the rapidly changing context in late 2014 we recorded impairment, $7.1 billion after-tax.

We test NPV discounted at our WACC and the impairments reflect changes that we made to our forecasted oil and gas prices, as well as European refining margins.

Most of the write-down, about 75%, were in upstream: "unconventional gas" , "oil sands" and the most of it in the "other", which is not as homogenousthan the unconventional in the oil sand, but in the "other" you have the Kashagan pipeline for instance.

And one-fourth of those impairments are related to European refining, mainly UK and France.

The impairments were mainly US , unconventional gas like Utica and Canadian heavy oil, like Fort Hills or Jocelyn.

The charge to equity had an effect on our gearing.

Prior making those impairments our gearing was at 29%.

Then, we impaired both assets up to $7 billion.

This has in effect of two points increasing the gearing from 29% to 31%.

2014 adjusted net income reflects basically the benefit of the integrated model and the one-offs reflect our prudent view at year end of the more challenging environment.

Have a look to the cash flow.

We generate $30 billion of cash from operations and from asset sales.

The split was about $25 billion from operations, $5 billion from asset sale.

We closed a number of big asset sales last year.

I remind you Shah Deniz in Azrbaijan , the midstream business associated with Utica, and I remind you also the IPO, sorry, of GTT, our LNG membranesubsidiary, which is a French company that is very successful, by the way.

We use both cash flow to fund our organic investments in line with a budget at $26.4 billion.

A reduction from our 2013, $28 billion CapEx we had at that time.

That was a peak, I remind you.

We fund also the dividend for $7.3 billion.

We also made some acquisitions for $2.5 billion.

And so we had about $5.8 billion of additional debt.

Keep in mind that there is a timing element in the debt that were about $4 billion of assets sales pending end of the year.

This is about four points of the gearing, and we already closed $2 billion of it which is Bostik.

The main message there is that we did maintain a strong dividend during this intensive investment phase, and that we also began to reduce our CapEx down to $26.4 billion.

And you will see with Patrick that we will reduce further our CapEx in 2015 down to $23 billion - $24 billion.

Portfolio management -- I am not so sure that everyone here has a deep knowledge of what we did.

We sold during the period 2011-2014, $28 billion of assets.

But, in the meantime, we purchased for $23 billion of assets.

This is something which I think is sometimes missing in the market.

Most of it was acquisitions were made in the upstream.

We renewed basically 25% of our portfolio, our capital employed is about $100 billion and we moved $25 billion in and out.

As I said before, we ended 2014 having about $4 billion of pending asset sale, including Bostik.

This $4 billion of pending asset sales is in addition to the $10 billion 2015-2017 target that you see on the right side of the slide.

This budget of $10 billion for 2015-2017 for asset sales is unchanged.

We accelerate this process and we intend -- this is our objective -- to sell $5 billion of assets in addition to the $4 billion which were signed end of 2014.

Definitely this has not changed.

Asset sales are integrated in our strategy.

Let's have a look to the balance sheet and to the liquidity.

Starting with a general comment, I would say that the major oil companies tend to weather these several cyclical downturns better than independent oil services company.

This is partly due to our size, but also because of our integration between downstream and upstream.

At Total, we began to accumulate liquidity well before year-end.

When we started to see the oil price dropping, we started to accumulate cash.

That is why at the end of the year we had $15 billion of net cash available to us.

A normal level is between $7 billion and $8 billion.

On top of that, we had more than $10 billion of unused credit lines.

Our gearing, which is the net debt to equity, was at 31% end of 2014.

This reflects two effects: the cumulative effect of the intensive investment phase and, as I told you, the one-off impairments.

We expect our debt to equity to be to remain around 30%, but we have no issue with gearing up further in the short term and, honestly, having a look to the interest rate today, this is not an issue.

We have the flexibility to control the gearing.

In addition to the liquidity, we added a strong response which was presented to you by Patrick.

We are proposing a scrip dividend to reduce the cash outlay.

The main message here is that Total has plenty of financial strength, good liquidity.

We are well-positioned, I think, to weather the storm as it is today.

Thank you.

And I pass the floor to Arnaud.

Thank you, Patrick.

Good afternoon, everyone.

It has been less than six months since I made my first presentation to you and a lot has happened during that time.

The sudden downturn of the environment has had a profound effect on upstream.

And it is clear that the pressure is on us to improve the underlying profitability of upstream quickly and effectively.

You have heard Patrick.

We have a four-point strategy and all our teams are on board with a new program.

Safety -- we cut cost, but we do not compromise on safety.

Delivery -- it is all about executing on time and on budget, because we know the future depends on starting up our new projects, but also on delivering production from the existing assets.

Costs -- we need to do more with less for both OpEx and CapEx.

And cash, our teams are focused on cash generation from operations.

We are demanding that our people make fundamental changes to the old culture.

And we can make this happen because we are clear in our communications and our expectations.

Accountability is the key to unlocking performance and, to this end, I have put in place a new organization with clear responsibilities and direct links between performance and compensation for executives and managers.

The Total story is a growth story.

And the upstream is the engine of this growth.

The most important change is our successful bid for 10% of ADCO concession in Abu Dhabi.

This reinforces our strategy presence in the Middle East with much better margins.

This represents 40 years of stable, long plateau oil production for our portfolio as well as a source of trading volumes and ADCO production should increase to 1.8 million barrels per day by 2018.

Being the first major to win has positioned us as a leader on two-thirds of the fields of ADCO, and this gives us additional asset fees which enhance our returns.

In 2015, compared to last year, we forecast an industry-leading production growth of more than 8%.

This is based, as was mentioned by Patrick, by eight new startups including three that are already on production today.

The new projects will represent 125,000 barrels per day and that including CLOVof course, plus the new ADCO contract.

And, of course, less some impacts from reduced investments on mature fields or on shale plays in the US.

You can do some quick calculations and understand why I am confident about achieving at least 8% and committed on it.

More than half of the 2015 startups are operated by Total, which increases our confidence level.

The mix is heavy with deep offshore and PSC projects.

On average, these startups are accretive and are expected to add about $1.5 billion of cash this year based on the $70 a barrel.

Delivery is one of my four key points and I can tell you that my entire organization is focused on delivering production.

Let's speak about reserves.

In 2014, we replaced 100% of our proved reserves.

If we look strictly at the organic growth, reserve replacement, our addition replaces 125% of our production.

But our portfolio changes, like asset sales including Shah Deniz, brought us back to 100% overall.

In terms of three-year averages, our organic reserve replacement rate is improving.

In the 2012-2014 period, we averaged 111% compared to 92% in the previous three-year period.

We start 2015 with 11.5 billion barrels of proved reserves, which represents more than 13 years of production.

And we have more than 20 years of proved and probable reserves.

ADCO is a 2015 event, so the 2 billion barrel plus of new reserves are not included here.

This will add more than two years or 10% of our 2P reserves.

Now let's speak about costs; specifically, reducing costs.

And this is another of my four key points.

Patrick outlined for you Total response to the 2015 environment and I understand very well that falls to upstream as the largest segment in the Company to make the deepest cuts.

And we have the flexibility to cut costs.

Total was an early mover in the drive to reduce CapEx and OpEx.

So we are already engaged in the process of reducing our expenditures.

In the upstream, we are cutting CapEx from $23 billion in 2014 to $20 billion in 2015.

As you can see on the chart, we have split the CapEx reduction between greenfield, basically investments on projects, and brownfield, which is spending on producing properties like in-fill wells, new compression facilities, and so forth.

For the greenfield, we are slowing down or delaying projects.

For example, Utica is unconventional US shale, so we have the flexibility there to reduce.

On some new projects, costs are just simply too high and we are not going to award contracts.

We have the situation on Zinia 2 in Angola or on Bonga SW in Nigeria.

And we have decided to postpone the FID.

Let's see if the service industry gets the message.

For the brownfield, we are cutting some marginal projects, notably on mature areas like Congo and Gabon in West Africa, and in the UK and in the Norwegian North Sea.

Some of these projects we are chasing marginal high cost barrels and do not make economic sense in today's environment.

Most of this CapEx was based on a two years pay-out period.

This is definitely no longer the case.

So we have to wait for higher prices.

For OpEx, we are doubling the 2015 cost-cutting program.

On the graph, we show that OpEx increases as volume increases, and we plan to more than offset this by our cost-cutting program.

This will include increasing efficiency, search as the hiring freeze that Patrick mentioned, but also our expanded plan includes a staff reduction down to about 15,500 people by year-end in upstream.

Market conditions are improving and we will take this advantage to renegotiate service contracts and capture other opportunities to reduce costs.

You can see two parts in this cost reduction.

The first $400 million, which are corresponding to our fourth C&D, I don't know if you remember this signal that I mentioned to you in September, which was change our culture, compete on costs, and deliver, which was made at the $100 per barrel environment.

And this was a 3000 action plan that we gathered through the Company as for a bottom-up size, identifying a way to improve our efficiency, improving the way we use our logistics, improving maintenance and other fees, and chasing efficiency.

In addition to that, with the new environment, we are going after another $400 million, some of which will come, of course, from better leverage to renegotiate contracts down with our main service providers.

So, as you can see, Total is responding to the change in the environment immediately and significantly.

And the upstream is at the forefront of this effort.

This chart shows a project on our major projects -- shows the progress on our major projects because, essentially, this is our story.

On the left, you can see the projected contribution from this project by year.

125 kboe/d this year, including the ramp up of a full year from CLOV, and 600 kboed/d in 2017 from all 15 projects, which you can see is not backend loaded.

Equally important in terms of increasing the upstream ROACE, $25 billion of capital employed will move to producing status.

Reducing the preproduction capital employed to roughly 30% will bring us back in line with historical norms, and will contribute significantly to improving our profitability.

Looking at the list of projects, the main message is that our progress is well advanced, and we are confident with our eight startups for 2015.

And I was in Korea last week to see by myself how some of our large projects were progressing.

As I told you last September, I am a hands-on manager.

Termokarstovoye is ahead of schedule and advancing rapidly towards a startup next quarter.

However, persistent weather and productivity issues at Laggan-Tormore have delayed the start up to 3Q of this year.

This means that the 2015 startup are split four in the first half and four in the second half.

We also had a subsistence issue on Tempa Rossa project in Southern Italy, and we decided to take some time and save some CapEx in 2015 to evaluate the best way forward.

So the startup date has been pushed back and is no longer included among the startup contributing to 2017 production.

Despite the current environment, we continue to be very enthusiastic about this portfolio of growth projects.

It is unmatched amongst our peers and, as the projects start up, the combined effect will be to raise Total to a new level.

Delivery -- this part of the story is about delivery and I have focused the entire E&P organization on doing.

Finally, we cannot trade away the future to ease the pressures of today.

For Total, to continue growing it is important to invest in renewing our long-term resource base.

This means a combination of exploration and acquisition.

As mentioned by Patrick, the exploration budget has been scaled down by 30% from $2.8 billion in 2014 to $1.9 billion this year.

And Patrick mentioned that this decision was two-thirds strategic and one-third linked to the oil price.

And that is because we believe that the exploration budget has got to be put under constraints if we want the team to make choices, and so that we improve the efficiency of our exploration process.

Now acquisition strategy is pragmatic and opportunistic, with a focus mainly on giant reserves.

Over the 2012-2014 period, we acquired 2.5 billion barrel of oil equivalent at an average cost of less than $3 per BOE.

As I said, we are starting 2015 with the acquisition of a 10% interest in the ADCO concession, and the entry cost is one of the lowest we ever managed to get, particularly in light of the size of the quality of the resource base.

Of course, given the current environment, new opportunities are being screened, but with strict discipline.

Total portfolio has plenty of resources, so we do not need to rush.

Let's wait and see and be pragmatic.

This concludes my remarks, so remember the four key points: safety, delivery, cost, and cash.

I am happy now to pass the program over to Philippe, who takes over from me as the newest member in the executive committee.

The floor is yours, Philippe.

Thank you, Arnaud, and good afternoon to everyone.

It is really a great honor for me to join the executive committee of Total.

And it is also a real pleasure for me after 17 years in upstream, in trading, in gas and power, to be back in refining and chemicals, where I spent 10 years of my career and which is the first segment that I joined in the group when Serge Tchruk took the chairmanship of Total and offered me to follow him after having hired me in the chemical group ORKEM three years earlier.

It sounds terribly old, but I can tell you that the refining and chemicals was already at the time a very competitive industry.

It has not changed, and its challenges are greater than ever.

Let us start by the 2014 results with some pretty good news.

I am aware that I have an easy part today for me.

We have outperformed the estimates of most of the analysts here for several quarters over the past two years.

And in 2014, we exceeded again the targets set four years ago, when the restructuring program was launched.

I say we because I am in charge, but let me be clear.

Having just rejoined the R&C segment three months ago, it would be difficult for me to take the credit of this performance.

And the credit goes, of course, to Patrick and to my present team in RC who succeeded in implementing the program.

Back to the charts, looking at the blue bar chart on the slide, you can see that since 2011 we have doubled the RC profits up to $2.5 billion in 2014.

And this was not derived from more favorable European refining margins.

Our operating income grew by 34% compared to 2013 when the average margin only grew by 4%.

And even if the petrochemical environment was clearly more favorable than in previous years, the very good performance came from very large part from our internal efforts.

From cost-cutting on one side, from increased availability and greater flexibility on the other, which allowed us to benefit from high margins when those materialize on the market, especially at the end of last year.

And it is also worthwhile mentioning that if Europe is an important part of our business, that we are still strengthening year after year, as shown by the cut of our refining breakeven, as you can see on the chart.

We ended last year under $20/tonne.

Now more than half of our capital employed is outside of Europe.

And those operations including the US, including Middle East, are making strong contributions to our overall profitability.

And has been shown in the slide, we are continuing to sell noncore assets, which allows us to better contribute to group cash balance and which are also perfectly coherent with our central R&C strategy, which is to increasingly concentrate our operation and investments on our six largest and most competitive integrated industrial platforms.

Overall, in 2014, RC reported 15% return on capital employed, in significant excess of our own internal target.

So going into 2015, RC is clearly stronger, is more focused, is more agile than it has ever been in many years.

Let us go now to our famous profitability roadmap.

Where do we stand on the various restructuring steps that we designed to improve this profitability from 6% in 2010 to our 2015 target of 13%?

Clearly, we stand pretty well and the target, 13%, was reached one year in advance thanks to a significant delivery of each of the restructuring program items as you can see here.

Without detailing all of these, because I guess that most of you are familiar with this roadmap, you will notice that cost-cutting and plant availability that are reporting here in the synergies and efficiencies item have been a key success story, with $450 million delivered on the $650 million target, which means that, by the way, that we have still one-third of additional further saving to deliver to reach our 2015 target.

This is part of the pressure that Patrick is putting on me and my team.

And this is not going to be the end.

As you may recall, back in September 2014, we announced next cost-cutting program put as a target for RC of $600 million over the period 2015-2017.

And as we are completely honestin Total, even if it is minor compared to other items, I will also mention that our return also benefited from impairments: as announced by Patrick, the $1.4 billion.

As a summary, I would say that some foundation has been laid for RC, but there is still clearly a lot more work to do.

I do know from my previous experience that RC is very competitive industry.

And we will continue to work on improving efficiency, focusing on core assets and strengthening our underlying profitability, which is a good transition to my last slide, which relates to the need to deal with the overcapacity that affect us here in Europe.

In our view, Europe has at least some 1.5 million barrel per day of excess refining capacity, that has capped refining margin at a level that is unprofitable for a lot of units.

And this is not going to disappear overnight.

Europe faces decreasing domestic demand inside, and growing competition outside from Middle East and now from US.

And in this environment, only the best and most efficient European producing units will survive.

We have revised our outlook for the European refining margin down to $25 per ton and some of our assets are unprofitable at this level in the future, which led us to impair the book value of this asset by $1.4 billion.

You also are aware that a sport of our restructuring program launched in 2011.

We had set for 2017 the target of registering our European refining and petrochemical by 20% using closures, using asset sales.

And you can read on this chart below the blue arrow on the left side what we did to get to a 5% reduction at the end of this year.

Including the last announcement of closure of our cracker in Carling, and not forgetting the Dunkirk refinery closure that took place earlier in 2010.

Now we are entering 2015.

And in 2015, we are accelerating the pace.

This morning we announced that here in the UK we are closing a $5 million ton per year distribution unit at our Lindsey refinery, which represent 50% of its capacity.

And we are rightsizing each cost to lower the break even.

And within a few months, in spring we will make another announcement that will affect this time our French refining system.

We manage this decision with care and with anticipation.

And we act responsibly, but we have no hesitation.

Our teams are made aware that our core values of sustainability and of social responsibility depend ultimately on our ability to remain profitable.

Europe is a huge market.

Total is one of the largest, one of the strongest players, but will be even stronger when our production system will have been brought into balance by systematically tackling underperforming assets.

That concludes my thoughts.

Thank you for your part -- thank you for your time.

And now I will turn the presentation over to Philippe.

Thank you, Philippe.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

I will spend some minutes to comment you the results of the Marketing and Services division.

As you can see on this slide, results don't seem to be affected by crude price.

And this is exactly the case.

It is an activity which is a distribution activity.

And we have entered when the division was created in 2012 in a growing and profitable roadmap.

And here, you can see the -- so far, the track record of what we have accomplished.

But again, we have identified -- we have selected several ideas where the price of crude was very different -- 2010, $80 a barrel; 2012, $112 a barrel on average; and last year 2014, $99 a barrel.

And you can see that what we expect for 2015, nobody knows where the average will be, but it is starting much lower than those figures.

We are still expecting growth.

And the results have been growing with an acceleration.

Between 2010 and 2012, they increased by $40 million.

Between 2012 and 2014, $60 million; and we expect $100 million additional next year -- or this year, sorry -- 2015.

I need to make one comment, though.

The figure that you see in 2014 have been corrected by an hedging element.

We have -- some of our businesses have to sell on a fixed price basis for periods going from six months to 1.5 years.

And usually we hedge those sales, and we need to report on a mark-to-market basis the hedging part of these sales.

And usually it doesn't reflect in the results because the price of crude varies -- when I say usually, I said in the last four years, I'd say -- varies relatively in a small manner, which means that the open that we have to report are relatively limited.

This year, because of the huge drop of the crude price, and therefore, the huge drop of the product prices, the open mark-to-market report amounts to $100 million.

So this is why this figure has been corrected from that in order for you to see the underlying business reality.

And of course, this $100 million, which has been withdrawn from the 2014 result, will be mainly recovered in 2015 and are not included in those price.

So in 2014, we generated correct from that element $1.35 billion of net operating income and $1.8 billion of cash flow from operations.

We continue our strategy, which is optimizing our European operation.

You may have noticed, we have sold some of our very mature assets in Europe, and repositioned our assets in the rest of the world, mainly in growth areas, and especially with a specific attention to Africa and Asia.

And I will make a zoom on Africa on my following slide.

Of course, given the environment, although in our distribution business, which is a low margin business, we are consistently reducing OpEx.

We launched a very specific additional OpEx reduction program.

And we adjusted our capital choices and our investment policy to allow the group to benefit from more cash flow from this part of the activity.

We start to see some results.

If you look at market shares, for instance, in Europe, in France, we grew 2% market share in the retail network.

We grew more than 1% in Germany, stable elsewhere.

And the best growth is in Africa, where we went from 12% to 15% between 2012 to 2014, and we expect to exceed 16% market share in Africa next year.

On the picture, you can see the new look of our stations.

They are being re-looked all over the world.

And as we are relooking the stations -- and this has a very significant impact on sales -- we are also adding new services, and most of everything digital services, and putting some efforts on R&D and communication adds, which is a very important factor for growth.

So I will now make a zoom on two of our activities to illustrate what I've said.

The first is Africa.

We are really now the market leader in Africa.

We are present in 41 countries; have more than 4,000 service stations.

And we have a 18% market share on average on the retail.

The market share I gave you previously was the average, all businesses included.

Where did it come from?

First, it relies on the long history of more than 20 years of growing local talent, which are able to run the activity on the countries -- on their own country.

And this is why we have been successful in being able to operate according to our standards in all those countries in Africa.

We are also benefiting from positions we have taken over.

And now Africa represents about 35% of our investments and 40% of the net result of the division.

And last but not least, because we have this global presence in the continent, there are a lot of synergies which are not only synergies coming from the organization, but also synergies coming from the client.

Just imagine that, to give you one example, a transporter, which can benefit from the fleet car Total all over the continent; of course prefers to go to our station rather than to much more scattered other potential suppliers.

The ROACE in Africa on average was 18% despite this growth.

So it gives you the interest of this growing business.

And of course, in distribution and especially in retail, the underlying growth of the GDP is a very strong element of the growth of the business.

And you all know that Africa is a continent that is growing quickly, which boosts our sales and our growth in this part of the world.

Second zoom, the lubricant business.

It's also an example -- excellent example of growing within the particular segment of the industry.

And in this case, I want to underline this because it's a very high profitability.

Last year, we enjoyed a ROACE of about 25% in our global lubricant business, which represented 30% of the marketing and services net operating income, and contributed $450 million of cash flow from operations from a relatively small base of capital employed by definition because the ROACE is high.

Our model is marketing-based, so it differs from some of our competitors, because it's much less capital-intensive.

It relies on less base oil production assets than some of our peers.

We focus more on R&D for better formulation, and rely on efficient supply chains to source basal from our blending plants.

And we are creating a big hub in Singapore and adding to the existing big hub we already have in Dubai, France, and Belgium.

Singapore will be starting Q3 2015.

We are now one of the five top players in lubricants in the world, with 45 blending plants and still growing, because our market share grew by about 10% in the last three years to date.

We are still developing this business.

And we intend to even grow further this global market share.

And 50% of our sales are in Africa, Middle East and Asia, which are growth areas, and lesser and lesser from Europe.

We are now creating new partnerships with Asian players, namely Korean and Chinese.

And globally, we are moving part of our headquarters in Singapore.

We've already moved part of them.

And this is a movement that we'll continue, to be closer to the market.

So again, this is another example that I wanted to illustrate, which is underlying the growth of our activity.

Thank you very much.

Now, Patrick, I turn back the floor to you.

Thank you, Philip.

You are doing a great job with marketing and services.

And I thank you in particular to have highlighted Total's ability to succeed in Africa.

This is, in my view, one of the factors differentiating Total from other majors or strength in Africa, not only in downstream but upstream as well.

I intend to reinforce this strategy in the coming years, but we'll come back on that in our presentation in September.

Thanks also to Patrick, to Arnaud and Philip for presenting the results outlook of our respective areas.

I know that you are impatient to come to the Q&A session, so I will not be long, to be sure, for the last three slides.

The key takeaways that I want you to keep in mind from all these exhaustive presentation, first, the keywords.

You've seen that we are consistent among our team.

I strongly believe they are simple, basicmaybe but very efficient.

I spend a lot of time going around and visiting our key producing countries, but also our affiliates with Arnaud and the others and repeating these words.

I want everybody to be convinced and to be aligned on that.

Safety, delivery on our projects, our productions, or refining and capital roadmap, all marketing and services growth, to be disciplined on costs and to concentrate on cash as a right way in particular in today's environment to maneuver and to behave.

Yes, safety -- we will not compromise on it, and we have the ability not to compromise, even if we insist on cost.

Delivery -- this applies once again to every segment.

It just a question we invest on whatside?

We need to deliver what is expecting for the investment.

Just here again, basic discipline.

Cost is more important than ever.

And cash.

That's true, but we have introduced in the Company not only accounting metrics but also cash metrics, because it's a good way to manage the Company for the medium-term.

We are, of course, committed to dividend through Brent cycle.

We have a competitive shareholder return.

Patrick told you that, and I'm sure you are convinced.

Total has been one of the top performers among the majors in recent years for shareholder return.

And while I would agree that the past is not always a predictor of the future, I would also say that I see no reason for this to change.

We do not control fluctuations in the commodity market or stock market, but we really understand, and the Board of Directors of Total really understand the importance of the dividend to our shareholders.

We have a strong track record of increasing regularly our competitive dividend.

And our dividend has not fluctuated with the brent cycle since 1981.

At our General Assembly in May, we will propose that shareholders approve the option of receiving the dividends in shares prior to the 10% discount to market with script dividend would be optional.

It does not affect our policy to maintain the payout ratio of 50% on average over time.

This will obviously give us some financial flexibilities.

It also offers, by the way, some higher returns to our shareholders who will opt for the strict dividend.

We are committed to the dividend here again, and we believe that improving Total performance is the best way to secure it.

And we will reward our shareholders over the long run.

And last slide, back to the introduction.

I'm sure you are convinced that we are, on one side, organizing a strong response to the environment challenge; and on the other side, we are staying the course on the midterm strategy.

I'll not come back to all what we said.

Just to be clear with you that we are very committed to these objectives.

We are even more committed because the Board of Director would like to for my own compensation, and I will do the same with all my top executives and all the executives of the Company will be compensated directly linked to their results on these cost reduction programs.

But at the same time, we are committed to keep on our strategy and to deliver our project, because there again, this is the best way to have a higher return to the shareholders by generating more than $10 billion free cash flow in 2017.

This is, I think, our main objective.

And I'm convinced that what we organize as a robust response to date with the 2015 challenges, and the clear path forward that we explained to you, will -- we will manage to reach this objective.

Thank you to all of you for this presentation.

We'll now try to answer to all of the many questions that I'm sure we generated.

I will be myself with Patrick here on the stage -- P1 and P2, you know the big couple; efficient couple.

But I'll -- will ask my colleague -- even if you have not too much room, to be ready to answer and to help us during these Q&A sessions, as we can address then some of the questions that we receive.

Thank you.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I will ask you when you have a question and you have the microphone, to stand up to present yourself.

And please restrict yourself to one question at a time.

Okay?

Jon?

It's Jon Rigby from UBS.

Can I ask you about your dividend policy and your payout?

So, one question but sort of two remarks.

The first is, is the fact that you are now effectively offering a -- well, you are offering a dividend option tantamount to accepting the dividend that you have been paying is too high, against a through-cycle business.

And the second is, is you talked about payout ratio -- so, payout to shareholders over time being 50%.

So, are you including the scrip in that?

Or are you effectively saying that, over the cycle, you will buy back those shares?

And therefore, the cash payout remains 50%?

Thanks.

I'm not accepting your comment about the fact that the dividend is too high.

We compare favorably to our competitors in terms of dividend payment.

This is true.

The fact that we offer the option to the shareholder of the script dividend as an objective to reduce the cash burden while we are facing the low oil price environment, this may save us about $4 billion.

This is about $20 per barrel cost reduction.

I think the right question is your second one.

Will you buy back the share issued in the script dividend?

I think by 2017, you saw the figure even at $70 per barrel.

The cash flow exceeds the need of the dividend, and we will have room for everything, including share buyback.

It's Martin Rats, Morgan Stanley.

I want to ask you about Exhibit 6, where you mentioned not much is changing in this slide.

And I do see where you are coming from.

These decline rates are not going to go away.

But what might be changing in this slide are these breakeven costs for new projects, given the amount of inflation that we are now seeing.

What would be your best guess of how much you or the majors at large could bring down breakeven costs for these new projects, to make these projects happen nonetheless?

I mean there, again, what is important for us, as I said, is a margin that we will obtain between the price and the cost.

And I think the whole system will adapt itself.

It will take time, because there is such a resilience in the system.

As Arnaud told you, the last bids we received for Zinia 2 in Angola are even higher than our unanticipated costs what we plan in 2014.

So we refused to award the contracts.

And we will wait for engineering firms obviously to cool down.

I think the system will adapt itself, but the question is, how long will we stay at a lower price?

For the time being, you have the yards that Arnaud visited last week in Korea, are totally full for some two years still.

So, it could take a little time before we can observe contracts to see some lower costs.

And then -- that we can accept to sanction such projects.

So, what we say to you is that, through this slide, the costs which are behind these figures are the 2014 costs.

If the price remains lower, we can -- the price and costs will adapt themselves to the new price environment.

And then, this will diminish, but again, if we want to meet the long-term demand, we'll have to be able to develop quite high cost resources, which require innovation, and high tech, which needs to be awarded, like ultra-deepwater, pre-salt or oil sands, et cetera.

So I don't have the figure to answer to you, but I'm convinced that it's a question of duration.

Do we really stay at a low price for enough time to see the system going down -- that means the service costs going down, and then being able to sanction projects?

It could take more time.

But what we think today we'll see, but we have to be patient for the important deal.

But what I think what is really important is that we have to sanction projects based on what is a breakeven price of the projects.

These projects have to resist even to volatile, to lower prices.

This is what I learned when I was in refining and chemicals.

And I think this is what the first would be to apply even to the upstream projects.

We have to look to what is the position of the projects in terms of breakeven price for the future.

Irene Himona, Societe Generale.

Last September, you launched a review of your exploration plan.

I think you hired a new head.

And it was well flagged you would reduce spending, and indeed you did.

Can you perhaps share with us some of the conclusions of that review?

You know, what went right, what went wrong, in terms of the strategy of high-risk/high-rewards that was launched two or three years ago?

Thank you.

I will -- thank you, Irene, for the question -- and I will give the floor to Arnaud to answer precisely.

What I want to tell you, if -- initially, we had in mind that Kevin MacLachlan could be today here.

I decided that you would meet him in September, just to leave him more time to be onboard.

He made already an extensive review.

He is fully reorganizing the Exploration division, promoting young talent in the Company.

And I want to give him more time.

He made the lessons learned.

We drew some lessons and I will let Arnaud give you some of the lessons.

But he needs more time to implement his new team and to be able to review the full portfolio.

And you will have your opportunity to meet him and to to hear from him what will be strategy in September.

Arnaud?

Yes, I will not add very much to what Patrick just said.

But it's clear that the portfolio review is ongoing by Kevin and the team.

It's clearly working that we have a fresh eyes looking at our portfolio.

And also, we have the three-year period that -- with a new strategy, and we have a number of themes; enough statistical data now as well, that we can start to take lessons.

So, as mentioned by Patrick, it was a bit too soon to do that now, but Kevin will be here in this room in September.

And he will explain to you the main lessons that he has taken out of this review, this strategic review, and also present the new organization that he's working on in trying to make our exploration more efficient.

Thank you.

Iain Reid, BMO.

It's unusual to come to a Total strategy presentation or an outlook presentation and not see a kind of longer-term production number out there.

And I see that the 2.8 million barrels a day seems to have disappeared from my presentation.

So I don't know whether you've forgotten about it or whether you just don't want to focus on it today.

But maybe you could just highlight for us what you are expecting there.

And as a kind of related question on ADCO, I heard the comment that it was a low-cost entry.

But your competitors, BP, Shell, Exxon, seem to think it was a very high cost entry.

So I was just interested in whether you've got a special deal there that they haven't got and how you managed to achieve that?

When you lose generally, you explain that the others are wrong.

Please, on the fourth part it's really voluntary for me, but today we were wanting to focus the presentations on 2014 reserves and on 2015 reaction, clearly on which we worked hard during the last three months.

I want to take time to really review the full portfolio.

We are today not changed to the 2.8 million barrel per day target which was not including by the way a 10% share on ADCO, which represents quite a big volume.

Having said that, you also heard that for example we decided that we would lower investments on brownfield fields, which will affect once we implement that decline rate of our base productions.

So I want to take more time with Arnaud and all the executive committee.

We have what we call the business plan exercise in spring 2015 in order to review all of that and to come back to you with, I would say, longer-term targets.

It does make little sense today to change anything for 2017.

We are in the execution mode of that.

Having said that, you will -- you have probably understood from my speech that I'm more concentrating on value than on volumes.

I think that -- it's not for me a very big important if Total is reaching 2.8 million, 2.7 million, or 2.9 million so the question of ego for the Company.

What is important for me is that we are able to deliver value -- more value to the shareholders, but we choose the right projects, and that when we invest, we deliver the value that we promised.

This is the way that I want to manage the Company.

But there again there is no reason to change this figure today.

ADCO.

ADCO -- you have rumors.

I had the question from a journalist there is a rumor in London that it's $2 billion bonus.

I will not confirm it because I have confidentiality agreements with Abu Dhabi and they trust us as being their leading company.

I will respect of course the secret.

But even if it was that and it's considered too high, I would like my peers to explain me why $1.00 per barrel acquisition price is high-value.

Available to have access to resources at that level of price, I'm ready to argue with them about it.

So, I think there honestly it's a 40 year concession.

The duration is of essence.

I told you once again it's a building block for the Company.

It's 10% of our reserves.

It's 6% or 7% of our production.

And you've seen what I told you about all the way we want to manage the Company, taking care of the value we deliver.

So we are taking care of that.

And if we maintain our bid -- we are not increasing; we just maintain it -- is because we consider that it was worth to do it.

So then, and by the way, maybe you don't know but in the system of Abu Dhabi, the leaders of the leading companies have additional margin compared to others, just to help you.

Oswald Clint at Sanford Bernstein.

Maybe a question on LNG.

Talk about why your demand growth rates have come in a little bit, but ultimately, how profitable is your big LNG business today at your $70 oil price environment?

I think it's about 25% of your upstream earnings.

And ultimately are you still interested in taking off North American gas through years of being past contracts?

Thank you.

Okay, you want to answer, Yves-Louis, for the gas?

Well, I will answer the last aspect of your question.

Regarding the competitiveness of any LNG in the US.

At $70, it's clear that at $70, there is no real competitiveness of the LNG from the US.

Regarding the rest, we have very good prices on many of our projects, as you probably know.

I confirmed the figures you had in mind, even if it's maybe a little bit more than the 25%.

It may be around 30% of our net operating income coming from the LNG, and 20% of production, which means that it's a competitive business.

You know our project HD, so Yamal LNG, Yemen LNG.

The contracts once again are very good contracts.

And they are linked to the oil price for sure, so they are following the oil price.

But in addition to that, for instance, each case has high liquid content.

So, I would say overall, there is no real lack of competitivity of our LNG project compared to the rest of our portfolio when the price are down.

Jason Kenney from Santander.

So I want to go back to John's first question about the scrip.

I'm still a little confused, I must say, to be essentially issuing shares and then to potentially be buying them back at some point in the future.

I don't quite get my head around that.

And it does seem that the cash flow is strong and growing.

So I don't really see the need for the scrip, unless of course, you are foreseeing larger investments toward the end of the decade or you are building a war chest.

I think let me be clear.

The scrip dividend we offer it -- it's a yearly authorization of the General Assembly.

So we'll ask it for one year.

It will impact the remaining quarterly dividend for 2014 and the next two and the next four.

On a year like 2015, this would represent if we have a success rate, which is the average that we observe around two-thirds, $4 billion.

$4 billion is $20 per barrel of breakeven, of cash breakeven lower.

So that means we've -- all what we have done plus scrip dividend, we have a cash breakeven around $60 per barrel.

So this is the main reason why we do that.

We want to have margins.

We offer that to our shareholders with a discount.

There again they are the ones who will take it with our higher returns.

It gives us financial flexibility.

We see some value to that.

We have a gearing of 30%.

We prefer to keep it at [30%] in order to have to keep all our flexibility whatever will happen in the future.

So I think it's the main reason why we are offering that.

We answer that we are not opposed to buy back shares but, there again in 2017, when we have more cash to return to shareholders, we'll have the debate to know the best way to do it.

This could be done for buyback shares.

This could be done for increasing the dividend.

We'll see the debate when we'll have the cash.

If I could just follow up.

I'm still a bit confused because your overall message today is you are comfortable with your longer-term cash balances.

And it does seem like you've got $10 billion free cash flow as a viable target.

In fact, I would argue that it's not a competitive enough target.

You should be looking for more free cash flow based on the projects and the delivery you have.

And the challenge for me is that you might end up in a net cash position, which I think would be suboptimal for you on a 2017/2018 basis?

And so in the background of this, I'm thinking that you must be foreseeing something either ruinous or opportune.

Okay, but I mean let's be clear.

We maintain the $15 billion target at 2017 at $100 per barrel . Having said that if I had just today repeated $15 billion it would have asked me the question what happens if the barrel is at $70 per barrel.

So, we have decided to expand it, to give you the range and to do more than that.

We told you that we are committing to at least deliver $10 billion because if the price remains low, that means that will affect obviously our CapEx program.

Of course we will benefit from the startup of oil projects.

And I would be more than happy to see the price coming back to $90, $100 per barrel in 2017 and to deliver more cash.

I think there again, maybe we are prudent, but we think that it's a good policy to try to maintain our gearing around 30% even if there is -- we could easily, as we said, gear up because the low interest rate.

Because we don't know how long this period of low oil price could stay.

So, it's -- I would say it's the willingness to maintain some flexibility in our balance sheets.

It's Lydia Rainforth from Barclays.

You talked about value as being the main focus that you have.

Is free cash flow the metric that you want us to judge as to how successful that value creation process has been?

And linked to that, in terms of the CapEx, how much flexibility do you have in bringing in that number down further in 2016 and 2017?

Less than $20 billion from 2016.

I consider that if the price remains at $60 per barrel to take an assumption, we'll have to go under $20 billion per barrel.

And in fact, our first reaction there in the last quarter, of course we had to react quickly, so we look to the flexibility.

But at the same time we are continuing to work.

And with a view that the price remains low, we have more time to take decisions.

And I can tell you at the executive committee meetings, week after week, we are reviewing some projects to see what have more flexibility.

So for me, if the price remains low, we'll come back to you with a CapEx budget under $20 billion.

It's Anish Kapadia from Tudor, Pickering, Holt.

Just had a question for you about your Africa position.

So, as the leading major in Africa, just wondering how you feel about being very under-represented in places like offshore East Africa, pre-salt Angola, the Cretaceous sand play in West Africa?

You've got very limited resource over there.

How do you feel about that?

Is that something that you want to change going forward?

And just kind of related to that, in terms of your exploration budget, how much of that is kind of focused towards Africa?

And what kind of resource do you want to add there?

Okay.

I think Africa, as you said, we are the leading major there.

It's the strength of the Company.

When you think the strategy of the Company, either you want to go everywhere to copy your peers or you want to concentrate more on your strengths.

I think we have a big strength there.

One of them they've got all teams now have to develop projects.

It was perfectly explained by Philippe in Marketing and Services, and Arnaud will do the same.

So, we have there a strong position.

Some of our peers do not like as much as we do Africa for various reasons.

So I think we can continue to invest there.

By the way, we have been more successful in Africa in the areas where we know in exploration than elsewhere in the world, but true that we are not today in East Africa.

We are in Uganda, remember, which is partly of the new Province there.

Pre-salt in Angola, I don't think there have been many success, unfortunately, until now, except one company, I think, who will want to probably make an announcement.

For the time being, the words have been disappointing there but we continue.

We didn't give up.

We are a little stubborn there maybe.

You know, we discovered in the blocks eventually in Angola after three dry wells I think.

So sometimes you have just to keep the pace rather than giving up.

So, we will again to answer to your question, yes, I think that it's like it was perfectly explained by Philippe.

It's a continent -- a growing continent, where we have strong positions.

We know how to manage projects there.

So we intend to try to maybe more focus in the future in West Africa.

Having said that, you know in East Africa, this is part of the challenging energy projects which will require high prices if they want to be developed by all peers.

And we'll see if we have opportunities in the future.

Thomas Adolff from Credit Suisse.

Kind of indirectly linked to Anish's question.

In this market environment, a lot of the majors say it creates more opportunities than threats.

And in upstream strategically, does it make sense for Total to stay focused and strengthen existing hubs?

Or to be more diversified and create a more flexible CapEx profile?

And how should I think about the credit rating in the context of that?

Thank you.

So, credit rating, I will leave that to Patrick to answer your question.

You know, we are pragmatic and we, of course, we look to various opportunities.

It's clear that in this (inaudible) the financial flexibilities that we have can offer us some opportunities.

At the same time, I have a strong feeling that we have many projects in our portfolio, a lot of resources to be developed.

But maybe we are in too much resources.

You know, we are obliged to make some choices, which is by the way to be obliged to choice to make some choices in terms of investments on top of CapEx.

So, we have a large resource base in the Company that we have accumulated.

You've seen we acquired $23 billion of new assets.

Most of them have been upstream assets.

Going from $28 billion being sold and more than half of them were downstream and midstream assets.

So we have a large resource base.

So we are not desperate to find new resources but, there again, we have to be careful.

If I look, for example, to the history of major companies in US shales, I'm not sure that the acquisition has been a big success.

Most of us like we do today again, we have been obliged to make some improvements, because of acquisitions and costs.

So, you have to be, I think, pragmatic but also careful to the acquisition cost of potential opportunities.

And frankly, from this point of view here again, acquiring our ADCO positions is very attractive -- I'm sure I will not make an impairment on my ADCO license for 40 years and tell you.

So, there again, yes, of course, we had this period of the industry generally offer opportunities, but let's look at it before too large pragmatically, and Total could be one actor.

But it's not today my main focus.

The main focus forming in the Company there again is to deliver all the project and to deserve the value what we have in our portfolio.

And I don't want the team to begin to think, oh, yes, let's go for another project.

Today we have to focus on delivering what we have in our hand.

Rating?

Yes, about credit rating.

First, have a look to the current situation that we face.

We have ample liquidity at the moment; as I mentioned to you, we added liquidity to the balance sheet last quarter.

We maintain gearing close to 30%.

And we still have very attractive terms to borrow money.

Nevertheless, credit rating is important for us.

Not only because you have an effect on the cost of borrowing.

Even if we were downgraded today of one notch, it will have an effect of about 10 to 15 basis point on the incremental borrowing.

So that's not a big deal.

But this is the status of the Company.

We know that Moody's will review their long-term view on our price.

We protect the gearing in addition with the scrip dividend.

This is part of one of the consequences of having a scrip dividend is to protect the gearing and try to do the best to protect our credit rating.

Theepan from Nomura.

I appreciate the value over volume strategy, but I was going to come back to volumes actually.

And I thought, Arnaud, you made a sort of an interesting comment that you are very confident about your volume number.

Taking aside ADCO, I was just wondering if you could walk us through some of the moving parts, particularly around the decline from brownfield Utica, your assumption on Libya.

That would be great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Theepan.

I was sure to have the question.

You know we have one of our track records is to promise you a percentage of growth of volume and not to do it.

So, I could have come today announcing you increase of 10% and in one year telling you it's not 10%, it's 8.5% or 9%.

And it would have been a disappointment.

I think there another way to manage our Company is to commit to target and to deliver them.

So, that's true that the 8%, by the way, if you will look carefully to the slides, it's above 8%.

As we said 8% is the floor.

We are totally, and Arnaud made it clear, committed to the 8% growth.

And all by the way the cash flows have been calculated according to that assumption.

There is room maybe to make more, but as you just said, Theepan, we have also plenty of events during the world.

Look, we have lost some fields in Libya, 30,000 barrels per day for probably at least a year after the last terrorist attack there, which they probably damage some wells as well.

We had, like Arnaud told you, some issues about the (inaudible) time or development which have been postponed, because we missed some window in 2014, and unfortunately contractors have difficulties to be efficient during the winter season in the Shetlands.

And I would say it has been very poor.

So there, again, as we have 80% of our development, it impacts our production.

So I hope we are maybe a little cautious about with this 8% figure, but frankly, a year where we can grow the production with such high-volume, I prefer to be prudent and deliver more if I can.

There is as well as you said the impact of less investing on the brownfields, difficult to access quickly.

We have taken this decision on the CapEx.

All of our engineering team are still working on it.

So we'll have a better clarity after all our coming exercise and be able to answer you precisely.

But there again, I prefer in terms of management to be committed on such production volume, and being able maybe to come back to you with a better answer in one year rather than the contrary.

I think it's important, in our industry that a major company can deliver what they tell to the investor.

And I want Total to be on this track.

So, sorry, Patrick, can I just follow up then?

Is there sort of a contingency number that you are willing to give?

And is that a strategy that you will follow extending out for the 2017 target as well?

No, 2017, I don't know.

I mean let's be clear.

2017 today, we maintain the 2.8 million barrel per day.

We'll come back to you on it.

It's interesting, when I made my tour to most of you in November, the feedback I had is we don't believe in your 2.8 million barrels per day.

You have written that in your reports.

And today after we made ADCO, oh, you should have been reading that note.

There again, what is important is to deliver the additional cash flow and this is what I want to commit.

But we clarify all these volume perspective.

And I will be even more credible to you if we are able to combat and to confirm these that we have delivered all 8%, like we are committed today.

It's Lucas Herrmann at Deutsche Bank.

Unfortunately, two or three, if I might.

The first was just to talk about demand.

You have exposure through lubricants, through refining, through chemicals, through oil.

Since the price started to fall -- or since the price fell meaningfully, should we say -- the back end of November, I wonder if you could just talk around what you're seeing -- whether you're actually seeing any signs of demand improvement?

The second question was on resource base.

And I don't disagree at all with the chart you put up about breakeven prices and levels.

I think the thing that concerns me about yourselves together with your peers is that a lot of your resource tends to be within the higher buckets.

So the broader question -- and let's leave ADCO aside -- I'm not criticizing that deal either, but it's not going to fund the majority of the dividend,But the broader question is how, Patrick, you feel about the resource base in general?

And then just saying that because I suspect we are going to see more volatility potentially in the commodity price, given the nature of supply movements in the US.

That system reacts very quickly on a cost front, taking cost out.

The world you live in, the reaction to cost seems to be more sluggish.

But I wonder if you could also talk around rather than just cost, talk around taxation in the discussions you are having with government, in particular?

Not just on local content but also in fiscal terms.

So sorry, a lot of questions, but demand, resource portfolio and discussions you are having on fiscal in local content.

I guess maybe to Philippe -- or maybe to Philippe, if you have any guesses on these answers -Philippe, you are directly looking to that in your business.

Well, demand, we have started to see a real inflection in 2014.

And all year 2014 was in terms of demand a very bad year.

This is by the way why we are relatively happy about the results, because we were able to offset the low environment.

And as of today, we don't see any sign of recovery.

Of course, we are just close to the market.

It doesn't say anything on anticipation.

But the market is still very weak and we don't see that growing so far.

So we are still in a sluggish demand environment.

On our side, we must confess but we haven't seen so far a real sign of demand recovery.

Most of our customers have been holding up their orders with the decline of the prices expecting further decline.

Now, we are going to see in the coming weeks whether now we are confident to start again.

And clearly, we can only be more optimistic, everything being equal on the fact.

But yes, the lower prices are giving more purchasing powers to some of our customers at least.

So a good question on the resource base.

Very true that the major companies have been pushed in the market obviously since 2005, to look after high cost resources-oil sands, and other high cost resources.

By the way, the note you notice was the one we are impaired.

We are obliged to make impairments as exactly these ones.

I think, like I told you, that we need to carefully look to what are the breakevens of the resources that we want to develop.

And there is a difference on this point of view between the deepwater in Africa.

I read a lot of papers about Kaombo and the developments like that.

Kaombo was a breakeven, which was clearly we give an acceptable rate of return around $60 per barrel, so I'm very comfortable with this type of development.

On Libya, we had to look carefully to what we'll do.

Obviously, it's higher cost.

But there again, we have to -- when you have these type of resources in your portfolio, it's a question of being patient enough to keep a medium and long-term view to see how we reacted.

I think we'll not sanction Libra 2015, obviously.

It will be probably come after.

We'll have to see if we can benefit from some lower costs.

So, that's there again a challenge but I agree with you that the price volatility could be higher in the future than it seems to have been in the past.

We need to keep this, I will say, breakeven guidance in mind in order to select the best product for the future of the Company.

Price volatility in fiscal terms, that's a good subject in the UK obviously.

And in Norway, an excellent subject, yes.

One is the reason why we're canceling, or we are lowering our investments in mature fields in Norway or in UK mature fields, is because the fiscal terms have been increased for the supplemental corporate tax here, 32%.

The government proposed to diminish that by 2%.

And we knew it would not help us to take any good decision.

And in Norway, as well, there was a decision for us, quite astonishing, by the way, to see a big increase last year or two years ago.

So, of course, we'll enter into a debate.

We are discussing with this government to explain when what we'll -- if these mature fields of development are not like it was very well explained.

But we do not have the right payout, quick payout that we had in the past.

We will not in these high-cost mature fields development.

So there is a debate there.

And I'm convinced by the way like it was in the past, the UK government in the 2000 period to 2010, it was then able to increase, to decrease, to increase.

So I think it's in the interest of everybody.

But then, again, I think if major companies like us have to take sometimes some strong position like the some contractors.

Patrick what happens with local content discussions in not least Angola, but other areas where break-evens again seems high relatively ?

There again, I think the $50 per barrel, has some challenges but it offers opportunities to come back to basics.

I think, there again, I can tell you I went to Angola, and we speak more about profitability of projects than on local contents.

So I think all of these industries need to be a little cooled down for every actor, every player.

and it's true that we have, of course, it's part of, I would say -- and in Total, we are happy to have this type of -- to be socially responsible, to develop some local contents up to a point.

We -- in Kaombo, we have been obliged by the way too, if it's one of the ways to cut down the cost was to discuss with the Angolan authorities about the impacts that the local contents has of the project.

It was delayed partly because of that.

I'm sure that this debate today, and again today, is a focus of all of these governments.

It's more about their revenues rather than the local contents.

Even if there again, we have to keep to stay in the groove not to suddenly change our ways, but what I hope is that oil price level will again make every actor more reasonable, including on that topic, specific topic.

It's Neill Morton at Investec.

You reported unit technical costs of around $28 per barrel in 2014.

You're aiming to reduce your unit OpEx by $1.50.

As of this morning, you are cutting your exploration spend.

Where would you expect to see your technical costs by 2017?

Good question.

I've asked the question for Arnaud.

I don't have the answer.

And I think it's more honest to tell you that I don't have the answer rather than giving you the false answer.

I would hate to do that.

I try to convince my people not to do it with me, so I will not do it with you.

So we'll come back to you.

I think Martin will come back to you.

I have one or two ideas but we need to come back to you rather than give you a wrong answer.

It's Rob West at Redburn.

You talk about value over volume and creating value from your investment program.

That always raises the question of how you measure the value.

And I was understanding your comment earlier when you were talking about the impairments that you took that you measure that value at your WACC, I think you said.

I'm guessing with yields where they are, your WACC is not 10% but possibly 6%, 7% depending on the cost of equity, maybe even 4% or 5%.

Is that the right metric for measuring value and measuring value creation, when you think about license entries like ADCO and acquisitions that you are potentially considering?

And if not, why would you use it to value your assets in your impairment tests?

Let me be clear, the -- WACC is public I think it's probably 6.4% today.

I know exactly because I made other calculations with it.

So it's 6.4% and so we made -- we use accounting rules and I don't know if it's exactly right, because there is a debate about real terms and nominal terms, but Patrick can answer you more precisely than that about the way we measure the impairments.

But the value for me, you know there are easy ways -- many ways to calculate it to make discounted value.

This is how you can also measure the capacity to generate more cash.

Cash generation.

And so then increasing your returns to shareholders, I think it's also a nice way to see if we manage to create value out of these projects, but I will let you answer IFRS rules.

Yes, there is two questions in your question, actually.

The impairments are made under the IFRS rules and we discounted the cash flow at the WACC.

That's something we do and that we follow the rules.

There is another issue, another question, which is what is the profitability we're looking for our project?

And it is not the WACC at all.

It's much higher than that.

when we assess a project, we assess its ROACE, it's IRR, much about the WACC and also its breakeven point.

Those are the three elements that we are reviewing.

And an IRR above 15% is something we were facing in $100 per barrel environment with the $100 per barrel cost environment also.

To come back on my answer and to come back on ADCO, the way I'm looking myself to -- I am adding a full factor to long-term projects, which is a case.

It's what is the enrichment which is generated by the investment?

And the enrichment is being the NPV zero divided by the financial exposure.

So this is a factor that we are using in the Company for many years for LNG projects, for very long-term projects.

Because you create value, as we are an oil company because of the long perspective at certain projects I offer you in terms of stable cash flow.

You know an LNG project or a concession that ADCO is offering us a base of cash, which is not volatile by the way in that case, and even permanent cash flow with strong base of cash flows and I think it is very important when you want to manage a company like that you also have this type of project in your portfolio in order to be able to face the volatility.

Bertrand Hodee, Raymond James.

One quick question.

Do you have any FID plan for this year?

And just one follow-up on Zinia.

On your comment you delayed the sanction of Zinia.

By how much cost would have to come down on Zinia for Total to sanction in the current environment this project?

Arnaud will tell you and I'll check if it's the right answer.

Arnaud?

For Zinia, what I can tell you is that the result that we got out of the tender, which tells you that there is still people who haven't understood what the market looks like, were 30% above what we are expecting.

So, that gives you the measure.

So the answer is 60% under, you know.

Then on the first question, no, we don't have major sanction in all.

It's not voluntary.

It's just that, in fact, when we made the reviews of the situation, we could have Zinia 2, which was not really a major one.

We could have Bonga South West, but we face on Bonga South West exactly the same situation while on Zinia, so we've not sanctioned that.

We have to put a pose and to come back to see it.

You know we've done that, remember, in -- on Sato in 2008, 2009.

We've done exactly that.

We did not award it a contract.

We waited for six months.

We launched the tenders and we saved $2 billion or $3 billion out of that.

So let's wait.

We are not in a rush today.

But we don't have many -- we don't have, in fact, big sanctions to make in 2015.

Libra is shifting on 2016.

How lucky I am to have the last question.

I'll keep it fairly easy.

I just wanted to know what percentage of your script uptake you assumed when calculating that your dividend would be fully covered at $70?

Is there any script dividend uptake included in that sort of breakeven of the divvy?

No, no.

So that assumes no script.

No, there is no link.

And I also wanted to ask why you had excluded Kashagan on your volume slide?

I think there is a misunderstanding there.

Which volume slide did we exclude Kashagan?

We have waited for Kashagan for so many years.

We would not exclude it - I can tell you.

It's on slide 22.

22.

Where is the slide?

Because you are the second one who asked the question, so...

No, but in fact, Kashagan has already started.

You did not know?

You did not know.

It was started.

I do not know if it was a big ceremony but it was started.

No, in fact, let us be clear on Kashagan: no news from us except what operators say.

End 2016; maybe it is challenging, but end 2016.

So in the end ENI was doing his best with the operating company to deliver it.

So we have managed to find a consensus among the partners on the technology to order these pipelines, on all the fiscal terms, everything is settled.

So now I think the full partnership is committed to and is waiting for this production.

You are right; we have even more production for 2017.

Okay.

I would like to hope that we answered most of your questions.

We have many questions still.

We'll enter into -- we will have exhaustive roadshows for at least three of us.

With Helle, Patrick, and myself.

So we'll have the opportunity to meet you again.

I think we'll have a drink after that.

I would like to say a last word, of course, because today, it's the -- you are not lucky, but it is the last session of Martin.

Martin has been promoted to take a beautiful position.

It was my previous one.

So I'm sure you will be able to take the challenge as being the Head of Strategy and New Business and R&D, and economics of - it's a challenge for him because you know, as being the Head of Investor Relations, he loves to take the figures and to announce big nice increase of productions.

Now it's back to reality.

And so he will be in charge to make the next figures, but I'm sure.

Thank you, Martin, for all that you've done there.

And I would like to welcome Mike, which you already know.

Mike, you can stand up.

He is your new Head of Investor Relations.

Mike, by the way, I worked with him as well.

He was my Head of Economics when I was the head of this division in Upstream.

So, at least Mike is speaking English better than us.

And better than Martin.

He has one advantage, and I hope that you will maintain the excellent relationship.

So thank you for your attention.

I hope we managed to answer many questions.

We'll come back to you in September.

You understand that there is a new, very motivated, executive committee team.

We need to take a little time to review that.

The change of management frankly offers us the opportunity to review extensively our portfolio of assets.

We would even ask all the teams of Total to test all our portfolio to many scenarios to see how we can be robust.

And we'll come back to you in September, speaking more on the medium-term vision rather than the short-term reaction.

But I have the feeling that in this context, we have this transition in the management and economics, we wanted to focus most of all especially on the 2015 reaction rather than on the medium-term, but we'll come back to you.

I know it's an industry where we need to keep an eye and we are doing it.

We signed ADCO -- but again, despite all what I heard, I'm still convinced it's still a good deal for the Company.

Thank you.