Good day, and welcome to Total's First Quarter 2018 Results Conference Call. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Patrick Pouillane, CEO. Please go ahead.
Thank you, and good morning or good afternoon everybody, whoever you are. I am with Patrick de la Chevalier, our CFO. I'm very pleased to join the call today together with him. We have been quite busy recently since we met with most of you last February and so we thought it was worth a short update by the CEO himself. But as it is a tradition, Patrick, Peter will first review the Q1 results and then I will comment on the recent activity and then we go to the Q and A.
Before to leave the floor to Patrick, just and it's important because I would like to make a comment on the shareholder returns policy that we have presented in February and that we have decided of course to not only to propose, but to implement and we have done what we said, which means that first when we proposed this policy, we announced that we'll increase the dividend by 10% over the next 3 years. And yesterday's Board of Directors consistently has decided to raise the 1st 2018 interim dividend to €0.64 per share, an increase of 3.2% exactly on the path to the 10% of the 3 years. So it's implementation of this first amendment. The second point is that we announced as well that we'll buy back all the script shares that we have been which have been issued in order to avoid dilution. So we've done it between February April.
We bought back 7,000,000 shares, which we issued in January for the scrip dividend payment. And let's be clear, we have just issued another 15,000,000 scrip shares which we bought back in the coming quarter. And on the top of it, we also announced that we will implement a buyback plan to buy up to $5,000,000,000 with the idea which was the idea to share part of the oil price upside with our shareholders. And this plan has began. We bought back an additional 5,000,000 shares for $300,000,000 in the last 2 months, that's in February March.
And to be clear, more than $70 per barrel, of course, we are very pleased with the recent share price evolution increase, I would say. But we'll continue to buy back shares as it was announced in order to continue to share these oil prices side with our shareholders. So after I make these remarks, which are obviously very important and to because we put into action our commitments to our shareholders. I'll leave the floor to Patrick, our CFO to review the Q1 results.
Thank you, Patrick. Honestly, we are off to a good start in 2018, and we are on track to achieve our or $1.09 per share and debt adjusted cash flow was $5,700,000,000 and our organic free cash flow was $2,800,000,000 Looking at the segment, 1st 2018 adjusted net operating income for E and T was $2,200,000,000 up 58% compared a year ago and 21% versus the previous quarter. Compared to Q1 last year, Brent increased by 4% and our average realized hydrocarbon price increased by 25%. Production grew to 2,700,000 BOE per day in the Q1, an increase of 5% from a year ago and 3% from the previous quarter despite the end of the Maracam license in Indonesia. There is a record level of quarterly production.
The previous high was 2,660,000 barrel per day in 2,003. We benefited from major ramp ups including Morono, Kashagan, Yamal LNG, where the first of 3 trains is producing 6,400,000 tons a year, well above the nameplate capacity of 5,500,000 tonne a year. In Qatar, we took over operations on the giant Alshayin field last year in July. So this made a strong contribution. 1st quarter start ups include Fortis in Canada and Timi Moon in Algeria.
The Petrobras Alliance and Maersk Oil Acquisition made only partial contribution in the Q1. So we are on track to do better than our target of 6% growth for the whole year. Before turning to cash flow, we note that the differential between Brent and our average realized liquid price increased to 6 point $5 per barrel in the Q1 2018 from $4.5 a barrel a year ago and $3.7 a barrel in the previous quarter. This is mainly the impact of growing Canadian volumes at the time when exports are pipeline bound and netbacks are very weak. This is an exceptional situation not linked to higher oil prices.
May I remind you that in terms of our oil price sensitivities, the calculation are made using constant differential. So in fact, it should be used with realized liquid prices. E and P cash flow before working capital changes was $4,300,000,000 in the 1st quarter, an increase of 28% from the same quarter last year and in line with the previous quarter. The ramp up in cash flow will accelerate into the 2nd quarter, mainly with a full contribution from Maersk and then gain momentum with the cash accretive startups. Recall that in February, we told you that for a full year on plateau, Tambo, Ichthys and Aegina would add $2,500,000,000 of cash flow and Maersk plus Petrobras Alliance would add another $2,000,000,000 all that based on a $60 Brent.
So the way forward is clear. 1st, organic free cash flow for E and P was $2,200,000,000 E and P organic CapEx was $2,100,000,000 and I will remind you that the Q1 is typically a bit light. For the Gas, Renewable and Power segment, adjusted net operating income in the Q1 was $115,000,000 compared to $61,000,000 a year ago and $232,000,000 in the previous quarter, thanks to better result from the solar business. Moving to the Downstream. Refining and Chemicals contributed $720,000,000 of adjusted net operating income in the Q1 compared to $1,000,000,000 a year ago and $8,086,000,000 in the previous quarter.
Refining margin was volatile, averaging $26 per ton in the Q1, a decrease of 34% compared to the same quarter last year and 28% versus the previous quarter. Seasonal weakness was more pronounced this year than last and essentially it has been the inverse impact of the ramp up in crude prices. Petrochemical margins have remained generally stable at a good level from the past year. So we consider refining and chemical results are short by about $50,000,000 to $100,000,000 in the quarter, mainly due to operational difficulties at Antwerp and Port Arthur and the start of the turnaround season. Note that we use the 1st quarter turnaround at Satorp to increase capacity to 440,000 barrels per day.
Refining and Chemical generated cash flow before working cap changes of $900,000,000 in the Q1 compared to $1,000,000,000 a year ago and $1,100,000 in the previous quarter. Marketing and Services generated adjusted net operating income of $367,000,000 in the Q1 compared to $301,000,000 last year and $436,000,000 in the previous quarter. Marketing is continuing to grow its retail and lubricant businesses. Global refined product sales are up 4% year on year. This is comprised of 17 percent increase in Africa, Asia that includes the acquisition of Gapco last year and a 4% decrease in Europe that reflects the sale of TotalErg in Italy.
Marketing and Services is adding $100,000,000 of cash flow per year by expanding in high return, high growth markets. The combined Downstream segment, Refining and Chemical Plus Marketing and Services, generated cash flow before working cap changes of $1,400,000,000 in the first quarter compared to $1,500,000,000 a year ago and $1,800,000,000 in the previous quarter. There is some seasonality in this result, including recurring impact of about $100,000,000 in the Q1 for the full year property taxes as per IFRIC 21 rule and the timing of dividends from equity affiliates. Finally, looking at the corporate numbers, the group's effective tax rate increased to 40% from 31 a year ago and 32 in the previous quarter. The rate for E and P increased to 48% in the first quarter as a result of higher oil and gas prices and the share of E and P within the group results was much larger as well.
The downstream tax rate is relatively stable at around 25%, 30%. The group generated debt adjusted cash flow of $5,700,000,000 in the first quarter. On an organic basis, excluding asset sales and acquisition, free cash flow was $2,800,000,000 despite the seasonal weakness in downstream. So we are on track with the guidance we provide in February and we are confident that cash flow generation will increase over the year. Gearing net debt to total capital increased to 15.1% at the end of March from 12% year end 2017.
This takes into account closing the acquisition, including the Maersk debt. There was also the working capital impact on cash that has affected the net debt at the end of the quarter. This will be corrected over the coming quarter. Nonetheless, the balance sheet is strong and we will maintain gearing below 20%. To summarize, we have a good start to the year.
We are performing in line with our plans. The balance sheet is strong and the environment is favorable. Brent has been above $60 per barrel since early November or nearly 6 consecutive months. And we have been about $70 per barrel for most of April. Also product demand is strong, European refining margin has been volatile in an environment of rapidly rising oil prices.
Petrochem Margin have remained fairly stable at high level for more than a year, supported by strong underlying demand growth. At the current oil price level, obviously, we have more cash flow than anticipated and we can execute comfortably our return to shareholder policy and that's what we are doing. And now I'm back to P1.
Okay. Thank you, Patrick, for this good sense of results and record production and as well as you said the implementation of our return to shareholder policy. So just a few comments now about, I would say, the implementation of the strategic framework we described as well in February and we have made some various moves in various directions. According to what we said there again, we told you that we wanted to take advantage of favorable context to invest countercyclically and acquire some assets to create value. So what we have executed during this last quarter was in fact deals which were prepared in the previous year, I mean, where the price of the barrel was lower.
And we told you that we will focus on where we are good, which is to play to our strengths, in particular in some for upstream in Middle East, North Sea, Africa, deep offshore LNG and in downstream to focus on petrochemicals, retail and lubricants. And that prepares the future we will expand and we are expanding along the integrated gas and power value chain. So the activity has been quite intense and I would like to review with you what we've done and to explain you a few of these strategic moves. First, I would begin maybe by the North Sea where we closed the Maersk Oil acquisition in March, slightly ahead of schedule. And so now we are the 2nd largest producer in the North Sea.
At the same time, by the way, we also closed the sale of Martin Linge. We have rearranged our portfolio to lower with the objective to lower the breakeven of our operations in the North Sea. So it's down, it's being down. The integration is going very smooth since mid March. And by the way, I can only make a remark is that none of us when we negotiated the deal in spring 2016, we are thinking that the price of the barrel would be at $70 today.
So there is obviously some upside which is coming very, very quickly in the picture. I would also say that we can speak a little more about synergies and we plan to have 4 $1,000,000 of synergies out of which $200,000,000 were coming from OpEx costs. We reevaluate that today to $300,000,000 from the costs. So a global synergy package from Maersk, we should go at $500,000,000 plus. So this is for North Sea.
Then the second region where we have been active is Middle East and North Africa with 2 recent moves, 1 in Abu Dhabi, the other in Libya. Coming back from Abu Dhabi, we have obtained 2 new 40 year offshore concessions, 20% of the Umshaif and Nasser concession and 5% on the Lower Zakum concession. It's I would say it's an access to 1,500,000,000 barrel of resource and production of 80,000,000 90,000 barrel per day. So a cost entry cost of around $100 per barrel with fiscal terms which have been significantly improved compared to the old ADMA concession. I would like also make another comment.
You probably noticed that we have a quite unusual high stake 20% on Umshahif and Nasser concession. Generally in Abu Dhabi is more in 10%, 15% range. We are very focused on van concession for 2 reasons. The first one is that it's a concession where there is a potential oil increase from 320,000 to barrel per day to 450,000 barrel per day 100% share, 100%. But and more important than that, there is a very large gas cap, 5 Tcf of GAAP to be developed.
And there is a change of policy in Abu Dhabi, which we in country we know very well, where Abu Dhabi has decided to really monetize its domestic gas resource. And so part of the focus on Umshah is because there is a big upside and the fiscal terms on gas are very is it an institution have been designed to be an incentive to produce this domestic gas. So there is an upside on Mushaif on gas and this is why we focused the share there. We have taken a smaller share on lower Zaykum concession 5%, because it's a more traditional oil concession I would say. But part of our I would say royalty to Abu Dhabi was we were offered to be on both concessions, so 5% on one side and 20% of a deal around again around $1 per barrel like in Abu Dhabi.
The deal is closed, of course. You have seen some informations, the situation in Libya is a little tricky from a political point of view. Let's be very clear on what we've done, because we are polite and we're with Marathon. We have a long relationship with Libya. We advise Libyan authorities far in advance, but the deal has been settled between Marathon and Total, and we are intending to close it by end of March.
Legally, from a strict legal point of view, neither in the Libyan law nor in this old concession agreement, there is a request for formal approval. So we advise them, but there was a target for us end of March. We wrote them again before. There was no objection. And so we decided to close and it is down.
The shares are today and of maritime Libya are in total hands because again it's a share deal. We of course have a permanent open dialogue with the Libyan authorities and we will give them all the comfort they are legitimately requiring to reassure them that willingness to develop the wire field in the national interest of Libya. So this is moving. But again, I would say when we close the deal, I said that we are not naive about the political tricky political situation there. So no surprise, but I think we don't give too much there are some rumors like always.
It's not really there. The situation is clear and we have a permanent dialogue with them. Then the other segment where we have also a core area where we have progressed is deep offshore. We have in Brazil and the Gulf of Mexico, in the U. S.
Gulf of Mexico. In Brazil, we have closed a deal that was announced in January. I would also say just a comment that this deal was closed and negotiated early 2017, There again, the price was under $50 so there is an upside coming very quickly because we produce already there on Lapa, on Yalla and on Libra. So we have around 80,000 70,000, 80,000 barrel per day producing there in 100%. So we have a share of it.
So it gives some revenues and higher revenues than expected. I would also comment that when I see the size of the bids which have been done in recent exploration licensing rounds, it's exploration rounds, it puts the value of our deal into I think a good perspective. On the Gulf of Mexico in the U. S, we have made beyond the giant Balibar discovery, which were announced in January with Chevron, we have you have probably noticed, but we have been we have acquired some cobalt assets out of a bankruptcy procedure, which of course has been quite efficient from a cost point of view. We have increased our interest in North Platteux from 40% to 60%, and we have there becoming operator of this Wilcox discovery, $50,000,000, 400,000,000 barrels of resource there, potential with some exploration license around, which we own as well.
So we'll partner with Statoil. We are pleased with this partnership to develop the technology in order to make some profitable development on this Wilcox formation. And we have also increased our interest in the anchor discovery done by Chevron and it's very logic because we have together with Chevron an exploration program of many wells around anchor. So it's having now 32.5% was another move. All these moves have been done again at a quite efficient cost of access because of this bankruptcy procedure.
I would also praise my CFO because he made a bold move to acquire some 2nd lien bonds at a discount price last spring and we will make there $60,000,000 profits which will diminish the cost of access to these assets. So we are innovative in total and active in many ways when we want to have access to low cost resources. Thank you, P2. And then having said that, I would move to petrochemicals, which was another active area. You've noticed that since we met in February, we finalized in the U.
S. Again our joint venture with Nova and Borealis, both on the cracker and on the polymer side. So it's a big expansion. We will together by putting in place this joint venture, we'll be number 3 in the polyethylene business in the U. S, among the top 3 sellers of polyethylene polymers, which is quite a good position in terms of marketing.
And as well, we have a very efficient cracker scheme and expansion on the polymer side. We have also announced recently a first step towards a large expansion on our Satorp refinery together with Saudi Aramco, a giant petrochemical expansion, dollars 5,000,000,000 for the scheme of cracker and polymers plus some additional units in which we will not participate at Value Park. It would be a world class 1,500,000 tonne cracker based on advantaged feedstock. 1st refinery of gas because there is a strong integration there, but also access to some ethane and LPGs. So it's a start of a new adventure with our friends of Saudi Aramco and it's very fitting very well with the idea that we focus our CapEx in refining and chemicals on the integrated platforms where we spend a lot of money to put all the logistics in place with the refinery and now we want to capitalize on that together.
And last but not least, as to be fair, the 5th segment of focus on which we have also made some strategic move is Integrated Gas and Power. The ENGIE deal was announced in November. To give you some news, we have obtained all the anti trust authorization from China, Europe, the U. S. And over the world.
The social process is also over. I know we have some approvals to obtain some on commercial agreements on people around the world, but it's progressing well. And we target, as announced in November, to close the deal by Q3, middle of the year this year in coming 3 months, I think. And then on the top of it, we have announced last week another move in the field of integration gas to power, which is through acquisition of a company called Direct Energy, which is a company which is in the field of gas and power retail marketing, but also power producer. This company so it's an opportunistic move, which should not surprise you.
We announced you that we want to build a business in the low carbon business going downstream the chain of gas, gas to power and that we announced in October that we want to establish ourselves as in a position in the French Gas and Power Retail market with a brand called Total Spring. In fact, the things have accelerated because these announcements are created another opportunity, the acquisition of Direct Energy. After we announced our entry in the French gas and power retail markets in October, we've seen that the share of Foterex Energy has decreased and the main shareholders have decided that there was maybe the right time for them to sell. So we have somewhere shaken the market when we entered and we are gathering the fruits much quicker than expected. So the fit is excellent for us because it gave us immediately a sizable market share.
We are reaching 7% of market share. And you know in this retail business, like we know well in our marketing and services business, market share is of essence because you are more tied all your advertising, your fixed costs on the larger base of customers and so it's a virtuous circle. The intent is to continue to grow in this market. Zurich Energy was growing by 500,000 new customers per year in the last 2 years. We are also on our side, we are beginning to have 2,000 new customers per day.
So if we combine all that, the ambition is to reach 6,000,000 to 7,000,000 customers in France, more or less 15% of the market share. At this level, this will become a quite interesting business. But this direct energy give us again access to immediate size and will accelerate our development. In the portfolio, we are of direct energy, there were over interesting assets. In particular, they are some gas fired power plants, which they require.
There's quite a low cost in 2015, 2016. So we will have 1.2 gigawatt of power generation there, which will come at the top by the way of the power generation gas fired power plants we have in our total portfolio. This is interesting because it's part of the integration between when you make a retail business, you don't go only on trading to acquire power, but it's also good to have some physical assets that you produce yourself with a good cost of access, which will be the case with these assets. And they have also renewable business, 500 Megawatt, which could grow to 2 gigawatts. So this is fitting well as well with our strategy, which is our strategy.
So at the end, what we want to build in line with what we explained to you and I think for some of you who follow us very precisely, you remember 2 years ago, there was a puzzle to explain the strategies. I think the pieces of the puzzles are put in place, 1 after 1. So we'll show you a better scheme next September, the strategy meeting. You will see how the puzzle is going together. And this is quite logic.
Now we are expanding a lot on the gas business. We will become number 2 in the LNG trade. There is a logic to sell this gas to customers, so gas to power integration and this go downstream to retail marketing including having in our portfolio some capacity of power production like gas or renewables. We'll be clear, we don't have any ambition to become a utility. We just want to we follow the value chain to get out of this gas value chain the maximum value like we have done that in the oil business with some success during years years.
This is what we target. And obviously, we're not at the full capacity to produce the power we distribute because we'll buy and trade like we are doing already. By the way, some of the power that we will distribute to our customers. This business, Direct Energy, we evaluate that the objective is to reach a cash flow from operations around €300,000,000 Sorry, I should stake in dollar, but it's a French business, I'm back in my it's more so around $350,000,000 by in 5 years. This is a target we have.
There are some synergies, by the way, among about it among these in this business because obviously by combining both companies, even if we are small, we will focus on 1 brand and not 2 brands, 1 brand in France, 1 brand in Belgium, so it will save some money. But there was also 2 IT systems, they call all that is a digital low cost business and we'll keep 1 digital platform, not 2. So we evaluate that to €35,000,000 to €40,000,000 per year. So this is the idea. I think by doing these moves again what we want to do is to enlarge the spectrum of activity of Total and to develop the integration of the gas value chain, gas to power and to have access at the end of the day to some area which are growing, right, the growth potential growth in this market.
And I think that for our shareholders, it's a way also to have to give them access beyond our traditional oil and gas to businesses which offer higher growth for the future. To sum up, I would look like also because as I described many deals and many activities, some of you could be worried about the financial discipline, but I can tell you and you can be P1 and P2. You have 2 managers there are very keep in mind the discipline. We announced you a clear framework of allocation of capital. 1st, dollars 15,000,000,000 to 17,000,000,000 2nd, increase the dividend by 10%.
3rd, keeping the gearing until 20%. And 4th, share buyback, dollars 5,000,000,000 to share the upside price. I confirm today that we'll be in the range of $15,000,000,000 $17,000,000,000 for the next 3 years. And that for 2018, if I say you 15, you will think this is too low, this is too conservative. I've seen some comments responding, but total management is conservative.
So I will not be conservative, we'll be 16, probably 16 plus, but we will stay in the range of capital investments, which was told you in February. And I think it's important to tell you, by the way, we have sold already $2,200,000,000 of assets since the beginning. It's not we just acquired, we also sold you. If you remember, I told you that $2,000,000,000 in acquisition could be 3 minuteus 1,000,000,000, 5 minuteus 3, 7 minuteus 5. So we'll be active of course on the sale of assets.
And I would make one comment if that's clearly in this type of environment $70 it's easier and could be even good sell some upstream assets today. We are not so active in the last 2 years because we didn't want to lose value. But at this level of price, there are we can be again countercyclical in the other way, which is to sell when the price are better. So this is part of our commitment. It's part by the way also for me of the restructuration of the portfolio with the permanent objective which is to lower the breakeven of a portfolio.
And I think it's the last strategic comment I would like to do. Last one, don't believe all the rumors of bankers and Total is not interested by acquiring neither Santos nor Oil Search. We have enough interest in PAG with 38% or in Gasoline Energy with 27.5%. So I know people think so some people are giving rumors, but don't believe all of them. We are in line and we'll stay in line with the strategy we have described to you to focus on our core areas.
With that this same being said, I think it's time to go to the Q and A.
Thank Our first question comes from Jon Rigby of UBS.
Thank you. Yes, two questions. Patrick, thank you for running through the strategic initiatives. For the Q1. It seems to have come very thick and fast.
It's difficult to keep up with them all. But just to reference your last point about the sort of $2,000,000,000 or so of net investment and the sort of more attractive disposal market potentially for E&P. Does that mean that we should expect more activity on the sell side across the balance of this year? Or when you think about that figure, do you expect it to be an average over the course of a few years in terms of your disposals? The second question, I guess, is for P2.
This working capital build has been a emerged as a bit of a feature in the last few first quarters. I just wanted to come back to and say or ask, is it a function of what you're doing in the Q4 or a function of something unusual in the Q1? And what each of those is more representative of the sort of working capital that you need to run the business all things equal? Thanks.
Okay. I take the first question. Again, the financial framework we gave you is $15,000,000,000 $17,000,000,000 of investments organic plus net acquisition. So $2,000,000,000 keep it take it as it is for the next 3 years take it as an average of the 3 years. But clearly, yes, we will be active on the sales side.
We have some assets. It's not like we've done in the previous phase, the $10,000,000,000 program. It's done step by step, but we have some assets which are being marketed today without too much noise, neither rumors. So we are active. And Of course, the question where I'm prudent and I answer you by the average is that they could be when you take a year, 3 60 days, you could have sometimes last year.
But for example, we closed the Petrobras deal in January, on January 10 and not on December 2025. So sometimes you could move a year the end of the year go beyond. But again, this is globally you can keep our commitments of $15,000,000,000 $17,000,000,000 of net investment as being the right point to model the future spending of total in terms of capital investments. That's right.
Okay, John. For this very simple question about working cap. Our working cap increased by $3,000,000,000 this quarter. And honestly, I'm not very happy with that even if there is some seasonality in our working cap. The $3,000,000,000 can be explained by $2,000,000,000 of seasonality.
Some people say that we manage it poorly. I don't know if this is correct, but there is obviously some seasonality. And if you check-in the past year, we faced the same difficulty. So EUR 2,000,000,000 coming from that and EUR 1,000,000,000 coming from the price effect on our inventories and deliverable. Another small comment is that stock build for maintenance in Europe is clearly seasonal and that's part of the explanation.
The volatility is to be expected as you know for working cap, but I can tell you that we will and we will tackle this issue and we are committed to improving the next quarter what we are used to do on working cap.
So, I mean, I think 2 out of the 3
Yes, that's a lot of
the Just to make the question.
Can I just follow-up on your first answer on the portfolio? Is it on the disposal side, is what's evident from some of the acquisitions and not just acquisitions of assets, you're in the process of sort of reshaping the portfolio. Will you sort of apply the same logic to the sell side as well? Is that it's not just the disposal of ready assets, you're trying to reshape the portfolio through disposals as well?
The assets that we want to dispose are high cost asset. It's obvious. I mean, like we've done with Martin Linge, I think. So yes, of course, we are trying to we will be consistent of the sales towards regarding the assets according to either high breakeven assets or out of the core of the business of the company.
Okay. Thanks very much, guys.
Our next question comes from Michele Della Vigna from Goldman Sachs.
Thank you for taking my question. Patrick, I wanted to ask 2 questions, if possible. The first one is relating to the deals that you have very thoroughly run through. It feels like they may become from 2 areas, either financially distressed companies or national oil companies where we see a much more collaborative environment in the last couple of years. I was wondering if you think there is more to come in the area, and particularly in terms of collaboration with National Oil Companies, if that could become in the future a bigger area of reserve replacement for you?
The second, still staying with acquisitions. When you compare the financial metrics of deal like, for instance, Maersk on one side, which is clearly immediately accretive to cash flow and still with assets with long longevity. And on the other side, a deal like Direct Energy, which is certainly strategically very important, it adds longevity and high quality assets, but which is probably dilutive for quite a long time on valuation. How do you think about doing one deal or the other one? And how do you compare the key financial metrics in order to choose where to employ your incremental capital?
Thank you.
Okay. First, the first one, you have a perfect analysis of what we've done. Yes, it's true. We the business model of major company like Total because we have a stronger balance sheet, we can somewhere take benefit of that in order to have access to some assets from companies which were in not so good situation. So either it was some national companies like Petrobras, I would say, or some smaller companies like the deal with Tudo in Uganda, with Cobalt in the U.
S. And this is clear. There are also deals like Maersk, which was another idea or ENGIE, which were companies which were willing to exit a certain oil and gas, a certain business and on which it was easier to negotiate a deal because in fact we are not it's not in 2 oil and gas companies negotiating with the same to tell to explain you about both were winners. We were these 2 deals we were targeting 2 different strategies. So we had to demonstrate that it was okay and fine for oil and gas business and there were all Bouygues out of that business.
So it helped of course to strike good deals. But so for the future, can we continue on it? I think one of the DNA of Total and in particular in the Middle East and North Africa region is that we have a very strong relationship with many national companies in Abu Dhabi, in Qatar. We have developed that in Algeria as well. And so we are working on some over deals of this type in these countries.
Of course, I can't I mean, all the concessions of Abu Dhabi are now allocated for 40 years. So in 3 years, we have done the job. So maybe our successor will be less there. Even if there are some new opportunities coming, they are opening some exploration rounds there in Abu Dhabi. So I think what we have observed is that because of the volatility of our oil price, many of these national companies have changed also have more open to their strategy.
And so I think there are still some opportunities and one of the, I would say, core strengths of Total is the ability of the teams of the company to deal with these national companies and there is a lot of resource so and low cost resource. The second question, it's a good question. It's fundamentally how do you on one side built on the short term additional cash flows by going to accretive deals like Maersk Oil, which will generate more cash flows that allow us to increase the return to shareholders, but also to increase our capital investment or to finance our capital investment program with good deals. But at the same time, in the energy field, we need to prepare the future. And the future there is that you all know that all I think that outside of the oil and gas sector, there are investors who are asking questions to where does this segment move.
We are all convinced that we will need a lot of oil and gas in 20 40, but it's not so shared by everybody. And I think, and by the way, the global multiple of the sector is not so high. By injecting in our portfolio and corporate profile some activities where you have and it's clear for everybody a higher growth potential. I think the message is yes, this will deliver more cash flow later, but we can do it. We can fuel that with more long term strategy because at the same time, first, we are good and excellent on the short term results.
And I think Patrick, again, this quarter show you that our results are very solid and consistent. And secondly, because we have done some short term deals to fuel that cash flow. So this is a global mechanics and strategic mechanic of the company.
Thank you.
Our next question comes from Oswald Clint from Bernstein.
Thank you very much. I'd like to ask firstly about the production, the upstream volumes kind of hitting that 15 year high. You're looking to grow at 6% this year. I see this morning you're indicating potentially a chance to do higher than that. I wonder if you'd venture what that higher number might be.
But fundamentally, you talk about it being the startups coming in better plus integration. So my question was really, is this a Maersk phenomena or is it really successful ahead of schedule startups ups of your very large list of projects? I think you have about 14 or so over 2017, 2018. And if so, maybe half of those have started up already. Does that mean the next half of those through this year into next year should come in ahead of schedule as well?
That's my first question. Secondly, just on this topic of kind of some of the deals you've done. I'm specifically interested in Libya and those barrels, the 50,000 barrels coming out of Libya. Perhaps just remind us of the profitability of those barrels. I do remember them being quite highly taxed in past times, perhaps that's changed.
Thank you.
First question, I think on the profile, growth profile. We announced more than 6% this morning because the 5% performance of Q1 is ahead of what we were thinking. So yes, it's more than 6%. I read some comments that we are too conservative. As you said, we have many start up coming in front of us, Actis, Kaombo, Agena, Temparosa in the coming months.
Sometimes it can derive by 1 month or 2. It could be read by 1 month or 2. January is more 1 month late rather than 1 month late. But all that being compensated, that's also true that the wire deal was not planned in our forecast in February. So it came quicker and we managed to close it.
So globally speaking, I would say that you can take more than 6% as a but it's already quite a good performance. And I would say that it will be the 4th year in a row, but we'll be at 5% plus, 15%, 16%, 17%, 18% and we have more to come. So I'll remind you that our guideline to you is 5% as an average until 2022. And all what we have announced there and done and we have all accumulated the resources to be done even if we have also, as I answered to John previously, we'll sell some of the production because we are not driven by volume. We are driven by value there.
But of course, if we want to grow the CFO, it's also good to have a growth in production. So this is for the production growth. Take the guideline as more than 6 as a good guideline and we'll see what we can be deliver quarter after quarter. You want to answer on Libya?
Yes. Barrel in Libya are very profitable actually. And profitability is at $60 per barrel between 15% 20%.
I can say that the cost of access to this power was quite attractive because of a political situation. Maybe it creates some move, by the way, there in Libya probably when they discovered the value of the deal, part of the difficulty. But I would say that when the concession with the terms of the concession did not change. I think that it was more the question of probably Total can accept to take this type of Libyan risk in our portfolio more than Marathon was willing to keep them. So this is why we've done the deal in fact and it's also part of the geopolitical move, but we can do because of the large very large portfolio, we can take the cycles with onboard and get the rewards with it.
That's part of it.
Super. Thank you. Thank you.
Our next question comes from Sipan Jyothilian from Exane BNP.
Yes. Hi. Good afternoon, gentlemen. A couple of questions, please. Firstly, on the synergies that you've mentioned, both Maersk Oil and Direct Energy, Could you just talk about the timelines on how quickly the synergies can be realized for both transactions?
The second question, Patrick, just comes back to the GRP strategy. And I think you mentioned trying to grow sort of installed capacity on the gas fired power plants is around 10 gigawatts. So I was just hoping understand where we are in terms of commissioning or delivery of 1st oil? Thank you, 1st oil and 1st LNG.
First, the synergies of Muskoal. I'm taking a paper, sorry, to I don't know what by heart. I know that the cost synergy should be fully in the onboard by 3 years to capture them. I'm just thinking I'm trying to find. Yes, it is there.
I think this year, of course, it's not so. So it's not so. You can say that you will have 60%, 70%, 2 third of it by 2019 in our cash flows and 100% by 2020. This year you have a small share, but not major share. I don't have the figure.
This is a first one. On Direct Energy, we need to close the deal, but it will be immediate, in fact, because the decision to keep only one brand will be done before the end of this other closing as part the synergy. The fact that we will decide to have only one IT platform, it will take a little more to implement one year, but I think this type of synergies, €35,000,000 I mentioned to you, it would be done by end of 2019 now very quickly at the latest. Then the second question about growing 10 gigawatts off quickly. It's a 5 year objective.
You will tell me sometimes you go quicker, but you know it's let's be clear there. Where are the source of the 10 gigawatts? Part of it is embedded in fact indirect energy to 2.5 gigawatt because we have a CCGT to be put to be built. We have a pipeline of wind and solar projects in France. Part of it is number 2, 2.2 to 3 gigawatt is coming from the deal with Total Eren, which is already also engaged.
Last year, we acquired 23% of the company. So you have there 6 gigawatt plus the 1, 7 gigawatts. And then on the top of it, it will come from opportunities we could see there. And again, I mean, in particular, the focus for me will be more on the gas fired power plant, if we can have access, but we have time to do it. The global idea is that if you have 6,000,000 customers, 6, million, 7,000,000 customers, you will require more or less 30 gigawatt.
We'll not cover all of it because we don't want to be utility. So 2 third will come. We will not have some base for our capacities, let's be clear. And so we'll buy 2 third of it and produce the other third, which is a good level of integration if we want to develop profitably this business. So this is consistent with what we just told you.
So don't expect us to rush on buying many capacities
too quickly. And the last question was the Bottigtiv? Yes. We are following ImpEx guidance given a few weeks ago and with our own view on-site. Offshore Gas and Condensate should start Q2.
So in the coming weeks, I would say, months, there is 2 months left in Q2. And we are expecting 1st LNG drop by July, something like this? Maybe here there is
a slight delay, but the impact, so we've already explained it, on some issues to be fixed on one of the offshore components. And so it's being done. It's a giant project. There are some safety issues to be solved, but nothing major. It's being done.
It's being repaired on the large platform, I think. And so production will come quickly. By the way, it's better to start this project at $75 per barrel and at $50 will make more revenues even for the first Carnahan sale. So sometimes you are a little late, but you generate more money with it.
Noted. Thank you, Patrick.
Our next question comes from Lydia Rainford from Barclays.
Thank you and good afternoon, both. Just one question. Are you seeing any impact in terms of the cost base or any uplift pressure there at the moment? And in particular, if you could just talk about the recent Google Cloud JV in terms of the artificial intelligence side and what you're looking to achieve there? Thank you.
I like your question on intelligence artificial intelligence with Google. The idea there is clearly to try to know engage not only to make proof of concept, but to engage really in some development. So it's about geoscience. A team of 15 people of engineers of Total will move from Port to California within the Google offices and we'll develop some programs during 2, 3 years. We have a program to see how we could apply artificial intelligence to enhance the efficiency of our geoscience processes.
I cannot there are some I don't want to disclose everything there because there are some areas of, I mean, I would say, core competencies. Competencies. But it's a commitment and I think it's just a start. But now we shifted from a few discussions and concept to putting in place a team and we have some good expectations. And I'm quite pleased because on the Google side, they have also put a team of more or less equivalent, I think 20, 30 people, which will come together with our teams together and which will bring the artificial intelligence competency.
That's important. 2nd point, cost base impact deflation. Today, I would say, we don't see any inflation, I would say. Deflation no more, but it's stabilized more or less. The costs have deflated by it depends on the segment, 30% to 50% sometimes.
And we continue to benefit from this low cost base today. I would say in conventional oil and gas, you still have quite not so many projects. And in the rig market, it's still quite it's still quiet in fact. And so when we made tenders, we have good news today compared to our base, cost base. We are not, as you know, very involved in the unconventional in the U.
S. Even if we are in the Barnett Shell producing 600,000,000 scuff per day there. I would say there in the Barnett Shell we have seen some inflation in particular in some frac jobs and there is a lot of activity in the U. S, more activity valuable in the past in the world. So maybe it's one advantage of our portfolio and but we didn't see today any we are still, I would say, at a low cost base for the CapEx and OpEx.
And this is by the way, you probably noticed that our OpEx are still this quarter at $5.4 per barrel. So still maintaining them. But you also remember that we continue to implement the cost saving program through the company despite $70 per barrel. It's a little more complex to convince our colleagues, but we take care, we take care.
Perfect. Thank you very much.
Our next question comes from Christian Malek from JPMorgan.
Hi, good afternoon, gentlemen. Thank you for taking my questions. Just 2, if I may. Firstly, back to acquisitions. When do you think enough is enough?
And how should we think about an upper end of CapEx or resource renewal? You mentioned $16,000,000,000 plus for the next few years. Should we think about that range potentially moving higher over time? Or is it really a $17,000,000,000 cap to 2020? Secondly, you've done a fantastic job high grading fields, increasing productivity both organically and inorganically.
Could you comment on some of the things you're doing at the operational level that surprised the upside on production?
And then at
a broader level, Patrick, do you think the industry has more to do to lower project breakeven further outside of the U. S. Through technology, big data and AI? And I can see that you're leading the way on that. So I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Thank you, Christian for your question. So I reiterate my strong commitment as a $15,000,000,000 $17,000,000,000 for 20.18, 20 9, 20 for the 3 years that we announced February is clearly a commitment. So you can take it as a guideline. There is no wrong message in anything I said I told you. And my comments on 16 plus was just for 2018.
I could have reiterated 15, 17, but you make some math. And again, we have been active, more active than anticipated, but it's no regret at all. It's because we had opportunities. So we seize them. So keep it the $15,000,000,000 $17,000,000,000 for 20 19, 2020 are really these the right guideline for what we want to invest.
And we have the capacity again to make organic investments and inorganic investments, which we think will fit with our strategy. Having said that, if the price remains at 70%, seventy 5, I suspect the countercyclical strategy will have to make a pause somewhere. So the answer is in my strategy. The strategy is to acquire countercyclically or to sell on the other side. So this is why I can confirm it to you.
The second question is on production side, what organic improvement can be done? I'm not sure too. I mean, I think we've done a lot already in order to but what you probably noticed is that when you look to the decline rate of our base production, when you and I think it's commented every quarter, quarter after quarter in our press release, the average decline rate of the total portfolio when you eliminate the project startup and is more or less in the range of 2% to 3%, 2.5%, I think this quarter again, which is quite low. And why is it so low? It's because I think we one of the things which have been done during the last period, 3 years and which is implemented today in our teams is that we refocus everybody because each dollar was very important to lower the breakeven on some KPIs like availability, utilization rate, including not only in downstream but in upstream.
And so the upstream division is working on it, has shared some good practices. And so this momentum of trying to permanently increase this volatility factor is really embedded today in the company. So it's part of it. The second thing I would tell you is that you probably noticed that when we lowered the organic CapEx, we have a bunch of infill wells to which are activatable what I call my short term CapEx. And obviously at $70, dollars 70 $5 per barrel, which are not huge amount of CapEx, but we can activate part of these resources and short term spending, which will help to manage as well the decline of our production base.
So I think there are resources. Can we do better? I think I'm you know probably that I'm strongly believe we can always do better. I know I take the LNG business. The LNG business, people were spending $1,000 $1,000 per tonne.
We launched and myself was quite vocal, we can do it at $500 per tonne. Maybe we'll not reach $500 per ton, but all the projects I'm looking today like for example, the PNG project. We are speaking today around $7.50 per ton. And so we can in our industry, I'm convinced that if we focus, we can use our capacity of innovation to make to direct the technology not to make more volumes, but to lower the cost and to be more efficient. And I think this is the direction we gave to all our teams, development teams.
So we can do better. I'm convinced there is still room to be more efficient in our industry and total and in particular again in the LNG business and we are working today on Arctic 2 and the objective there again will be to be under $1,000 per ton, which means a decrease of more than 30% of cost of LNG ton, more efficient.
And just is it fair to say therefore that decline rates of 2% to 3%, would it be an exaggeration to say that's sustainable over the medium term? If you keep surprising yourself on technology and efficiencies and so on, that effectively you can run to stand still at around 2% to 3%, Is that a first statement?
Yes, you can. It's a first statement. I think you understand very well our industry and our portfolio, the total portfolio.
Brilliant. Thank you very much.
Our next question comes from Irene Himona from Societe Generale.
Thank you. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I had firstly 2 sort of numerical questions on the quarter and then one on Direct Energy. So firstly, your intangibles on the balance sheet obviously with all the acquisitions you've done, the intangibles have gone up about $10,000,000,000 or 70% versus year end. At year end, the goodwill was about 10% of that.
Can you say whether the sort of goodwill element is similar or if it has increased? Secondly, corporate and other, since about 2015, 2016, I think you have had a tax credit in that division every quarter. And it used to relate to, I think, French downstream taxes. I wonder if you can just remind us what is in there in that tax credit and whether we should expect it to continue going forward? And my third question on direct energy.
Patrick, you mentioned that with the 6 7,000,000 customers you got currently and ongoing growth, you will eventually increase the market share towards 15%. And your comment was that 15% is interesting. I wonder if 15% is interesting from a P and L perspective. In other words, is that the level at which you start making profit basically? Or whether it relates to something on the power generation side and your ability to perhaps be, I don't know, more flexible there?
Thank
you. Yiren, just answering your question about goodwill, this is very simple. Maersk acquisition added $2,500,000,000 of goodwill. Then you have a question on French tax credit in our balance sheet. We haven't booked all of our tax credit in our balance sheet.
So it's just an assumption of the use of our previous in time losses made when the refining was having and facing trouble 7 years ago. And those are the tax credit we have in France.
Thank you.
It was able to answer. I would not have been able on both questions. So we are well complementary together. I'm not sure I'm perfect, my 15% market share is more, I would say, in what we have it's more the experience we have in retail, in marketing, on national businesses like we had in M and S. We divested, for example, our business in UK in marketing and services because it was at 6%, 7%.
And when again 7%, it's just the question is when do you reach a size where you can really have a virtuous circle because you amortize your fixed costs, your marketing, your advertising costs, your marketing costs on a large base enough of customers. And so that at a certain point your breakeven is going down again and you can make offers to customers which are even better. You can resend part of it. The profitability of the business, it's a business. I told you the objective is €300,000,000 in 5 years.
So we will be profitable before. Let's be clear, it's the results of Direct Energy are positive. It's not making losses anymore. They reach a size with 6%, 7% of market share where you already make some profits and some positive cash flows even if they invest part of that in some production capacities, which are absorbing some CapEx. But so it's not my comment was not linked to a threshold of profitability.
It's more I think for Total, if we enter into a market, it has to be sizable comparing if I want that to be sustainable on the medium and long term. When we enter into a market, we are not going there just to have, I would say, $15,000,000 of results. We need to have something sizable. So targeting €300,000,000 of cash flow from operations for some of the business, I think is the ambition that we have in order to enter it and to make a sustainable business within a group, which is a very large group. So this is the ambition.
Sure. Thank you very much.
Our next question comes from Blake Fernandez from Scotia Howard Weil.
Thanks. Good afternoon. I realize we're late in the hour, so just two points of clarity here if I could on production. For one going back to Libya, if I'm not mistaken, I think with the acquisition should be around 80,000 barrels a day, which is about 3% of your total production. Obviously, the country has been fairly erratic with regard to volumes.
Is that part of your 6% plus guidance for the year? And then the second question is really on the overall kind of longer term production target. You've expressed potentially increased appetite to sell upstream assets. I'm just wondering would that potentially put at risk that longer term number or were you already contemplating some level of divestitures when you kind of put that number out there in the first place? Thank you.
First question, yes, it's taken into account is a 6% plus and we know it's erratic, but it's why by the way some people think we are conservative, maybe we are not so well, but it's taken into account. And if we raise from 6% to 6% plus because part of it is coming from this deal clearly. So we have to recognize it and to put it into a figure. Having said that, maybe it's erratic Libya, but I see more upside than downside. It's a country today which produce less than 1,000,000 barrel of oil per day.
It was a potential of 2,000,000 barrel per day. So when you think to this concession of war, the potential of increase of production is huge, can double the production there. So yes, it's erratic today, but it's erratic in the low tide, I would say. And there is more an upside potential, but I would say downside there. Then the second question, no, clearly I already answered that several times.
When we told you 5% average 2017, 2022, it was taking into account the fact that we want to divest some upstream assets we never added. We did not put a figure in terms of $1,000,000,000 but it's part of what we said net acquisition sales. So and we have some margins and you cannot tell us that we are sometimes too conservative on our production figure and that sometimes we are too optimistic. So We are dealing with you and what we like to do P1, P2 and P1, I would say together, we'd like to deliver what we say. And so you can take that as a commitment.
And I have we have again, so it's a matter of translating, in fact, all the issues we have accumulated into some projects. So now the next challenge to sanction the projects and to execute the projects. And then if we do that, we deliver the 5%. But we have in reserves which are necessary to do that. And we have also Thank you very much.
To sell what we want to sell.
Thanks.
Our next question comes from Thomas Adolff from Credit Suisse.
Thank you. Got 3 questions as well. Firstly, on Venezuela, I'm assuming you still have some experts in the country. And if so, what are the plans there following some worrying news at one of your competitors earlier this week? And if you take them out, what does it mean to your operations?
Secondly, on refining, I know the focus in downstream is on petchem, but I wondered whether you would question on concentration versus diversity of your portfolio. Obviously, if you're too concentrated, you're exposed, like Repsol you're too diversified, you create complex organizational structures. And I'm aware when it comes to country risk, definitions can vary from cash flow to value to capital employed. But if we stick to cash flow and take your top 10 countries, how much do these represent in terms of percentage of last year's cash flow? And generally speaking, as we consider the portfolio composition, what is the sweet spot or have we hit the sweet spot in terms of risk and value creation for Total?
Thank you.
It's Bela. The news are not so good. Let's be clear. First priority for me is, of course, to take care of our people. So we have a lot of our expertise are familiar out and we are limiting the number of people.
We also take care by the way of our visitors and employees very carefully because it's part of the value of the company. And there is a limit to what can be done. One of the difficulty, and I will tell you, production our production there is declining because there is a lack of machines, there is a lack of tools, there is a lack of everything. So the the main concern from our side is to take care of the upgrader. We have an upgrader operation which is a very big machine and there will be a limit to be able to operate at upgrader and we will take no HSE risk.
And I think together with our colleagues of Stathol, we are very careful about it. And if we have to tell, explain that, we'll take the decision on it. So yes, it's part of probably what could be a downside, but let me be clear in terms of cash flow, we don't make much money today of this heavy oil from Venezuela. So it's not it will not damage the CFFO of Total. It will damage maybe the volume, but not the CFFO because it's not a very strong operation today.
The second one, refining, at capacity, we are not I mean, there is a small opportunity. You probably have some insights, so I will not lie to you. There is an opportunity where you have what we say the splitter, there is a condensate splitter in Port Harford, which was designed, built to feed the cracker. Obviously, we don't need it. It could be a way to refine more light crudes.
We are studying that with BASF. Of course, BASF is not a refining company. So we are trying to see if we could optimize 1 tool. Beyond that, but it's I think it's a 50,000 barrel per day capacity. So it's not very big.
Beyond that, there is no plan to add capacity in refining in the U. S. We are not a big U. S. Refiners and we let that to the big guys.
We are small guys. And then cancer risk, this is a very complex question And I'm sorry, but I think you can keep it for September or you call Mike and he will be he will love to answer you, because I'm not I don't have all the figure in front of me. And you need a special lesson there, my dear. Okay. Thank
you very much, Patrick.
Our next question comes from Biraj Borkhataria from Royal Bank of Canada.
Hi, thanks for taking my question. Just one question left. There's obviously quite a lot going on in the portfolio inorganically, but a few months ago, you laid out a fairly long list of projects in the upstream that you could sanction. So I was wondering if you could just give us an update on some of the upcoming FIDs that we should expect and whether given all the deals you have done, you might slow some of these down in order to digest some of the new assets? Thanks.
So I think if we take the list, if I try to go through, Zynia II in Angola should come in within weeks. We have finalized with the Angolanist government in December the past fiscal terms. We wait for the decree, but it's coming. Tenders have been done, offers are there, so coming. Uganda is usually a very big project.
We are UVA is where the good news since we met in February because now all the partners are aligned. There was a small dispute between CNOOC and the 2 partners to know to split the operatorship. It has been done in smooth way. Total we operate all the north part of Eras, Sinhuk in the south. It's crossing one license.
All that is aligned now. And so now we are aligned. We closed the deal. And we are all intent. I spent some time in Beijing 3 weeks ago to try to reach to the target now is the FID end of this year, beginning of next year and it's moving forward.
So I'm optimistic and I hope the market will give us the right price we're expecting, but it's on the pipeline it seems to be on the good way. So Uganda, IKK in Nigeria, teams are working hard and FID is expected by Q3. Phoenix in Argentina, technical job is done. We should be able to sanction when we have a discussion like always in Argentina gas incentives. Libra 2, we have sanctioned Libra 1.
I think we've made a review with Petrobras recently and things are moving on. The local content issue is being solved structurally, not only for Librival, in the with a 40% threshold, which is acceptable, which will allow us to make a profitable project. And so the Brazilian authorities have been efficient there. And Johan Verdup 2, I know we are very new there, but I think Stator is probably good news for us. So we're working hard.
I think we are aligned. So and 2018 also FID. So this is a review. So let's be clear, we're taking benefit being countercycled in criteria is from this low cycle for me are 2 folds. 1 was capacity to replenish the resource of Total for the future growth.
But the other side is taking benefit of the low cost of CapEx, low CapEx base in order to sanction projects and we continue to be active. It's not the same teams in total who are buying, acquiring is the one we are developing. We have different objective for different teams.
Thank you, Patrick. Sorry, Tara.
Our next question comes from Christopher Kuplent from Bank of America.
Thank you. Can I just be very brief? One last question, Patrick, you gave us a 2018 number for a €16,000,000,000 plus. But actually, what I'd like to know is where do you think 2018 will end up on your organic front where you've given us a €13,000,000,000 to €15,000,000,000 range? I'm guessing not at the upper end.
On the lower at the lower end.
Okay.
That's great.
That's already It
might be first in plus 3 if it's busy. But again, it takes all that as an average. And again, for you'll be clear, at the end of the day, for the company in terms of financial framework. The real question is how much do we spend in CapEx. We can make a split.
So it may be, but maybe I'm wrong by giving you such a precise figure. Keep the average, keep the range. I'd like to prefer it because again, just before I answered that we are looking the team with short term CapEx we could activate, so this could have an influence and we are reviewing that with the upstream teams to see how we could activate. So it's not we manage the company. I prefer to give some range, but prefer figures, but it will maybe give a clue to all of you for your model and a positive clue, I hope so.
We're always keen on clues. So thank you.
Thank you, Chris.
Our next question comes from Jean Luc Romain from CMCIC Securities.
Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my question. My question relates to Direct Energy. Should I infer from your prepared comments that the shareholders of Direct Energy contacted you about their interest to sell? Second question is, is the cost of acquisition what is the cost of acquisition per client at Total Spring so far?
For the first question, I cannot give you all the secrets of the deal, but probably because you are French, thanks to your accent, you probably know that the shareholders, main shareholders of Direct Energy and myself, we have been we are quite close together. We have been in our history. So we have permanent interactions, in fact both of us. So I will not tell you who called who. But again, when the price of the share were declining, there was an incentive for him to call me.
But I was also looking to that. Go for it. Your second question was about the cost of access for Total Stream. I don't have the answer, sorry for that. But I suggest that one of my colleagues will call you after the call because I don't have I don't want to I know that I have one order ID, but I don't want to give you a wrong indication and we will call you after the call.
Thank you very much.
There are no further questions in the queue. I would like to turn the conference back to our speakers for additional or closing remarks.
I would like to all of you thank you for this call. We were a little earlier than anticipated because I think we have another call with one of my colleagues just right now. So I thank you for all your questions you asked us. I think it will not become a tradition that the CEO will talk. We'll continue to be so active, that's the case.
And so but I think again the company is moving in the right direction. And what they observe is that the share price begins to reflect better in a better way all the efforts which have been done by all the teams of Total for the coming years. And so I hope it will continue and you can count on one side of our financial discipline, on the other side of the ambition of the management to continue to develop the company. Thank you.