Good day. 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 Pouyanné, CEO. Please go ahead.
Thank you. Good morning or good afternoon, everybody, wherever you are. I am with Patrick de la Chevardière, 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. We thought it was worth a short update by the CEO himself. As it is a tradition, Patrick, P2, will first review the first quarter results. Then I will comment on the recent strategic activity. Then we'll go to the Q&A. Before to leave the floor to Patrick. 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, not only to propose but to implement.
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 three years. Yesterday's board of directors consistently decided to raise the first 2018 interim dividend to EUR 0.64 per share, an increase of 3.2% exactly on the path to the 10% over three years. It's implementation of this first amendment. The second point is that we announced as well that we'll buy back all the scrip shares that have been issued in order to avoid the dilution. We've done it, between February and April. We bought back 7 million shares, which were issued in January for the scrip dividend payment. Let's be clear, we have just issued another 50 million scrip shares, which we bought back in the coming quarter.
On the top of it, we also announced that we will implement a buyback plan to buy up to $5 billion with the idea, which was the idea to share part of the oil price upside with our shareholders. This plan has began. We bought back an additional 5 million shares for $300 million in the last two months, between February and March. To be clear, at more than $70 per barrel, of course, we are very pleased with the recent share price evolution, increase, I would say. We'll continue to buy back shares as it was announced, in order to continue to share this oil price upside with our shareholders. After I make these remarks, which are obviously very important because we put into action our commitment to our shareholders, I'll leave the floor to Patrick, our CFO, to review the first quarter results.
Thank you, Patrick. Honestly, we are off to a good start in 2018. We are on track to achieve our objectives. First quarter performance is solid. Adjusted net income was $2.9 billion or $1.09 per share. Debt-adjusted cash flow was $5.7 billion. Our organic free cash flow was $2.8 billion. Looking at the segment, first quarter 2018 adjusted net operating income for E&P was $2.2 billion, up 58% compared a year ago, 21% versus the previous quarter. Compared to first quarter last year, Brent increased by 24%. Our average realized hydrocarbon price increased by 25%. Production grew to 2.7 million BOE per day in the first quarter, an increase of 5% from a year ago, 3% from the previous quarter, despite the end of the Mahakam license in Indonesia. There is a record level of quarterly production.
The previous high was 2.66 million barrels per day in 2003. We benefited from major ramp-ups, including Moho Nord, Kashagan, Yamal LNG, where the first of three trains is producing 6.4 million ton a year, well above the nameplate capacity of 5.5 million ton a year. In Qatar, we took over operations on the giant Al Shaheen field last year in July. This made a strong contribution. First quarter startups include Fort Hills in Canada and Timimoun in Algeria. The Petrobras alliance and Maersk Oil acquisition made only partial contribution in the first quarter. 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 $6.5 per barrel in the first quarter 2018 from $4.5 a barrel a year ago, $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. In fact, it should be used with realized liquid prices. E&P cash flow before working capital changes was $4.3 billion in the first quarter, an increase of 28% from the same quarter last year, in line with the previous quarter.
The ramp-up in cash flow will accelerate in the second quarter, mainly with a full contribution from Maersk, then gain momentum with the cash accretive startups. Recall that in February, we told you that for a full year on plateau, Kaombo, Ichthys, and Egina would add $2.5 billion of cash flow. Maersk plus Petrobras alliance would add another $2 billion. All that based on a $60 Brent. The way forward is clear. First, organic free cash flow for E&P was $2.2 billion. E&P organic CapEx was $2.1 billion. I will remind you that the first quarter is typically a bit light. For the gas, renewable, and power segment, adjusted net operating income in the first quarter was $115 million compared to $61 million a year ago, $232 million in the previous quarter, thanks to better result from the solar business. Moving to the downstream.
Refining and Chemicals contributed EUR 720 million of adjusted net operating income in the first quarter compared to EUR 1 billion a year ago, and EUR 886 million in the previous quarter. Refining margin was volatile, averaging EUR 26 per ton in the first quarter, 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. We consider Refining and Chemicals results are short by about EUR 50 million-EUR 100 million in the quarter, mainly due to operational difficulties at Antwerp and Port Arthur, and the start of the turnaround season. Note that we used the first quarter turnaround at SATORP to increase capacity to 440,000 barrels per day.
Refining and Chemicals generated cash flow before working cap changes of EUR 0.9 billion in the first quarter compared to EUR 1 billion a year ago, and EUR 1.1 billion in the previous quarter. Marketing and Services generated adjusted net operating income of EUR 367 million in the first quarter, compared to EUR 301 million last year and EUR 436 million 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 a 17% 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 EUR 100 million of cash flow per year by expanding in high return, high growth markets.
The combined Downstream segment, Refining and Chemicals plus Marketing and Services, generated cash flow before working cap changes of EUR 1.4 billion in the first quarter compared to EUR 1.5 billion a year ago, and EUR 1.8 billion in the previous quarter. There is some seasonality in this result, including a recurring impact of about EUR 100 million in the first quarter 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&P increased to 48% in the first quarter as a result of higher oil and gas prices, and the share of E&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 $5.7 billion in the first quarter. On an organic basis, excluding asset sales and acquisition, free cash flow was EUR 2.8 billion, despite the seasonal weakness in Downstream. 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 six consecutive months, and we have been above $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 one year, supported by strong underlying demand growth. At the current oil price level, obviously, we have more cash flows than anticipated, and we can execute comfortably our return to shareholder policy, and that's what we are doing. Now, I hand back to Pitou.
Okay, thank you, Patrick, for this good set of results, the record production, as well, as you said, the implementation of our return to shareholder policy. Just a few comments now about, I would say, the implementation of the strategic framework we described as well in February, 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. What we have executed during this last quarter was, in fact, deals which were prepared in the previous year, where the price of the barrel was lower.
We told you that we will focus on where we are good, which is to play to our strengths, in particular in some upstream in Middle East, North Sea, Africa, deep offshore LNG, in downstream to focus on petrochemicals, retail, and lubricants. That prepares the future we will expand, we are expanding along the integrated gas and power value chain. The activity has been quite intense, 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. Now we are the second-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 with the objective to lower the break-even of our operations in the North Sea. It's down. It's being down. The integration is going very smoothly since mid-March. 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. There is obviously some upside, which is coming very quickly in the picture. I would also say that we can speak a little more about synergies, we plan to have $400 million synergies, out of which $200 were coming from OpEx costs. We reevaluate that today to $300 from the cost. A global synergy package from Maersk, we should go at $500 million plus. This is for North Sea.
The second region where we have been active is the Middle East and North Africa with two recent moves, one in Abu Dhabi, the other in Libya. Coming back from Abu Dhabi, we have obtained two new 40-year offshore concessions, 20% of the Umm Shaif and Nasr concession and 5% on the Lower Zakum concession. I would say it's an access to 1.5 billion barrel of resource and production of 80,000-90,000 barrel per day. 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 Umm Shaif and Nasr concession. Generally, in Abu Dhabi, it's more in 10%-15% range. We are very focused on that concession for two reasons.
The first one is that it's a concession where there's a potential oil increase from 320,000 barrel per day to 450,000 barrel per day, 100% share, 100%. More important than that, there is a very large gas gap, five TCF of gap to be developed. There is a change of policy in Abu Dhabi, a country we know very well, where Abu Dhabi has decided to really monetize its domestic gas resource. Part of the focus on Umm Shaif, because there is a big upside, and the fiscal terms on gas are very incitation, have been designed to be an incentive to produce this domestic gas. There is an upside on Umm Shaif on gas, and this is why we focused a share there.
We have taken a smaller share on Lower Zakum concession, 5%, because it's a more traditional oil concession, I would say. Part of our, I would say, loyalty to Abu Dhabi was we were offered to be on both concessions, so 5% on one side and 20% on Umm Shaif. On Libya, we bought 16% in the Waha concession from Marathon. We closed the deal on March 31st. It represents 500 million barrels reserved, 50,000 barrel per day. A deal around, again, $1 per barrel, like in Abu Dhabi. The deal is closed, of course. You have seen some information. 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 advised Libyan authorities far in advance that the deal has been settled between Marathon and Total, that 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. We advised them that there was a target for us end of March. We wrote them again before. There was no objection. We decided to close. The deal is done. The shares are today, of Marathon 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 our willingness to develop the Waha field in the national interest of Libya.
This is moving. Again, I would say when we closed the deal, I said that we are not naive about the tricky political situation there. No surprise, but I think 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. The other segment where we have also a core area where we have progress is deep offshore. We have in Brazil and in the Gulf of Mexico, in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. In Brazil, we have closed the deal that was announced in January. I would also say, just to comment, that this deal was closed and negotiated early 2017. There, again, the price was under EUR 50. There is an upside coming very quickly because we produce already there on Lapa, on Iara, and on Libra.
We have around 70,000, 80,000 barrel per oil per day producing there in 100%, so we have a share of it. 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 Ballymore discovery, which were announced end January with Chevron. You have probably noticed, but 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 Platte from 40% to 60%, and we have there becoming operator of this Wilcox discovery, 350, 400 million barrel of reserves there. Potential with some exploration license around, which we own as well. 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. 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. 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 second lien bonds at a discount price last spring, and we will make there EUR 60 million profits, which will diminish the cost of access to these assets. We are innovative in Total and active in many ways when we want to have access to low-cost resources. Thank you, Pitou. 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 Chemicals and Borealis, both on the cracker and on the polymer side. It's a big expansion.
We will together, by putting in place this joint venture, be number 3 in the polyethylene business in the U.S., among the top 3 sellers of polymers, polyethylene polymers, which is quite a good position in terms of marketing. 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, EUR 5 billion 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 1.5 million ton cracker based on advantage feedstock. First refinery of gas, because there is a strong integration there, but also access to some ethane and LPG.
It's a start of a new adventure with our friends of Saudi Aramco, and it's 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, Now we want to capitalize on that together. Last but not least, 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. We give you some news. We have obtained all the antitrust authorization from China, Europe, the U.S., and other the world. The social process is also over. Now we have some approvals to obtain some on commercial agreements on people around the world, but it's progressing well.
We target, as announced in November, to close the deal by third quarter, middle of the year, this year in coming three months, I think. Then on the top of it, we have announced last week another move in the field of integration gas to power, which is the acquisition of a company called Direct Énergie, which is a company which is in the field of gas and power retail marketing, but also a power producer. It's an opportunistic move, which should not surprise you. We announce you that we want to build a business in the low carbon business, going downstream the chain of gas to power. That we announced in October that we want to establish ourself 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 have created another opportunity, the acquisition of Direct Énergie. After we announced our entry in the French gas and power retail market in October, we've seen that the share of Direct Énergie has decreased and the main shareholders have decided that there was maybe the right time for them to sell. We have somewhere shaken the market when we entered, and we are gathering the fruits much quicker than expected. The fit is excellent for us because it gave us immediately a sizable market share. We are reaching 7% of market share. In this retail business, like we know well in our marketing and services business, market share is of essence because you amortize all your advertising, your fixed costs on a larger base of customers, and so it's a virtuous circle.
The intent is to continue to grow on this market. Direct Energie was growing by 500,000 new customers per year in the last two years. We are also on our side, we are beginning to have 2,000 new customers per day. If we combine all that, the ambition is to reach six to seven million customers in France, more or less 15% of the market share. At this level, this will become a quite interesting business, but this Direct Energie give us, again, access to mid-size and will accelerate our development. In the portfolio of Direct Energie, there were other interesting assets. In particular, there are some gas-fired power plants, which they acquired as quite a low cost in 2015, 2016.
We will have 1.2 gigawatts 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. They have also a renewable business, 500 megawatts, which could grow to two gigawatts. This fitting well as well with our power strategy. At the end, what we want to build, in line with what we explained you, I think for some of you who follow us very precisely, you remember two years ago, there was a puzzle to explain the strategies.
I think the pieces of the puzzles are put in place now one after one. We'll show you a better scheme next September at the strategy meeting. You will see how the puzzle is going together. This is quite logic. Now we are expanding a lot on the gas business. We will become number two in the LNG trade. There is a logic to sell this gas to customers, so gas to power integration. 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 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 and years. This is what we target.
Obviously, we not have 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 Energie, we evaluate that the objective is to reach a cash flow from operations around EUR 300 million. Sorry, I should speak in dollar there, but it's a French business. I'm back in my. It's more so around $350 million in five years. This is the target we have. There are some synergies, by the way, about it in this business because obviously by combining both companies, even if we are small We will focus on one brand and not two brands, one brand in France, one brand in Belgium, so it will save some money. There was also two IT systems.
We'll keep one digital platform, not two. We evaluate that to EUR 35 million-EUR 40 million per year. 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 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. There is a growth there, potential growth in this market. I think that for shareholders, it's a way also to give them access beyond our traditional oil and gas to businesses which offer a higher growth for the future.
To sum up, I would like also, because as I described many deals and many activities, some of you could be worried about the financial discipline, I can tell you, and you can be comfortable with P1 and P2, the two managers there keep in mind the discipline. We announce you a clear framework of allocation of capital. First, $15 billion-$17 billion investment. Second, increase the dividend by 10%. Third, keeping the gearing under 20%. Fourth, share buyback, $5 billion to share the upside price. I confirm today that we'll be in the range of $15 billion-$17 billion for the next three years. That for ATM, if I say you 15, you will think it's too low, it's too conservative. I've seen some comments this morning that Total management is conservative. I will not be conservative, will be 16, probably 16+.
We will stay in the range of capital investments, which was told you in February, I think it's important to tell you. By the way, we have sold already $2.2 billion of assets in the beginning. It's not we just acquire, we also sold you. If you remember, I told you that $2 billion in acquisition could be a three minus one, five minus three, seven minus five. We'll be active, of course, on the sale of assets. I would make one comment, that clearly in this type of environment, $70, it's easier and could be even good to sell some upstream assets today. We were not so active in the last two years because we didn't want to lose value, but at this level of price, we can be, again, counter cyclical in the other way, which is to sell when the price are better.
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 break even of a portfolio. I think it's the last strategic comment I would like to do. A last one, don't believe all the rumors of bankers. Total is not interested by acquiring neither Santos nor Oil Search. We have enough interest in PNG with 38% or in Gladstone Energy with 27.5%. I know 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 is having said, I think it's time to go to the Q&A.
Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please signal by pressing star one on your telephone keypad. If you're using a speakerphone, please make sure your mute function is turned off to allow your signal to reach our equipment. Once again, that is star one to ask a question. Our first question comes from Jon Rigby of UBS.
Thank you. Two questions. Patrick, thank you for running through the strategic initiatives for the first quarter. They seem to have come very thick and fast. It is difficult to keep up with them all. Just to reference your last point about the EUR 2 billion or so of net investment and the 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? 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, is this working capital build has emerged as a bit of a feature in the last two first quarters.
I just wanted to come back to it and say, or ask, is it a function of what you are doing in the fourth quarter or a function of something unusual in the first quarter? What of each of those is more representative of the working capital that you need to run the business, all things equal? Thanks.
I take the first question. Again, the financial framework we gave you is EUR 15 billion, EUR 17 billion of investment, organic plus net acquisition. EUR 2 billion, take it as it is. It is for the next three years, take it as an average of the three years. Clearly, yes, we will be active on the sell side. We have some assets. It is not like we have done the previous three years, a EUR 10 billion program. It is done step by step, we have some assets which are being marketed today without too much noise, neither rumors. We are active. Of course, the question why I am prudent, and I answer you by the average, when you take a year, 360 days, you could have some time last year. For example, we closed the Petrobras deal in January, on January 10, and not on December 2025.
Sometimes you could move the end of the year, go beyond. Again, this is globally. You can keep our commitment of EUR 15 billion-EUR 17 billion of net investment as being the right point to model the future spending of Total in terms of capital investment. That's right.
Okay, Jon, for this very simple question about working cap. Our working cap increased by EUR 3 billion this quarter. Honestly, I'm not very happy with that. Even if there is some seasonality in our working cap. The EUR 3 billion can be explained by EUR 2 billion 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. EUR 2 billion coming from that and EUR 1 billion 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.
Volatility is to be expected, as you know, for working cap, but I can tell you that we will tackle this issue, and we are committed to improve in the next quarter, what we are used to do on working cap.
Patrick, can I just follow up with you? Eliminating two out of the three is a price you made up to a net plus.
Can I just follow up on your first answer on the portfolio? On the disposal side, is what's evident from some of the acquisitions. They're not just acquisitions of assets. You're in the process of reshaping the portfolio. Will you apply the same logic to the sell side as well, is that it's not just a disposal of ready assets, you're trying to reshape the portfolio through disposals as well?
Yes, of course, we will be consistent on the sales towards regarding the strategy and continuing to focus at the end of the day on what is core in the company. The assets that we want to dispose are high-cost asset. It's obvious, like we've done with Martin Linge, I think. We will select these assets according, so either high break-even assets or out of the core of the business of the company.
Okay. Thanks very much, guys.
As a reminder, if you find your question has been answered, you may remove yourself by pressing star two. Our next question comes from Michele Della Vigna from Goldman Sachs.
Thank you for taking my question. Patrick, I wanted to ask two questions, if possible. The first one is relating to the deals that you have very thoroughly run through. It feels like they mainly come from two 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.
On the other side, a deal like Direct Énergie, 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. The first one, you have a perfect analysis of what we've done. Yes, it's true. 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. Either it was some national companies like Petrobras, I would say, or some smaller companies, like the deal with Tullow Oil in Uganda, with Cobalt in the U.S. Be clear, there were 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, it's not two oil and gas companies negotiating with the same, to explain you, but both were winners.
These two deals, we were targeting two different strategies. We had to demonstrate that it was okay and fine for our oil and gas business, and they were all moving out of that business. It helped, of course, to strike good deals there. For the future, can we continue on in? 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. We are working on some other deals of this type in these countries. Of course, all the concessions of Abu Dhabi are now allocated for 40 years. In three years, we have done the job. 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. I think what we have observed is that because of the volatility of oil price, many of these national companies have changed also, are more open to their strategy. I think there are still some opportunities, and one of the, I would say, core strengths of Total is this ability of the teams of the company to deal with these national companies and where there is a lot of resource, and low-cost resource. The second question, it's a good question.
It's fundamentally how do you, on one side build on the short-term additional cash flows by going to accretive deals like Maersk Oil, which will generate more cash flows and 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. At the same time, in the energy field, we need to prepare the future. 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 2040, but it's not so shared by everybody. By the way, the global multiple of the sector is not so high.
By injecting in our 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. At the same time, first, we are good and excellent on the short-term results. I think Patrick, again, this quarter show you that our results are very solid and consistent. Secondly, because we have done some short-term deals to fuel that cash flow. This is the 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 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. Fundamentally, you talk about it being startups coming in better plus integration. My question was really, is this a Maersk phenomena or is it really successful ahead of schedule startups of your very large list of projects? I think you have about 14 or so over 2017, 2018. 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 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 growth profile. We announced more than 6% this morning because the 5% performance the first quarter is ahead of what we were thinking. Yes, it's more than 6%. I read some comments that we are too conservative. As you said, we have many startup coming in front of us. Ichthys, Kaombo, Egina, Tempa Rossa in the coming months. Sometimes it can derive by one month or two. It could be ahead by one month or two. Generally, it's more one month late rather than one month ahead. All that being compensated, that's also true that the Maersk deal was not planned in our forecast in February. It came quicker, and we managed to close it. Globally speaking, I would say that you can take more than 6%, but it's already quite a good performance.
I would say that it will be the fourth year in a row that we'll be at 5%+. 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018. We have more to come. I remind you that our guideline to you is 5% as an average until 2022. 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 Jon previously, we'll sell some of the production because we are not driven by volume. We are driven by value there. Of course, if we want to grow the cash flow, it's also good to have a growth in production. This is for the production growth. Take the guideline as more than 6% as a good guideline, and we'll see what can be delivered quarter after quarter. Patrick, you want to answer on Libya?
Yeah. Barrel in Libya are very profitable, actually. Profitability is at EUR 60 per barrel between 15% and 20%.
Let me see. I can say that the cost of access to this barrel was quite attractive because of the political situation. Maybe it creates some move, by the way, there in Libya, probably, when they discover the value of the deal. Part of the difficulty. I would say that when the concession, the terms of the concession did not change. I think there 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. This is why we've done the deal, in fact. It's also part of the geopolitical move of what we can do, because of the very large portfolio, we can take this type of risk on board and get the rewards with it as part of it.
Super. Thank you.
Our next question comes from Theepan Jothilingam from Exane BNP Paribas.
Yeah. Hi, good afternoon, gentlemen. A couple of questions, please. Firstly, on the synergies that you've mentioned, both the Maersk Oil and Direct Energie. 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. I think you mentioned trying to grow installed capacity on the gas-fired power plants, sort of around 10 gigawatts. I was just hoping to understand the timelines, and again, will that be really done inorganically? Finally, you mentioned Ichthys and Kaombo, they are highly cash generative. I just want to understand where we are in terms of commissioning or delivery of first oil. Thank you. First oil and first LNG.
Okay. First, the synergies of Maersk Oil. I'm taking a paper, sorry. I don't know that by heart. I know that the cost synergy should be fully on board by three years to capture them. I'm just thinking, I'm trying to find. Yeah, it is there. I think this year, obviously, it's not so. You can say that you will have 60%, 70% two-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 the first one. On Direct Energie, we need to close the deal. It will be immediate, in fact, because the decision to keep only one brand will be done before the end of this or the closing. That's part of the synergy.
The fact that we will decide to have only one IT platform, it will take a little more to implement, one year. I think this type of synergy, the EUR 35 million I mentioned to you, it would be done by end of 2019 now, very quickly at the latest. The second question about the growing 10 gigawatts of quickly. It's a 5-year objective. You will tell me sometimes you go quicker. Let's be clear there. Where are the source of the 10 gigawatts? Part of it is embedded, in fact, in Direct Energie, 2 to 2.5 gigawatt, because they have a CCGT to be built. They have a pipeline of wind and solar projects in France. Part of it is number 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.
You have there 6 gigawatt plus 1, 7 gigawatts, and then on the top of it will come from opportunities we could see there. Again, 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 six million customers, six, seven million customers, you will require more or less 30 gigawatt. We'll not cover all of it because we don't want to be a utility. Two-third will come. We will not have some base power capacities, let's be clear. We'll buy two-third of it and produce the other third, which is a good level of integration if we want to develop profitably this business. This is consistent with what we just told you.
Don't expect us to rush on buying many capacities too quickly.
The last question was about Ichthys.
Can I answer?
We are following INPEX's 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, or months. There is two months left in Q2. We are expecting first LNG drop by July, something like this.
Let's be clear, there is a slight delay, the INPEX already explained it on some issues to be fixed on one of the offshore components. 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 sea. Large platform, I think. Production will come quickly. By the way, it's better to start this project at $75 per barrel than at $50. We'll make more revenues even for the first condensate. Sometimes you are a little late, but you generate more money with it.
Noted. Thank you, Patrick.
Our next question comes from Lydia Rainforth from Barclays.
Thank you, and good afternoon, both. Just one question. Are you seeing any impact in terms of the cost base or any upward pressure there at the moment? 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 artificial intelligence with Google. The idea there is clearly to try to now engage, not only to make proof of concept, but to engage really in some development. It's about geoscience. A team of 15 people of engineers of Total will move from Pau to California within the Google offices there, and we'll develop some programs during two, three years. We have a program to see how we could apply artificial intelligence to enhance the efficiency of our geoscience processes. I don't want to disclose everything there because there are some areas of, I would say, core competencies, but it's a commitment and I think it's just a start. No, we shifted from a few discussions and concept to putting in place a team, and we have some good expectations.
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. Second 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%-50% sometimes. 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. In the rig market, it's still quite quiet, in fact. When we make 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 Shale, producing 600 million scf per day there. I would say there, in the Barnett Shale, we have seen some inflation, in particular in some frack jobs, and there's a lot of activity in the U.S., more activity than in the past in the world. Maybe it's one advantage of our portfolio. We are still, I would say, at a low-cost base for the CapEx and OpEx. By the way, you probably noticed that our OpEx are still this quarter at $5.4 per barrel, so still maintaining them. 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.
Perfect. Thank you very much.
Our next question comes from Christyan Malek from JP Morgan.
Hi, good afternoon, gentlemen. Thank you for taking my questions. Just two, 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 EUR 16 billion plus for the next few years, should we think about that range potentially moving higher over time, or is it really a EUR 17 billion 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? At a broader level, Patrick, do you think the industry has more to do to lower project break even further outside of the U.S. through technology, big data, and AI?
I can see that you're leading the way on that, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Thank you, Christyan, for your question. I reiterate my strong commitment as a EUR 15 billion-EUR 17 billion for 2018, 2019, 2020, for the three years that we announced every year, is clearly a commitment. You can take it as a guideline. There is no wrong message in anything I said, I told you. My comments on EUR 16 billion plus were just for 2018. I could have reiterated EUR 15 billion, EUR 17 billion, but you make some math. Again, we have been more active than anticipated, but it's no regret at all. It's because we had opportunities, we seized them. Keep it, the EUR 15 billion-EUR 17 billion for 2019, 2020 are really the right guideline for what we want to invest. We have the capacity, again, to make organic investment and inorganic investments, which we think will fit with our strategy.
Having said that, if the price remains at $70, $75, I suspect the counter cyclical strategy will have to make a pause somewhere. The answer is in my strategy. The strategy is to acquire counter cyclically or to sell on the other side. 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. I think we've done a lot already in order to. What you probably noticed is that when you look to the decline rate of our base production, and I think it's commented every quarter after quarter in our press release, the average decline rate of the total portfolio when you eliminate the project startup is more or less in the range to 2%-3%, 2.5%, I think this quarter again, which is quite low.
Why is it so low? It's because I think one of the things which have been done during the last period, three years, and which is implemented today in our teams, is that we refocus everybody because each EUR was very important to lower the break even on some KPIs like availability, utilization rate, including not only in downstream, but in upstream. The upstream division is working on it, has shared some good practices. This momentum of trying to permanently increase this availability factor is really embedded today in the company. It's part of it. The second thing I would tell you is that you probably noticed that when we lower the organic CapEx, we have a bunch of in-sources which are activable, what I call my short-term CapEx.
Obviously at $70, $75 per barrel, which are not huge amount of CapEx, but we can activate part of these resources and short-term spendings, which will help to manage as well the decline of our production base. I think there are resources. Can we do better? You know probably that I strongly believe we can always do better. I take the LNG business. The LNG business, people were spending $1,000 per ton. We launched, and myself was quite vocal, we can do it at $500 per ton. Maybe we'll not reach $500 per ton, but all the projects I'm looking today, like for example, the PNG projects, we are speaking today around $700, $750 per ton.
In our industry, I'm convinced that if we focus, we can use our capacity of innovation to direct the technology, not to make more volumes, but to lower the cost and to be more efficient. 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. We are working today on Arctic II, and the objective there, again, will be to be under EUR 1,000 per ton, which mean a decrease of more than 30% of cost of LNG ton, which is more efficient.
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 understand still at around 2% to 3%. Is that a fair statement?
Yeah. It's a fair statement. I think you understand very well our industry and our portfolios, 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, two numerical questions on the quarter and then one on Direct Énergie. Firstly, your intangibles on the balance sheet. Obviously, with all the acquisitions you've done, the intangibles have gone up about $10 billion or 70% versus year-end. At year-end, the goodwill was about 10% of that. Can you say whether the 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 forwards. My third question on Direct Énergie.
Patrick, you mentioned that with the six or seven million customers you got currently and ongoing growth, you will eventually increase the market share towards 15%. Your comment was that 15% is interesting. I wonder if 15% is interesting from a P&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 more flexible there. Thank you.
Irene, just answering your question about goodwill, this is very simple. Maersk acquisition added $2.5 billion of goodwill. 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. It's just an assumption of the use of our previous in-time losses made when the refining was having and facing trouble seven years ago. Those are the tax credit we have in France.
Thank you.
Patrick was able to answer. I would not have been able on both questions. We are well complementary together. I'm not sure I'm perfect. My 15% market share is more, I would say, it's more the experience we have in retail, in retail marketing, on national businesses like we had in M&S. We divested, for example, our business in U.K., in marketing and services because it was at 6%, 7%. 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 cost, your marketing costs on a large base enough of customers, eventually at a certain point, your break-even 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 EUR 300 million in 5 years. We will be profitable before. Let's be clear. The results of Direct Energie are positive as well. It's not making losses anymore. They reach a size with 6%, 7% of market share, where you already make some profit and some positive cash flows, even if they invest part of that in some production capacities, which are absorbing some CapEx. 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. 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 EUR 15 million of reserves. We need to have something sizable.
Targeting EUR 300 million of cash flow from operations for sub 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. 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. 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, you should be around 80,000 barrels a day, which is about 3% of your total production. Obviously, the country's been fairly erratic with regard to volumes. Is that part of your 6% plus guidance for the year? The second question is really on the overall 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 put that number out there in the first place? Thank you.
First question. Yes, it's taken into account. This is 6% plus. 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. If we raise from six to six plus, because part of it is coming from this deal, clearly. 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 million barrel oil per day. It was a potential of 2 million barrels per day. When you think to this concession of war, the potential of increase of production is huge, can double the production there. Yes, it's erratic today, but it's erratic in the low tide, I would say.
There is more an upside potential, but I would say a downside there. 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 hide it. We did not put a figure in terms of billion EUR, but it's part of what we said, net acquisition sale. 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. We are dealing with you, and what we like to do, P1, P2, and P1, I would say together, we like to deliver what we say. You can take that as a commitment.
It's a matter of translating, in fact, all the results we have accumulated into some projects. Now the next challenge, to sanction the projects and to execute the project. If we do that, we deliver the 5%. We have in our portfolio the results which are necessary to do that. We have also enough-
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 three questions as well. Firstly, on Venezuela, I'm assuming you still have some expats in the country, and if so, what are the plans there following some worrying news at one of your competitors earlier this week? 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 consider adding more light crude processing capacity at Port Arthur in the U.S. Finally, just a question on concentration versus diversity of your portfolio. Obviously, if you're too concentrated, you are exposed, like Repsol in Argentina. You're too diversified, you create complex organizational structures. I'm aware when it comes to country risk, definitions can vary from cash flow to value to capital employed.
If we stick to cash flow and take your top 10 countries, how much do these represent in terms of % of last year's cash flow? 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.
The news are not so good. Let's be clear. First priority for me is, of course, to take care of our people. We have a lot of our expatriates have family out, and we are limiting the number of people. We also take care, by the way, of our Venezuelan employees very carefully because it's part of the value of the company. There is a limit to what can be done. One of the difficulty, and I will tell you, our production there is declining because there is a lack of machines, there is a lack of tools, there is a lack of everything. The main concern from all sides is to take care of the upgrader.
We have an upgrader operation, which is a very big machine, there will be a limit to be able to operate that upgrader, we will take no HSE risk. I think together with our colleagues of Statoil, we are very careful about it. If we have to tell, explain that, we'll take the decision on it. Yes, it's part of probably what could be a downside, but let be clear, in terms of cash flow, we don't make much money today off this heavy oil from Venezuela. It will not damage the CFFO of Total. It will damage maybe the volume, but not the CFFO because it's a Is that a very strong operation today? The second one, refining, at capacity. There is a small opportunity. You probably have some insight, so I will not lie to you.
There is an opportunity where you have, what we say, the splitter, where the condensate splitter in Port Arthur, which was designed, built to fit 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 one tool. Beyond that, which is, 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. refiner, we left that to the big guys. We are a small guy. Country risk.
This is a very complex question, I'm sorry, but I think you can keep it till September, or you call Mike, he will love to answer you. I don't have all the figure in front of me, 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. A few months ago, you laid out a fairly long list of projects in the upstream that you could sanction. 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.
I think if we take the list, if I try to go through, Zinia 2 in Angola should come in within weeks. We have finalized with the Angolan government in December the past fiscal terms. We wait for the decree. It's coming. Tenders have been done. Offers are there, coming. Uganda is obviously a very big project. You're very aware of the good news since we met in February, because now all the partners are aligned. There was a small dispute between CNOOC and the two partners to split the operatorship. It has been done in a smooth way. Total, we operate all the north part of CNOOC in the south. It's crossing one license. All that is aligned. Now we are aligned. We closed the deal. We are all intent.
I spent some time in Beijing three weeks ago to try to reach to the target. Now it's the FID end of this year, beginning of next year. It's moving forward. I'm optimistic. I hope the market will give us the right price we are expecting. On the pipeline, it seems to be on the good way. Uganda, Ikike in Nigeria, teams are working hard. FID is expected by Q3. Fénix in Argentina, technical job is done. We should be able to sanction. We have a discussion, like always in Argentina, about the gas price and gas incentives. Iara 2. We have sanctioned Iara 1. I think we've made a review with Petrobras recently. Things are moving on.
The local content issue is being solved structurally, not only for Libra 1, with a 40% threshold, which is acceptable, which will allow us to make a profitable project. The Brazilian authorities have been efficient there. Juan Zubia 2, I know we are very new there, but I think Statoil has probably good news for us. They're working hard. I think we are aligned. In 2018, also FID. This is a review. Let's be clear. We taking benefit, being counter-cycle, and criteria is from this low cycle for me are twofolds. One 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, a low CapEx base. In other, to sanction projects, we continue to be active.
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. Very thorough.
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 EUR 16 billion 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 EUR 13 billion-EUR 15 billion range? I'm guessing not at the upper end.
I'm thinking at the lower end.
Okay, that's great. That's already.
Well, the might be 13 plus 3 if it's busier, again, take all that as an average. Again, you be clear, at the end of the day, for the company, in terms of financial framework, your question is how much do we spend in CapEx? We can make a split. Maybe I'm wrong by giving you such a precise figure. Keep the average, keep the range. I like to prefer it because, again, just before I answered that we are looking the team which short-term CapEx we could activate so this could have an influence. We are reviewing that with the upstream team to see how we could activate. We manage the company. I prefer to give some range than 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 CM-CIC Securities.
Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my question. My question relates to Direct Energie. Should I infer from your prepared comments that the shareholders of Direct Energie contacted you about their interest to sell? Second question is, what is the cost of acquisition per client at Total Spring so far?
For the first question, I cannot give you all the secret of the deal. Probably because you are French, thanks to your accent, you probably know that the main shareholder of Direct Energie and myself, we are quite close together in our history. We have permanent interactions, in fact, both of us. 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. I was also looking to that, both of us. Your second question was about the cost of access for Total Spring. I don't have the answer. Sorry for that.
I suggest that one of my colleague will call you after the call because I have one order of idea, but I don't want to give you a wrong indication. They will call you after the call.
Thank you very much.
There are no further questions in the queue. I'd 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 you have another call with one of my colleagues just right now. I thank you for all your questions you asked us. It will not become a tradition that the CEO will participate to the quarterly call. We done it today because we were active, which is a message for the people who think we'll continue to be so active, that's the case. I think, again, the company is moving in the right direction, and what they observe is that the share price begins to reflect in a better way all the efforts which have been done by all the teams of Total for the coming years.
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.