Good afternoon, everybody. Good morning if you are connecting from the U.S. Welcome to our Sustainability and Climate Progress Report presentation 2025. This is the fourth year that we are organizing this event. We are live from our Paris headquarters, and you can follow us from our website, totalenergies.com. We hope that you got time to download our report. In case you haven't, we have printed copies, which could be arriving soon. The program today will be the presentation by Aurélien Hamelle, our President, Strategy and Sustainability, and Namita Shah, President, OneTech, for about one hour. We will move to a Q&A session for another hour, where you will be able, of course, to ask any questions you could have. We will take some questions online. We have a platform open on our website. I think we are ready to launch the meeting.
Aurélien, the floor is yours.
Thank you, Renaud. Hello, everyone. Very happy to be here today with you. I need that one. Very happy to be here today with you and to be presenting to you our Sustainability and Climate Report, progress report, alongside Namita Shah, President of OneTech. I will start by presenting some of the—that works, yes, it does—presenting something that's very important that we launched last year in 2024, which is our Five Levels initiative. We launched what we call Five Levels for a Sustainable Change in 2024. The idea behind that is to achieve with sustainability, with our employees, in the affiliates, on the ground, what we've achieved with safety. Safety, as you know, is a core value of the company. Actually, I will come back to that afterwards in the presentation. It took time to make that value. It took time to embed that into our culture.
Certainly, embedding safety in the culture has to do with individual behaviors. Embedding sustainability in our culture has to do with individual behaviors. The five levels are here so that we can embed sustainability in our individual behaviors for all of the employees working in the company. You can see the five levels here. One is around energy consumption, lowering the energy consumption in our operations. The second one is around low-carbon technologies that we want to use and that we promote our clients to use. The third one is around the environment. We need to minimize the discharges in the environment. The fourth one is around the communities. We need to know who the community is, the stakeholders are. We need to engage with them and deal with their concerns, expectations, and grievances.
The fifth one is around care, care for our colleagues, care amongst ourselves, employees. We will show examples of that alongside the presentation. This is something that is very close to the ground. We have sustainability officers in all of our operators, affiliates who are here to promote that, share good practices. There is a toolbox that everybody can access so that on each of these levels, individual actions can be undertaken. First, I am going to address some key highlights of our transition strategy in the course of 2024. Before doing that, I wanted to take stock of what has happened in the energy markets, in the energy world, in the course of the last 20, sorry, 25 years. You can see here various indicators, various graphs. There is some very good news in here.
One is that in the course of the last 25 years, the world has been getting richer. You can see GDP has increased by more than 3% on average per year. This is significantly driven by improved living standards in emerging countries in the Global South, which is good news, obviously. Another good news here is that, as you can see, electricity demand has been the one rising the most, which is very good news in terms of prospects for the energy transition, for decarbonization of energy use. Renewable energy supply has been rising significantly. This is very good news. Now, not so good news in terms of CO2 and transition. Coal, as an energy, as a source of energy, has been rising significantly. The reason is coal has a cost advantage to it compared to alternative sources of energy.
Another reason is that it's very often a local or regional resource, which helps in terms of energy security, which, as we all know, has really come back at the forefront of the political and geopolitical agenda. As you can see, also, oil demand has been growing in pace with the increase of world population, around 1% per year. Looking at trends, and we published our energy outlook last November, and looking at what are the trends seen by other forecasters for energy demand, this is going to continue. This is the backdrop against which we have to execute our strategy. This is where I wanted to come. As you know, we have a two-pillar strategy based on oil and gas and integrated power. Because demand for all three energies, oil, gas, power, is rising, we are meeting that demand.
We are an energy company, and that's what we'll carry on doing. While doing so, we need to execute our transition strategy, and we need to execute the lowering of emissions. We'll come to many details around that in the presentation. I mean, Namita will be presenting a lot of details. What we're doing is we have developed a portfolio of oil and gas projects that's very rich, that's going to sustain a significant growth, more than 3% of oil and gas production until 2030, driven by gas, mostly LNG, and significant growth in power. That's actually more than 5% for power. That's overall more than 4% growth per year in energy production that we guide until 2030. You can see that on the right-hand side. While doing that, we'll be reducing emissions from our operations, scoping into CO2 emissions, methane emissions.
Methane is key in the fight against climate change. Methane abatement is key in the fight against climate change. It has a very significant heating effect, heating power. It's 28 times more than CO2 when compared in the course of 100 years. We'll show you, Namita will show you precise examples of what we're doing to abate methane emissions in our operations. It's about making clean electricity, low-carbon electricity available to our clients. All in all, looking at that, when we project ourselves to 2030, we are going to have a mix, as you can see here, that's going to be balanced: 40% oil, 40% gas production, 20% low-carbon electricity, mostly. This is key because we've built that; we will have built that in the course of 10 years. Electricity, low carbon will be 20% of who we are as a company that produces energy in 2030.
Here is a snapshot of what I like to say: what needs to go up is going up in the company. What needs to go down is going down in the company. As you can see here, energy production is on the rise, as I just mentioned. It has been on the rise in the last 10 years. The base here is 2015. Dividends have been on the rise, a 39% interim dividend increase, very significant. The dividend was never cut in the last 40 years. It is not only very consistent, but also it has been growing at a significant rate. The gearing has gone down in the region of less than 10% at the end of last year. At the same time, we have lowered our emissions: life cycle carbon intensity. I will show you details of that afterwards.
Scope one and two emissions from our operations and methane emissions. Again, we'll share details of that afterwards. Certainly, when we look at that, we're thinking that we're walking the talk and we're going in the right direction. Now, I've mentioned the energy we produce, the energy we are going to produce, but the energy transition is about moving energy systems. That's something on which everybody, I think, has been insisting a lot in the last two years, especially since COP28 in Dubai. The transition is about supply moving. It's about demand of energy moving. If you don't move the two at the same time, plus everything that connects supply and demand, everything that's midstream, basically, you don't achieve any meaningful transition.
There is no best indication for a company of what that transition is in terms of execution done as an energy company, the sales to our customers. What you're seeing here, after I've shown you production, is what are the sales to our customers, what they were in 2015 in terms of energy mix, in 2024 last year, and what we project them to be in 2031. As you can see, we've moved from a place where we were selling a lot more oil than gas and hardly any low-carbon energy, where now we sell in 2024 a balance of oil and gas, plus 40% each, and 13% of low-carbon energy. There is 11% of low-carbon electricity there. Last year, we sold more than 10% of the energy, of the overall energy we sell to our clients in the form of low-carbon electricity.
It's been achieved in the course of five years, basically. This is a sign that we are walking the transition journey with our clients. They're the demand. We're the supply so that they can decarbonize because they need to decarbonize the use of energy. This is what we're achieving by doing that. Now, projecting ourselves to 2050, we have shown what a vision will be, a possible vision will be of TotalEnergies of a net zero company together with society. It means, again, alongside our customers, they need to abate their scope one and two emissions, and we can walk that journey with them. Looking at that projection, what we could be is we could be that company that's shown here on the slide that produces 50% electricity, 25% low-carbon molecules, biofuels, biogas, CO2, and 25% oil and gas.
What's key here is, as far as we're concerned, between 2030 and 2050, optionality and adaptability. We have a portfolio of power that we're building, of low-carbon molecules and of oil and gas that can adjust to various scenarios in the meantime. Remember something very important in terms of our oil and gas activities. In oil and gas fields, there's a natural decline rate of, and that's a conservative figure, around 5% per year. In other words, if you stop investing in oil and gas, the production declines by 5% per year. We have a lot of flexibility built into our activities so that we can walk that journey, basically. We are showing short-term indicators of that transition journey. What we're showing here on the left-hand side of the slide is the life cycle carbon intensity of the energy products we sell to our customers.
It goes back to the sales again. What's in there is we took 2015 as a basis, year of the Paris Agreement, and that's base 100. We are aiming for a 25% reduction in the carbon intensity of the products we sell to our clients by 2030. You can see here what are the levers that we're going to pull to get there. We've started doing that. Again, Namita will show details of that afterwards too. One of them, actually, because that's a life cycle index, is scope one and two, meaning our own production-related emissions. That's the red bar on the left here.
As you can see, reducing our emissions from our operations, Scope 1 and 2 emissions from the production phase, it does decrease the overall intensity at the end of the day of the products that you're going to put on the market for your customers to use. Obviously, shifting to new forms of energy, more gas than oil, that's a reduction. There's less carbon content in there, more other low-carbon molecules. Obviously, a big part is more low-carbon electricity that we sell to our customers. That drives down significantly the carbon content of the energy they can use in their operation, in the use of energy. It translates into emissions on the right-hand side of the slide, as you can see here. The translation is the following. We are going to be selling more gas, as we've said, in the next years.
This is going to drive, as you can see here, an increase in scope three emissions, meaning emissions from the use of gas by our clients. You can see here the blue part on the right-hand side that's going up. That's scope three emissions from the use of gas by the clients. However, when clients use gas, and we provide a lot of details around that in the Sustainability and Climate Report region by region, when they use gas, it is displacing other forms of energy. Gas is used as a flexible power generation mechanism. It does displace coal. It does displace actually fuel oil. It does bring down emissions for the clients. When our scope three emissions, in a way, are increasing because we sell more gas, overall scope one and two emissions of the planet are going down.
This is something we want to insist upon because the transition is something that, again, is about energy systems. That is exactly what you're seeing here that we call scope four. By selling more gas and by displacing these other more emitting forms of energy in power generation, we assess that 65 million tons of CO2 emissions are avoided in 2024. We assess that to be, given our projections, 90 million tons of avoided emissions in 2030. We've done the same assessment for renewable electricity, low-carbon electricity that we sell to our customers. They do not emit any scope three in the use phase. Electricity does not do that. However, they too displace more emitting mixes of power. This is the assessment you have here: 18 and 60 million ton avoided emissions, respectively, in 2030. We have a sustained and consistent investment strategy that underpins everything I've shown.
We are going to allocate $16 billion-$18 billion per year to our investment until 2030, split between oil and gas on the one hand, integrated power, low-carbon molecules on the other. Oil and gas, it's about low-cost, low-emission oil and gas, very steady and very actually consistent life duration reserves, 12 years achieved at the end of last year, one of the top in the industry. This is going to sustain the growth. As you can see, there's maintenance investment, new project investment. Maintenance is about fighting decline, as I was saying, in existing assets. New project is around new project. Then consistent allocation of investment to our low-carbon part. We are going to invest $4 billion per year on integrated power, on low-carbon electricity, consistent with the last year.
In the last five years, we've invested $20 billion in low-carbon CapEx that has enabled, and that's what you see here, $50 billion worth of investment total because there's leverage, because there's project finance that goes with it. When we invest $20 billion, like we've done in the last five years, actually, it does generate an overall 100% top-line investment of $50 billion. That's what we've done with partners, with vendors in the last five years, and that's what we'll carry on doing. For the rest, we'll be implementing a low-equity model on the biogas, biofuels, EV charging, where we'll partner up with others to carry on the development of this field. Now, where has it taken us in terms of emissions? Namita will share the details with you of what's behind all of these figures, but I want to insist on four things very rapidly.
First, as you can see, in 2015, our scope one and two operated emissions were 46 million tons. It was only oil and gas back then. We had no power business facing a client as we have today. This one actually has gone from 46 to 29.4 million tons, scope one and two operated emissions, oil and gas in 2024. That's a 36% reduction. If you add up the CCGTs, because we've built up this integrated power business, the overall figure is 34 million tons scope one and two operated emissions in 2024. That beats the objective we had. One of the reasons behind the improved objective is there. For 2025, we have reduced the objective, which was previously less than 38 million tons scope one and two operated to less than 37 million tons, and we've maintained, obviously, the objective for 2030.
Another very significant feature is that we have beaten one year ahead of the plan, the objective for methane-operated emissions. They were reduced by 55% in 2024 compared to 2020. We have enhanced the objective for 2025 to minus 60%, well on track to reach the minus 80% that we have set for 2030. Again, methane is key. It is something that's prevalent in our industry. It is something on which we can act and on which we are acting. You will see details afterwards. Finally, the life cycle carbon intensity, we've beaten that also in 2024. It's been reduced by 16.5%. A lot of increase, actually, in electricity sales, as I was saying. We've increased the target for this year at minus 17% instead of minus 15, still aiming for the minus 25%.
Now, when we plot our objectives and we look at them in comparison with other trajectories, what does it say? As you can see here on the left-hand side, our 2025 and 2030 objectives for scope one and two on an operated basis, they compare really well to the NZE APS trajectories. These are the scenarios of the International Energy Agency. They're below that. One word around that, if you look at, for instance, the EU objective fit for 55, 55% reduction in 2030, that's actually compared to 1990 as far as the EU is concerned. When you bring that back to 2015, which is our base year, the EU has an objective of - 38, 37%. Our objectives, they compare really well to these EU other scenarios objectives that are out there in terms of scope one and two emissions.
Now, when you look at the life cycle carbon intensity objective we have, - 25% in 2030, again, it compares really well to Paris Alliance scenarios APS for the 2030 objective of the IEA. One very important feature of our strategy in this respect is that those barrels of oil that will be resilient, that will be relevant in evolving demand scenarios are those barrels of oil that in their production phase emit as little CO2 as they can, and those barrels of oil that are as cheap to produce as it can be. Because basically, these will be the barrels that everybody will want to have by priority come 2040, come 2050. What we've done here is we've put our average portfolio, oil portfolio technical cost, you can see that on the vertical line, and you can see our two plots here.
One is for the overall portfolio. The other one is for the long plateau assets we have in the Middle East, in Brazil. You can see that the technical cost is between $10 and $14 per barrel. It is compared on the yellow line to all of the other projects, operations that will be on stream in 2040. That is what you see here. You can see they are well positioned. When you look at the horizontal line, you can see the aggregate number of barrels that will be needed depending on the scenario in which the world is at that point in time. You have the three main reference scenarios of the IEA. You can see that in STEPS, it is close to slightly less than 100 million barrels of oil per day in 2040.
That's going to be on the market needed in terms of demand. APS is slightly more than 70 million barrels per day, and NZE is in the mid-40s million barrels of oil per day. Our barrels, our portfolio will be well positioned in any of these scenarios. That's key. What's driving that is what you see on the right-hand side. We've been consistently having these low-cost, low-emission criteria that we apply for investment decisions, namely any new project must have a technical cost, CapEx plus OpEx at less than $20 per barrel of oil equivalent or an after-tax equivalent of less than $30. That's actually reinforced this year. The overall intensity per barrel produced for these new projects must now be below, for any new project we sanction, below 17 kilograms of CO2 equivalent per barrel, which is a very good benchmark in the industry.
This is how we build a new project. We've done something last year. I've been talking about mitigation until now. We've looked at adaptation. We need to make sure that our assets are adapted, are resilient in the face of changing climate. We've worked with a third-party expert called Jupiter. They have climate models, weather event models out to 2050. We've looked at our existing assets and looked at their exposure today in terms of exposure to weather events, extreme weather events. What will be the increase of this exposure? That's the vertical line on the graphs here by 2050. What you can see basically in terms of onshore portfolio, there's almost no increase. The exposure will be pretty similar. There's a slight increase. It's about, sorry, offshore above.
Offshore is about wind, is about waves, something we are already used to in our ENP operations, in our integrated power offshore operations. You can see it's pretty flat and something that's manageable. When you look at the onshore portfolio, there's overall a very limited increase in exposure to climate events. It's mostly water stress and heat stress when you look at onshore. Let me give you one example. When you see here the bubble RC North America on the onshore part, these are assets we're finding in chemical assets in south of the U.S., prone to flooding already today, and there can be some water stress. These are risks for which there are mitigation measures in place. Actually, we give details in the report, and there are action plans in place.
The idea behind this exercise is that we can make sure that the action plans in place going forward will be adapted to an evolving climate pattern. Finally, when we see what others are thinking of what we do, you can see here that TPI, MSCI, ISS, ESG, they find that what we have as a life cycle carbon index progress, what we have as a scope one and two, all of that is Paris aligned, basically. We like to look at that. We're very well positioned, usually number one or number two at worst. Very proud of that because that's a reflection of the very hard work that the teams put in there. Now, I'll yield the floor to Namita, who will share more details around our progress on emissions.
Thank you very much, Aurélien. Good afternoon, everybody.
Let's do a little bit of a zoom on our scope one and scope two emissions. Aurélien has already told you that we have the objective of reducing them by 40% in 2023 versus our baseline of 2015. I'm here to tell you how we're actually going to do it. Before we do that, just a little bit on the bar chart that you see over here. As Aurélien already said, our baseline in 2015 was 46 million tons from scope one, scope two emissions on our operated assets. Between 2015 and 2024, the company has not remained static. We have changed, we have developed, we have grown. We have, for our integrated power business, acquired CCGTs, which you see do increase the scope one, scope two emissions that you see in the blue box at the same time.
In the red box just to the right of that, you see that we have also had a change in our portfolio in the oil and gas assets. The net-net result of those two boxes on our baseline is pretty much flat. The green boxes that you see after that is what Aurelien and I like to say is progress. Those are the levels on which we are working to be able to reduce the emissions. Levels like energy efficiency, flaring, low carbon electricity, hydrogen, CCS, all of these I am going to do a zoom on. The last level, of course, is our nature-based solutions, where we are building an active portfolio of credits, which in 2030 and beyond, we will be able to use to offset our emissions. Let's get into a little bit of the nitty-gritty.
One of the first important levers that we have leveraged in the company to be able to reduce our emissions is also very much related to reducing our energy consumption. In 2021, 2022, we had started working very actively to see how we could reduce our energy consumption. We had a massive sort of mobilization of our teams all across the world on the assets. A lot of good ideas came up on how we could do that, resulting in our decision in 2023 to allocate $1 billion of CapEx very specifically for this, which needed to be spent between 2023 and 2025 to reduce our energy use. Until 2024, we have invested $750 million of that $1 billion.
It has brought, of course, energy savings cost in terms of cost of over $100 million, but it has also brought a reduction in our emissions of one and a half million tons of CO2 equivalent per year. We are on track to finish that first program. As I said, we have a lot of good ideas that we continue to want to put in place. We will be dedicating an additional $1 billion of CapEx between 2026 and 2028 to continue that program and execute on our assets all the work that we need to do in terms of either operational efficiency or in terms of investments, in terms of design, to be able to continue to reduce. How do we do it? I'd say there are two key words. One is we have to measure. We have to know what we're doing.
We rolled out digital tools everywhere on our assets so that we could understand how much energy we were consuming, but not just how much, where we were consuming that energy. What were the particular pieces of equipment where energy consumption was high? Once we were able to identify that, it's all a question of optimization, changing your operational methodology and the way that you operate your assets, and also sometimes replacing some of the equipment with more modern equipment. We can see that we did this in ENP. There are over 75% of the ENP assets that have gone through the optimization process. In refining chemicals, same thing, optimization of things like heat exchangers and furnaces. It's an ongoing process.
We are very, very proud. The teams are very proud to contribute to this on the ground, and we need to give them a lot of credit for being very active on this. Aurélien talked to you about methane. Already said that methane was something that we knew had a much stronger impact on the atmosphere than CO2. We are very, very serious about pushing down our methane emissions. We have the objective of reducing our methane emissions by 80% in 2030 versus our baseline of 2020. What I wanted to show you on the slide is, once again, it is a question of quantifying and understanding where our methane emissions come from. You can see that a large percentage of our methane emissions come from venting and flaring.
These are two things that we have been actively working on in these past couple of years with redesigning sometimes flares, moving to things like closed flares, trying to see how we can stop flaring. One very good example is in Gabon, where we absolutely eliminated all routine flaring. We did this by having to do some work on our assets, but also changed the way that we were operating our assets to be able to then reduce the amount of gas that went to flaring, take it, compress it, and then actually it ends up bringing more value to the asset because then we can monetize it. One of the things where everybody talks a lot about in terms of methane emissions is the fact that there could be a lot of fugitive emissions.
All along in our different assets in the different phases and the different, whether it's in the pipes, whether it's in the valves, you could have leaks of fugitive emissions that we first, as I said, we need to actually be able to detect them. We decided this year that we were going to roll out a massive program of putting equipment, whether it's cameras, whether it's IoTs, whether it's radars, whether it's fiber optic, all across our assets, not just onshore where it is easier to roll out equipment to detect, but also offshore where we had to look for specialized equipment that we could put to be able to start detecting all of our fugitive emissions. This will be rolled out by the end of 2025. There are more than 13,000 pieces of equipment that are going to have to be rolled out.
They will then start detecting the different fugitive emissions, and our operators will be organized to be able to address these problems where there are quick fixes and leaks. Of course, they will be on the ground straight away, and it'll enable us also to identify where we need to bring some more advanced, I'd say, technological solutions to be able to completely manage and control these fugitive emissions. Let's talk a little bit about LNG. Aurelien already spoke about how for us, gas and LNG was an important fuel, especially when you compare it to the use of other kinds of fuels like coal. For us, we are in the LNG chain, and we talk about how we decarbonize ourselves in the LNG chain. We start, of course, with our LNG plants. That is where we liquefy our LNG.
You know that we've taken FID on a 1 million ton plant in Oman called Marsa LNG. It is a fully electric LNG plant. It is going to be provided with renewable energy, which is going to be sourced from a dedicated solar plant, which is going to produce 300 MW of electricity, which will then run the entire installation. What it means is that we will be emitting just 3 kg of
CO2 per barrel in this facility compared to a normal LNG plant of around 35 kilos of CO2. These things are possible in terms of design to be able to then plug into renewable energy sources to be able to absolutely reduce the emissions in the production in the liquefaction of LNG. Along this LNG chain, we have, of course, our shipping. We have our own LNG carriers.
Our own LNG carriers today all use LNG to run and operate. We have a fleet which is modern. The average age of our fleet is six years compared to 11 years, which is the average age of the LNG fleet worldwide. We actively and purposefully make sure that when we are renewing our fleet, we use the latest technology fleets that are available in order to continue to reduce the emissions of our carriers. As you can see on the right-hand side of this chart, when we replace conventional fuel in marine transportation by LNG, you can have a reduction of up to 23% of CO2 emissions.
This is something that we want to, of course, apply to ourselves, but also something that we want to provide to our customers to make it easy for them to have access to LNG as a marine fuel for all kinds of clients, whether they're container ships or cruise vessels. At the moment, we have three LNG bunker vessels. We are going to be putting, there's one more under construction, and our goal is very much to be able to make this easily available to our customers as well. Electrification, of course, is another great way in which we can reduce our emissions. It would be a pity if we ourselves are producing a lot of renewable energy to not apply that to ourselves. As I said, that is exactly what we are doing.
You can see on the right-hand side of the slide that we know how much renewable energy we are going to need for our refineries in Europe and in the United States and Texas. This renewable electricity supply for our refining and chemicals plants will be coming from our own assets. For example, in Texas, it is our Danish and Myrtle assets today that are providing the renewable energy for our refining and chemical plants. In Europe, we will be needing 2.5 terawatt per hour of renewable energy, which will be provided by our assets here in Europe. Not only do we have to make sure that we can use renewable energy, but we need to make sure that our equipment is more and more electrified. What does that mean? It means, for example, sometimes we have turbines that are powered by steam, for example.
We need to turn them into turbines that can be powered by electricity, which is exactly what we've done, for example, in our plant in Antwerp. For our exploration production assets, a lot of our turbo compressors and turbo pumps, which were originally powered by gas, are now being looked at to be able to convert it to be able to be powered by electricity. In fact, our new built assets are purposefully designed to be able to do this. For example, we took FID in Suriname on our Grand Morgu FPSO. All of these different turbo compressors and turbo pumps are designed to be able to run on electricity and do not have their own provision of fuel gas to actually run these different turbo compressors and turbo pumps.
Once again, all these things are anticipated and purposefully designed to be able to use electricity and, of course, green electricity to be able to reduce our emissions by that. Another axe, which has been important and I'm sure that you've heard about, is our use of hydrogen. You know that we need hydrogen as an integral part of the process of our refineries. Hydrogen in Europe in our refineries, we need 500,000 tons of hydrogen per year. We decided to launch a call for tender to see how we could access green hydrogen for our refineries. It was a very successful call for tender, and it was interesting to see how the market reacted until we have, as of today, been able to secure over 200,000 tons of hydrogen to our different refineries. You can see this more on the right-hand side of the slide.
There have been different pathways to this, some quite interesting pathways. Just a couple of examples. For our bio refineries in La Mède and Grandpuits, we will be producing renewable hydrogen on the sites of our bio refineries. It will be Air Liquide who will be doing it, but we will be supplying the biomass that they will be using as the energy to be able to do that. We have other pathways. For example, we have green hydrogen production by TotalEnergies along with a partner, as we have in the case of Zeeland and the Mède, where we will produce together on the electrolyzers, but we will also be providing green electrons from our renewable assets to power these electrolyzers.
Of course, then in the end, there's always the traditional old-fashioned way where we're just going to buy green hydrogen that is produced by somebody else, 70,000 tons, for example, in Europe from Air Products. Once again, very much on the path to achieving this with an expected reduction of up to 3 million tons per year of CO2 emissions by replacing the hydrogen that we need in our refineries in Europe with low carbon hydrogen supply. Carbon capture and storage. You know all about this. We know that we have already said that we want to invest in CO2 storage capabilities, both for our own assets as well as for our customers. Our objectives for 2030 is to have 10 million tons per year of gross storage capacity. We think that this means that an investment of about $100 million per year in order to do this.
You see on this chart all the different projects that we have. We have quite a lot in the North Sea with Northern Lights, which is the most advanced of these projects. In Texas, in the Bayou Bend area, we have entered into this capacity to be able to look at carbon capture. In Asia Pacific, I think what is interesting is to, as I said in the introduction, we want to do carbon capture for our customers, but we also want to do it for ourselves. In ICTIS, for example, very particularly, we have our ICTIS LNG plant, and we are looking to develop carbon capture and storage facilities of the emissions of the CO2 emissions of our ICTIS project. That is a development which is for ourselves.
In the other parts, in both Europe and in the US, you can see that we have refineries that are not and CCGTs, which are not that far placed from the potential sources of carbon storage. We are looking at how we can capture carbon in a couple of these refineries to go through the whole process and see what the whole chain of carbon capture, transportation, and eventually storage in some of these assets will be. We are absolutely studying that. Last but not least, I come to our nature-based solutions. As I said, our nature-based solutions is something that we will use in 2030. For the moment, we are developing all our projects. We have sanctioned 13 projects which are generating credits. We have clearly learned over time as the different kinds of projects that we are investing in.
Our latest project is a very large project in the United States with 300,000 hectares of commercial forests with very seasoned operators. It's very important for us. It's a very large-scale operation. We talk about improved forestry management. We need to have a very robust certification process. We have more than 2 million credits that have already been delivered. This will be ready for us to use as and when we need it beyond 2030. We do all this in acting with our partners. As you know, we are members of the OGDC. We are one of the champions of OGDC in terms of reducing our emissions for all of non-operated oil and gas production.
We have developed and promoted a technology called OSEA, which is a captor which uses drones to be able to fly over offshore installations or all kinds of installations to measure the amount of emissions. We have signed a large number of agreements with our partners, a lot of national oil companies to put this in service for them so that they can have an idea of the emissions that are generated by their own assets as well, and not just on our own non-operated assets, but also on assets that are wholly owned or operated by the various partners. We do not stop there. As I said on the graph in the introduction of this section, the green box is all significant progress. We have to look for more ideas beyond 2030.
We focus a lot on R&D and innovation efforts on how we can do more. A lot of the digital tools that we are developing are going to help us to be more efficient in our operations, but also help us to measure more efficiently and more accurately the emissions that we generate. We have worked on a number of different projects from hybridization. For example, we have put batteries on our drilling rigs, for example, for electricity. We have a project in the U.K. where we are using offshore wind to produce 20% of the electricity of the Culian asset. There are a lot of interesting things which are more in the future, but for which we have to work now because 2030 and beyond is not that far away.
Our teams are very aware that we need to deliver on further and better solutions. That's it for my thought. Aurelia, back to you to talk about environment and people.
Thank you. Thank you, Namita. Now moving to the environment and people. I do have a rabbit at home, but these are hares, not rabbits. These are big ones. Let's first look at some of the achievements in 2024 in terms of environment. As I'm sure you know, we have a biodiversity action plan that we issued a couple of two or three years ago. We have defined four axes in this biodiversity plan that we called here on the middle part of the slide. I just wanted to recall them because they're very important. Obviously, they're being strictly monitored and followed. First, we have voluntary exclusion zones.
Among these, we have a policy principle not to have exploration or extraction of oil and gas in UNESCO Natural World Heritage sites. Obviously, we comply with that. In axis number two, we've decided that any new project that's in a zone called 1 to 4 from the International Union for Conservation of Nature or RAMSAR, that these are wet zones, wet areas, any new project in one of these areas must have a biodiversity plan. Actually, those projects that are in areas called IUCN 1 or 2 need to have, in addition to the biodiversity plan, a net positive impact on biodiversity. This is axis number two. This is what we are rolling out in some projects like in Uganda and Tanzania, for instance.
Axis number three, on which we insist here in the slide, but again, you have details around all of that in the report, is around managing biodiversity at our existing sites. We have identified those sites that are material for the environment. These are the ENP-operated production sites. We are finding chemical production sites that we operate and CCGTs that we operate. Around those sites, in those sites, we have biodiversity action plans. They all have that now, and they are rolling out their plans. We show some details here. One I wanted to highlight because that is interesting. You can see the type of mitigation measures that you put in place in these biodiversity plans.
One of them, actually, that's very significant, that's more than one third, is around reducing nuisance to the environment, namely light and sound pollution, namely for the biodiversity for animals, namely something we're doing actually in many projects. Finally, we're promoting biodiversity through partnerships. We have just one example, a partnership with DTU in Denmark. That's the Danish Technical University, one of their research centers on eDNA for marine species, on which we've worked with them to try and be able to understand what are the DNA markers of species in the maritime environment and what's the evolution and what measures can be taken to make sure that it's upheld. Another area where we concentrate our efforts is around water. We've joined the Seawater Mandate in 2022.
What we do, and again, you'll see details in the report, is we identify how much water we consume, how much water we withdraw from the environment, we use for our operations. We have action plans in terms of withdrawals and in terms of discharges of water. What you can see here is that most of the water we, and that's not a surprise to you, I'm sure, but most of the water we use in our operations, seawater actually, a lot for cooling purposes, obviously. There's some production water that comes from production, but then it needs to be treated, either re-injected. We treat it before it can be discharged. Then there's freshwater.
Freshwater, obviously, is something on which we concentrate a lot because freshwater is the one of the three categories here that can compete with other users, namely for food and drink purposes, for habitat, for farming, for instance. What we've done here is we've identified those sites that we operate that are located in water stress areas. Water stress areas are areas where there's a water consumption in the area that's more than 40% of the available resource. That's a WRI criterion. We've identified those sites. Actually, they make up half of our freshwater consumption, as you can see here. We have a specific action plan here so that we are going to be reducing by 20% the amount of freshwater we use, we withdraw, and that's on track.
Now, none of the above, be it the climate, transition, emissions, biodiversity part, will be possible without a very strong commitment from our employees. We are very proud of the fact that employees, colleagues, all of them are on board when it comes to sustainability, when it comes to climate. We run a survey every year. Every other year, it is a, let's say, full-blown survey. The next one is more of a targeted survey to understand where our employees stand in various areas, indicators, very important actually for human resources and, let's say, welfare management in the company. I will come to that afterwards, but also in terms of engagement. The engagement is very strong. You can see here, there is a sense of pride. Namita mentioned pride of the team.
There's a very strong sense of pride that we all share in the company in doing all of that. There's a very clear understanding and trust in the transition strategy and its execution. That's key. That's very important. One of the many things we've done actually in this respect is we've run training programs. We've had these visa programs for us to embark. That's a journey, hence the visa, to embark the employees on what's the transition strategy, what are the stakes on climate and energy transition in general, not just for the company. That was season number one. There was one around electricity markets. How does it work? That's the new kids on the block in the company, electricity. We're an oil and gas company by history for the last 100 years.
There has been one program around that, and one has been around digital and AI. We do embark our employees through that and other initiatives on everything that we do in this respect. One thing that's very important, safety needs to be a core value always, every year, constantly. The employees, as you can see here, when we do this survey, they feel that they work in safe conditions. That's very important. One testimony of their commitment to the company and everything that he does is the fact that more and more employees are shareholders of the company. You can see that in the last 10 years, the employee shareholding has increased from 5% to 8%. I think we are number one in terms of amount of capital held in France by employees in a listed company.
They are very committed shareholders to the company, which is very important. I mentioned the care level when I started the presentation. It is very important that we make sure that our employees, wherever they are globally, not just in France, not just in Western countries, do share a minimum set of standards. We have developed this care program that is based on four pillars that you see here. Just a few examples of what goes in there. That is global for all the employees. There is health protection, health benefits, death benefits plans put in place. There is childcare leave for the first parent, for the second parent. That is 14 weeks for the first parent, two weeks for the second parent that we have implemented. There are safe working conditions. There are health checks. There is a lot that goes in there.
Again, that's shared globally that we've rolled out throughout the company. That's very important. It's a community that we have, and that community must be treated equally. That's very important. You can see that there's, as part of these surveys we do, a care index, a care score on which employees are asked questions around health, around safety. It comes very high, 83% satisfaction. We've been ranked actually as one of the top tiers company in terms of addressing mental health issues in the workplace. That's what you can see here on the right-hand side. Now, it's about employees, but obviously, and that's level number four I mentioned earlier, it's about communities. It's about our stakeholders because we know that we have impacts, positive impacts. I'll give some examples of that. Some of them can be negative impacts that we need to mitigate.
This is something that we are taking on board. Actually, in this respect, let's go back to energy. Energy poverty is still something that exists in a very prevalent way around the world. More than 2 billion people around the world do not have access to clean cooking solutions today. The stakes are enormous. This is why we have taken specific actions in this respect. Stakes are enormous because, first, using traditional biomass, it's usually wood or charcoal for cooking, emits a lot of CO2. It emits a lot of fine particles and pollution in the households. It does contribute to a lot of premature deaths because of respiratory diseases. It does create some inequality actually also in the household. These are the concerns or stakes we address by looking at that.
We have launched a program where we're going to be investing $400 million in clean cooking solutions in liquefied petroleum gas, LPG, to give access to these solutions to 100 million people in Africa and India by 2030. We've already touched 60 million people last year. That's what you can see on the right-hand side in India and Africa, which are priority geographies in this respect. More importantly, it does address all of the stakes I've mentioned. By the way, the CO2 stake involved in Africa only is close to 1 billion tons of CO2 per year that goes into the atmosphere that can be abated by these clean solutions. LPG is the predominant one. What's more important too is that we need to make sure that these people on the ground in Africa and India can access that. There's a cost to it.
Usually, what's holding them back is the cost. What we've done is something very clever through, let's say, a digital 1.0, so innovation. There is now a pay-as-you-use monitor on the LPG can so that people will not pay the upfront cost of the whole gas content, the LPG content of the can. When they buy that, they're going to pay the gas as they use it over time. They don't have to advance the upfront money. That's key in making sure that these people can adopt these solutions. We've also co-invested in a fund that's an energy access fund, again, in the same vein with other partners so that we can give access to affordable energy to people who really need it. I wanted to mention projects. One is in Suriname.
It's the Grand Morgu FPSO project for which we took an investment decision last year. It's the Grand Morgu FPSO offshore the coast of Suriname. You can see a recap of the project on the left-hand side. It's a very significant $220,000 per day oil project with an all-electric FPSO with a carbon intensity per barrel that's less than 16 kilograms. Again, back to what I was saying earlier. This one is proof of that in actual life. Suriname is a small country. It's not a very developed country. Obviously, the stakes are high in terms of making sure that there is value sharing. You can see here figures that we've assessed with third parties on what value is going to go to Suriname in terms of jobs, 6,000 jobs being created in terms of spend on the ground in Suriname for goods and services produced.
Most of that will be in Paramaribo, in the capital. There's a lot of dialogue, engagement. All of the assessment baseline in environmental, social impact assessment studies have been done. We all learn as we progress. We've made sure that all of that is completed before FID. It was completed before FID. We've rolled out socioeconomic programs that we call pilot programs even before there's first production because we've realized through other experiences that you need to make sure that people in the communities understand there's a benefit for them even before actually the project can really start operations. We've done that. For instance, that's in the report through providing funding and assistance to renovate child and mother wards in two hospitals in Paramaribo. That's just one example. It's around health. It's around education.
It's around road safety, all of the engagement of the teams there on the ground. Mozambique LNG is another flagship project that we have in Africa. It's been on force majeure and suspended since 2021. It's a very significant project in the north of Mozambique, in the province of Cabo Delgado. Again, there are figures around what the project is.
Here too, it's been very important to make sure that even though the project has been suspended after terrorist attacks that occurred in Palma, the nearby town, in March of 2021, and even though the Mozambique LNG personnel was evacuated from the ground for quite a while, it was necessary to make sure that everything that goes to the communities was not only carrying on, but actually enhanced because it's very important to address socioeconomic issues, concerns, poverty, actually, so that there can be the conditions for the project to happen can be met. What you can see here is that jobs have been created since 2021, 8,500 jobs. Local suppliers have been providing supplies, goods, and services. A foundation has been set up by Mozambique LNG with an endowment of $200 million so that it can address health, education, training programs.
For instance, there have been programs around fishery, around agriculture. Everything has been completed in terms of relocation processes for those members of the communities who've had to be relocated by virtue of the project. Indemnifications have been paid to those who've lost some farming, usually land. Everything has been done in this respect. We've submitted the project to third-party reviews, and all of them are available publicly, namely Jean-Christophe Rufin, he should report. He had a follow-up mission. Others were involved too. Finally, because one of our principles of conduct when it comes to controversies is transparency, we address in a transparent way controversies that arise. There has been around Mozambique LNG, as I'm sure you know. The latest one was a series of allegations published in the media last September and in a few follow-on articles.
What we have done in the face of these allegations is first, we asked Mozambique LNG to conduct a thorough verification of everything it had in its possession in terms of documents, people in its teams, knowledge of their personnel as to these allegations. Mozambique LNG, even though it had left in 2021 the ground and the Afungi site, had channels of communication in place, had grievance mechanisms in place. These were effective. These were working. Things were going up to Mozambique LNG, whose personnel was in Maputo in the south, in the capital of Mozambique. They found nothing in this review with third parties to corroborate the allegations. What we have done too is Mozambique LNG has asked the authorities to launch the judicial investigation. This judicial investigation has been launched, and it has been confirmed by the Attorney General's Office of Mozambique in early March this year.
In addition to that, we TotalEnergies have requested the National Commission on Human Rights in Mozambique to conduct its own investigation. They have confirmed that they will carry on their own assessment of the facts, make sure that the rights of the parties involved are respected, and that they will follow the investigation so that it can be seen to be fair and impartial. This is where we stand today. I wanted to share that with you today. We wanted to share that with you today because, again, in the face of controversies we face, there's only one thing we need to do. It's being transparent around that. Two last points on value creation and value sharing and on shareholder dialogue, being mindful of who's in the room today. First, value creation, you can see here something we show every year.
That's the Camembert in French, the circle on the left-hand side of where our value added goes, basically. It goes to states in the form of taxes. A lot of those taxes go to non-OECD countries in the form of production taxes and corporate income taxes. We are a significant taxpayer, and that goes to states. Employees, close to $10 billion of value go to them, social charges and salaries, shareholders and investments. One word around shareholders, as I said, employees, they make up 8% of our shareholdings. We are also very pleased that we have more and more individual shareholders in the shareholder base. They have increased. Today, these individual shareholders make up 15% of our capital. You can see here that some new French shareholders, we are very happy about that, have joined the company in its shareholding in 2024.
Finally, we've gone a step further in terms of dialogue engagement last year, and we're doing that this year. There is a very strong culture and engagement in terms of shareholder dialogue in the company. You can see here and in the report very detailed information around that. We have issued a shareholder engagement policy that's new this year. This engagement policy is around pre-AGM engagement. It's around the AGM. It's around assessment of the votes in the AGM that takes place at board level in July. It's around an ESG survey that's undertaken with you, with shareholders at the end of the year. All of that is done, is taken into account. What I wanted to stress through a few examples is that this dialogue gives way to evolution in the company's position, in the governance of the company.
You can see three examples here of evolutions, namely, for instance, going back to just one share, one vote principle. The bylaws were amended in 2023. That was a ask of shareholders in the dialogue with them before that. More international board members. It was reached in 2024, an introduction of lifecycle carbon intensity as a KPI for performance shares in the plan so that there is a link to the whole transition strategy that we have and that I've described through either variable pay that incorporates Scope 1 and 2 reduction and through performance shares that incorporates what I've just mentioned. In this dialogue last year, the point around SAND Climate was addressed. There was a lot of dialogue, a lot of meetings.
As per that, it's been apparent that the majority of shareholders either do not want SAND Climate or want that only when there's a change in strategy. That's the majority. A lot of them have been engaged on that front. Some of them are neutral on that. The minority would like that to have that every year. What we've done this year, what the board has decided, is to submit an item on the agenda of the AGM. It will be a formal point for discussion without a vote in the 2025 AGM so that what you've seen today actually can be shared with shareholders and give rise to dialogue with shareholders to which we are very much committed. Thank you. That's a nutshell of everything we've presented today. Thank you for your attention.
Okay, let's move to the Q&A.
Priorities in the room. Do not be shy. The first one is always the most difficult. Yes? Have a mic, please, yeah? Can you introduce yourself, please?
Hi, Will Ferrell from EOS at Federated Hermes. You know we take a particular interest in the resilience of your oil and gas projects. And you've guided this year on slightly more growth gas CapEx than last year. But there's less to see transparently on really the competitiveness of your gas portfolio, especially in different regional markets. Is there more that you can share about why you're confident that those gas projects are competitive through different energy transition scenarios?
Sorry, thank you for your question. The criteria we have in terms of technical cost, break-even, emissions, all of them that are presented, it's for oil and gas. So it's for all of the upstream gas projects as well as the oil projects.
That's one thing. Certainly, when you look at where we are in terms of LNG development, the USA, the Middle East, Mozambique are presented, Nigeria, and other places. These are places where we know we have control of our cost and developments are well positioned in terms of benchmarking that to other projects on upstream cost and liquefaction cost. We have what we consider to be top-tier projects in this respect.
Let's take the question as a way to improve ourselves. We have the data. We published the oil today. We have already, in fact, in the past, demonstrated the cost merit curve of LNG projects. I took it as a good way to improve the report.
Yes, Caroline? Maybe you can use it.
On the slide on the possible vision for a net-zero company in 2050, would it be possible to have a view on the cost per kilojoule to compare local molecule to electricity, oil, and LNG? Because we saw recently that everything is about cost. If you have a strategy which is not profitable in line with your oil and gas policy, it is not going to happen. Is it something you could disclose?
We do assess cost for our projects, you are right. It is about cost. It is about affordability for the clients at the end of the day. If these low-carbon energies are not affordable, they basically will not be adopted. This is what certainly, in a very vivid way, we have seen in the last few years. Out to 2050, there are a lot of moving pieces in there. We cannot assess cost.
It's about what will be the breakthroughs in technology. It can be electrolysis cost going down. It can be biofuels cost going down. It's going to be about, on the demand side, what's the cost of an electric car? What's the position in terms of geopolitics between China, the U.S., Europe in terms of what do we accept from others? There is no assessment of cost. What we are building as a portfolio, and that portfolio will be there beyond 2030, is on the cost merit curve today. We have shown that for oil and gas. The same is true for our integrated power projects, for instance. We are building the top-tier projects in terms of cost profile in wind, in solar. Integration plays a part in there. The scale now we have reached plays a part in there. Certainly, we are contributing to bringing the cost down.
Now, projecting that and giving figures in 2050, no, I don't think it's realistic.
There's just the challenge in the chart, to be honest. The electricity will be on the cost. It's already on par. I have no doubt we can reach 50% on electricity, oil and gas as well. It's more in the low-carbon molecules. This part is more expensive. That's true. Can we really make e-fuels available? Honestly, this is a bet today. Today, it's not acceptable. We know we need mandates. I think it's something wrong to believe that we have all the technologies today. Look, take the example of just BYD announcing that they could charge an EV car in five minutes. It changed a lot, the whole debate around acceptability of EV cars and affordability. I think that's true. In that chart, for me, it's a challenging part, to be honest.
If it's biofuels, it's okay if we find a fit stock. The non-biofuels, low-carbon molecules are today too expensive. We also believe that between today and 2050, technologies will improve and will be better. The rest of the chart, honestly, the costs are already on par on electricity with what the customers are ready to pay.
A follow-up question will be affordability for your clients, yes. We saw that if you don't serve a good profitability to your shareholders, at some point, you might be pressured to change your strategy. The question will be, how can we have a view on the profitability by each type of energy?
It's linked to the cost. Your question is good. It's profitable electricity. We have reached 10%. We have a target of 12%. Maybe we are a bit of a novice. We don't intend to.
Fundamentally, this part of the strategy will not change. We will continue to build this electricity business. We've done half of the journey, 10% in five years. We have to continue on the same path. This is, and we are demonstrating, of course, we monitor it, but it can be profitable. It's not just renewables. It's electricity, our flexible assets, various trading. It's a value chain. Again, the same answer, as you noticed probably in the way we allocate the capital today. We have diminished the low-carbon molecules from $800 million to $500 million because, yes, we see today profitability on biofuels. We do not see profitability on these, I would say, more complex low-carbon molecules. Of course, it will be adapted. It is clear what you said. The transition can be acceptable only if it's sustainable and profitable.
Otherwise, there is no way for us to get the support. That is part of the, again, the vision, which is today not a certain, but we have time to continue to work on it. That is why also we said very clearly that 90% of the CapEx we allocate to low-carbon energies today is on this electricity part because we are very comfortable to continue to grow that business and to keep the support of our shareholders and to be consistent.
Yes, we have maybe a question here. Okay, go ahead.
Thank you, Mathieu Fermion, AXA. Question on social and the site of Grandpuits. Last year, you made a good example of Grandpuits as the best example for the just transition. We saw headlines recently in the press with a strike obviously occurring. Could you update us on the topic and why this strike occurred?
Don't believe the press. There is absolutely no strike. If you find a strike, you show me. It's not that a union says something and journalists, there is no strike. There is no strike in Grandpuits. It's not true. We have just said to our teams that there was the main project, two main projects are moving on. We put on hold one biogas project, which was for six staff, six people to refine. There was a composite polymer business, which is today not in the ballpark for profitability. The 250 people have all jobs. Everybody has a job. Don't believe only unions. Believe also the company.
That is why I asked the question. Thank you.
Okay. Yeah, we have a question here.
Hello. Frederik Teschner, Groupama AM. One question is regarding green hydrogen. You seem still quite bullish on this technology.
I may say like that. When we talk to other utilities or other groups, it seems that it's too expensive right now to build green hydrogen. What is your view on that point, please?
We are trying to unlock the chicken-and-egg issue around green hydrogen. We're part of that because we're on the demand side, as Namita presented. In the current European framework, where there's a price on CO2, the ETS, where there's a regime for hydrogen, RFNBO, and eligibility here is key in this respect. In this framework, these projects, let me put it this way, they do fly. There's economic sense in doing these projects. There's a cost sense in doing this project. There is an emissions sense in doing this project. This is why we can do that in Europe because there's the right policy mix that supports these projects.
I would say that being the first mover in this respect, 500,000 tons in 2030, which is the aim we have, it's going to be a significant share of the green hydrogen, no-carbon hydrogen that's going to be on the market in Europe by then looking at the latest forecast from the Commission. It's in the region of 10%. That's huge, actually, looking just at that niche market for hydrogen. That flies here in Europe. Sometimes when we have the right policy mix in place, and let's say so that's the case in Europe, we can do that. This is why we can achieve that in Europe. Being the first mover has an upside too because it does de-risk some of the moves by the suppliers, those that Namita mentioned.
They are willing to come and make their own investment in the production capacity because we guarantee off-take. We have a large balance sheet. We have been here for 100 years, and we are intent on being here for a long time to come. The trust that we will be here to honor our commitment to buy their hydrogen. Being the first mover here, I think, is helping a lot too.
Do you receive any subsidies from the European Commission?
Not us, but the suppliers. Not us. Unless we invest. You take Air Products, the last contract we signed with Air Products in Germany. They received a lot of subsidy. We should allow them to lower the cost, the price to us. At the end, between the subsidies they receive, they have a project which is acceptable. You have to ask them. I do not know what is their profitability.
On our side, the equation is simple. Can we eliminate the emissions being neutral? At least we don't try to make a lot of profits. It's better to cancel the emissions if we economically, between the ETS and the RFNBO scheme, it's neutral for us. This is sustainability. We don't try to make money. We just say, instead of emitting 1.5 million ton, let's be neutral by avoiding to pay the ETS and getting the money from the RFNBO. It's a chain. I think Air Products is profitable, and we are okay on our side to avoid emissions. That's the simple math. It works only in Europe today. It's okay. For once, we have a good advantage to be in Europe.
We invest in one or two projects because in case in the future hydrogen emerges, then we will have some competencies ourselves of our teams running some electrolyzers. It is not making profits. It is just being neutral to avoid emissions. That is the equation. If we can make profits, we are happy. I do not tell you. I think that is our being responsible. Honestly, we do not take a big bet in what we have done. The point is that we have signed 220,000-230,000 tons. We are waiting now to see because we need to see each country putting in place its framework, fiscal framework. For the next times, I think we will now make a pause and wait to check that each country really is delivering what they promise. The Germans, I think, are clear.
The Belgians, we are waiting for them, but I think we will come to that. The French, like always, are a little slow, but we are optimistic.
I think we have a question here, please.
Sorry, I'm Nina from PFA. You mentioned at the end of your presentation that you now introduce this formal item for debate instead of having the annual say and climate vote. I'm interested in hearing what form you expect this debate to take. I mean, you already provide shareholders the opportunity to ask questions. Yeah.
I'm chairman of the board. I have to answer you. It's a board decision. It's not a management, this one. In fact, it's an item which will be at the agenda, which means that we will have a specific presentation about the progress report. It will not be one hour.
It will be 10, 12 minutes, but it's an introduction. We intend to take some specific questions or specific time for debate from people in the round, so in the room. I will call. Once we want to speak about this climate strategy or to speak first, and then we'll take the other questions. We'll organize it in order to give the floor. I think it's worth rather than just having a vote with no Q&A, so a specific time after a time of specific presentation, which will be normally we present, I think, the governance or remuneration. You will have a presentation on this report. That's the idea. It's a normal way.
In fact, when you look to the French law, the way to interact between the board and its shareholders, which exists in the law, are either written questions or point at the item on the agenda. You could request, by the way, yourself. We encourage you to do it. We do not do it. We do it. Because again, in the survey we did last year, we had a strange controversy with some shareholders who told us we do not want to vote for VC on climate because it is your responsibility, the strategy, which is clear, which is true, by the way. More and more, after four years, we discovered that there were some shareholders and significant numbers who were uncomfortable with what they see as a form of transfer of responsibility, which was not a totally right idea. We draw the lessons.
As we do not want to renounce the idea that climate and sustainability is important for a company like TotalEnergies, we used, I would say, the legal way to interact with you. That is the way. I think we will probably encourage people who want to specifically ask questions to say that to our team so that I could organize properly the debate, giving the floor first to the ones who are willing to engage about this topic. That is the idea.
Okay. We have a question here.
Thank you. Alexis Merveille, Fidesz Capital. Could you please comment on your strategy regarding renewables in the US right now?
It is just moving forward. It is one of the significant countries in which we have made investments, in which we have operations in terms of already gigawatt installed. It is one of the countries where we integrate.
There's renewables, there's flexibility, there's batteries, Namita mentioned, there's CCGTs. There's the whole integration. Looking at the current dynamics in the US, actually, our onshore projects, and that's what we're talking about, they're on either state land or private land. They're subject to state-level permitting. Actually, it has very little, if not nothing, to do with federal land or permitting, basically. The one thing that's an exception is offshore wind. Offshore is about federal leases. No, offshore in the sea. It's about offshore permitting. We announced back in November that we were suspending the projects we had in New York and New Jersey. The leases are for more than 40 years, I think. We have time. That's where we stand. Moving on.
We just sanctioned this last week, two large solar projects in the US.
We have the benefit of ITC, or I do not know which one, which is a rule of law in the US, so we are comfortable. I think this will be clarified about the fiscal regime. For the new projects to come, there is a reconciliation bill. We will have the clarity before year-end, probably September, October. If we have new ones. We have still, I would say, in our pipeline, some projects we can benefit from the IRA without no doubt. Onshore, we continue. We move on. By the way, in the US, today's big debate is more electricity. It is all of the above. In that context, I spent some time with the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Energy, explaining that in fact, it is also solar, it is also wind. Elon Musk is a good fan from solar.
We have some supporters. By the way, I also reminded that by the IRA at the consequence that today we are buying solar panels manufactured in the US thanks to this fiscal regime. Otherwise, all that, they have to consider it. I'm quite optimistic about the onshore renewables because, again, there is a lot of states which, in fact, they are creating jobs, activity, business. I would be surprised that in the Congress and with this bill, we lose everything. We might lose some others, social others, which are more for democratic countries. I'm afraid this one could be lost, but fundamentally, we'll be surprised. We continue to invest. We don't have to wait for the timing.
Questions? Go ahead.
Yes.
Following on your renewable expansion you mentioned, do you see any bottlenecks in the US, but not only in the US, because most of utilities are reducing CapEx on renewable, not only in the US, but as well in Europe. Not only the highly leveraged utilities are mentioning some CapEx reduction. What is your position? Do you see any bottlenecks, meaning that supply chain or trade wars with the United States, which could prevent you from the expansion that you have?
I think it's about the, as I was mentioning earlier, where our projects are positioned in terms of the merit curve, and namely now we have scale. We do have leverage and discussions, namely with the suppliers, be it solar, be it wind. I think in our position, we don't stand to lose anything in terms of being able to get the supplies.
One of the bottlenecks that we've all had is not on supply, but on permitting, getting the grid connection permits. There's a big queue in this respect. There are some reforms that are taking place. For instance, the U.K. is pushing for a reform so that it's not first come, first served basis. There's more substance into the assessment of which projects will come first and go to the grid rapidly. We'll see if that can be moved forward. One other important point is that we invest in select geographies. That's Western Europe, that's the US, that's Brazil with our partner, Casa dos Ventos, and a few others. This concentration in some areas allows for, again, capability to leverage the discussions with suppliers, securing the supplies, securing the material, the equipment, making sure we can deliver projects.
We know the ecosystems because it's a lot of red tape that you need to deal with in terms of getting the permits. Because we are very active in these places, we know how to try and get basically the permits as fast as we can, even though it can still be cumbersome.
If I can just add on the supplier side, what is important to note is that we do have scale, and we have a solid reputation of wanting to go ahead with our projects.
In terms of our suppliers who are looking for visibility and looking to make sure that what they are going to be manufacturing or producing or the way in which they're going to be organizing the leasing of their boats and things like that, it is a huge plus for them to be able to work with a company which has the depth of the projects, which has the visibility, which has the ability and the will to execute. I think that is an important advantage that we have today with respect to other companies.
If I can complement, okay, you have two questions. There are a few things happening. Obviously, you have some countries in Europe where you begin to have curtailments. It is time to invest in batteries, to be clear.
For example, in Germany, we have sanctioned, I think, for 500 megawatts of batteries because we see that as a good way to leverage all this transition. We need them if we want to make money with our business. It was already the case in the U.S. It depends on the pace of the renewables in one country, which the renewables are expanding in one country. We follow that. The second comment is that on offshore wind, obviously, you have an issue. It's becoming expensive. By the way, the pause in the U.S. is not too bad from this perspective, from my office point of view. That's why we are concentrating fundamentally offshore wind today on two countries, Germany and the U.K., in fact, and playing on size.
It's a more expensive energy, which does not fit, honestly, with a lot of emerging countries willing to sell offshore wind in Brazil. Makes little sense in my view. You can produce much easier onshore. It's more expensive. Linking to the Caroline question about is it affordable, we have to be pragmatic on that. You have a question about the tariff. Until now, we didn't see anything. It could happen. You will see. Do we enter in a global war with the tariff? I hope not. In the US, again, by the way, which is the leader of the tariff policy, the Biden administration and the IRA has led to build. We are using most of the solar panels are manufactured in the US, in fact, because of the advantage of the IRA. It could survive because they are looking for jobs.
It is part of reassuring. I do not see today Europe willing to have a tariff war with China on solar panels. It would be funny if we want to make the transition in Europe. You know, sometimes on EVs, it seems, but on solar panels, because we have no capacity to manufacture solar panels in Europe. That is part of it. After that, it is a choice by the governments. If they want to make the transition, it will be more expensive. At the end, that means that the CFDs will have to increase, etc. I am not sure all that is going right, but it is a choice. Okay. This is the landscape. We see some few bottlenecks. Does it diminish for us the $4 billion per year? No. Because we are an expanding globe. We are expanding.
We want to reach this target of having a business representing 20% and being profitable. If it does not become profitable because costs are too high, we will tell you. Until now, we do not see that. We are really transparent. It is not a race for volume. It is a race for volume and reaching this 12% return. If there is something happening, we will tell you very transparently. Today, honestly, when we look to the facts, we have to approve that the executive committee, we look very carefully at what is the cost per megawatt hour, etc., etc. We have some indicators. I cannot tell you. We do not see anything damaging at this stage.
Yes. Go ahead, François.
Thank you very much for this very interesting presentation. I want to follow up on the 20% goal that you have for low carbon solutions.
You gave a very nice presentation last year on your work with clients on their decarbonization strategy with a few examples. Here, there are less. I understood last year it's a new business for you. You're opening a new team. Could you share with us some results maybe this year, and ambitions, and maybe a strategy to reach these and the different directions towards that 20%?
We haven't shown the same details as last year. You were referring to namely this one B2B division that we have that addresses hard-to-abate sectors, key account clients. We gave examples around Lafarge or CIMA, if I remember well, last year. In terms of road to market, throughout the year, actually, maybe not today, but we've given a lot of details and transparency around that. We secure corporate PPAs and, most importantly, recently, clean firm power contracts with our customers.
It can be Saint-Gobain. It can be STMicroelectronics, with whom we've signed contracts that we've announced. Big industrial players, big energy consumers. We provide them these clean firm electrons. What they want is firm power, obviously, because they need to run their sites, plants, industry when they need and not only when there's sun or wind or end wind, basically. We do provide these clean electrons. Because we have this integration and the portfolio that goes with it, we're able to provide them electrons that are clean and 24 hours a day and seven days a week when they need that. We've had great successes in that. We have a lot of commercial discussions. As Patrick was referring to, in the US, there's a lot of demand for electricity, all of the above electricity.
Because there's a lot of demand from AI growth, hyperscalers. On top of the growth that you have underlying in the electricity demand, it comes on top of that. You're looking at two-digit figures for growth or close to two-digit figures for growth in electricity demand. We have these roads to market. The GRP teams, the integrated power teams, the commercial salespeople, they are into these discussions around these contracts I've just mentioned. Now one B2B is still there and working, trying to leverage the multi-energy proposal that we have so that we can offer these renewables, these storage, this portfolio capacity we have and other solutions. They're still there and still working. We haven't shown that this year, but a good idea for next year maybe.
Yeah. It would make sense to give this roadmap towards 2030.
How do you want to achieve that? In which business? What's the means that you put on the table? The strategy you have?
It's having affordable electricity being competitive. People will just, clients will come. I mean, it's a matter of, Karen's question, it's a matter of cost, even for industrial clients. If we can be one of the most competitive, there will be roads to market. Not to worry about that.
You'll find in the report some examples of the progress of my team. We cannot illustrate everything this afternoon. We selected some unsures, but in the report, you still have the same level of details and examples from last year. It's more a tactic than a strategy, honestly, but moving on.
Yeah, indeed.
It's engaging with customers, and we do it. The teams, there are 30-40 people working with that.
Yesterday, I will tell you, I was in Germany, and I met at their request, the CEO of a chemical company, and we are discussing about their own transition and about, do you have storage for CO2? Can you provide us some of this type of electricity, etc.? We do it in a holistic approach when we have. They work.
Okay. The feeling is it's a tactic. The question is, could it become a strategy with a long-term view?
Strategy is to sell more energy. Approaching a customer globally is part, I would say, of the way to sell more energy, more low carbon energy, for example, more energy.
Questions? Yes, please.
Hello, good afternoon. Olivier Jean from AXA. Question on methane. It's a very topical subject. You focus a lot on this. We see many of your peers, including increasingly NOCs, pushing for methane management.
Most studies still show that there are more leaks, that the concentration of methane is higher in the atmosphere. What needs to change for, let's say, the nice speech we hear from everyone to turn into actually less emissions and less methane?
It's not a speech for us. It's a reality. We cannot work for everybody. I know what is a reality in the company. The figures are right. It's not a speech.
I think the engagement through the OGDC is key in what you're saying. We know what we're doing, and we're working hard on our operated emissions that Namita presented in details. Patrick is one of the three champions of the OGDC. We engage with IOCs, with NOC. Today, there are 55 companies accounting for 45% of world global oil and gas production. That's very significant.
Now they're going and taking on board these things where we are very much advanced, certainly, but we're sharing best practices, sharing technologies. The example of OSEA was mentioned. It is not just speech. Certainly, there's a difference in maturity, but now they're getting there. Talking half of the industry in terms of production going there, that's going to achieve something. The journey is not as easy.
As an OGDC champion, you have to be pragmatic. The reality is that in Dubai, when we make the coalition, you had, I would say, the 12 historic companies, majors, which were planning. It is quite a journey, I can tell you. This year, honestly, the first year is to try to establish, with all these national companies, what are the baseline, what is your target. Some of them do not have it, I will be very frank with you.
We are working hard, and we had a meeting in Abu Dhabi. I think we were 35 CEOs telling them, we want in the report of 2025, be able to have really a baseline. It is all a question of sharing, but we have to go hand in hand with them. It is not because we have created this OGDC. It took two major oil companies five-six years before to engage on the methane. Now we are in advance. The full idea is let's share the knowledge and let's go hand in hand with sharing experience. We have organized now some, I would say, what do we say, some workshops where we have 100 participants, including from NOC, coming and learning.
Now we are thinking, we discussed last week in Euston, to pair, to have each company which is in advance should pair with an NOC to go hand in hand and to help them to accelerate. There is a move there. Of course, we made it clear, there are two things we are asking. We are not dreaming about 2050. We told them we want zero stop routine flaring by 2030 and lower near zero emission of methane. We concentrate all the efforts, by the way, they are linked on stop routine flaring in your country. Let's fight against methane. We concentrate on that. We are on the way to make all that, I would say, measuring first. We share, for example, TotalEnergies has delivered for free with OSEA technology to six already NOCs.
We made a campaign including above their assets, not our assets, just to give them the data. It is okay. They are national companies. In some countries, the national company working on oil and gas is quite a major stakeholder of the country. That is one of the difficulties. If pragmatic, the effort which is done by a national company in an oil and gas country, the NDC is quite related to them. This is a dynamic which you have to understand, but we make our work. Honestly, today, I think we are adding more to the global by this action to engage all these ones. It is easy to make a campaign and to permanently criticize. I would like the people who are permanently criticized to go underground and to act for the future and not just sending.
When you make a headline, there is a leak of methane above this country. I will not mention a Central Asia country, but it's not part of the OGDC. Russia is not part of it, to be clear. We can do nothing about it. You put the blame on everybody. I think we have more to be. It's really a question of, are we engaged honestly in that journey? It will take time. I think this industry, and I've insisted in front in Houston, you can listen to my speech in front of everybody in the US, I said, and some of my colleagues of US major companies say the same. It's a mistake today not to keep the standards on methane emissions, including in the US. We say that publicly because we consider it's a level playing field.
It's a matter on which, honestly, it's easier for most of the company to act rather than if it's more complex, don't think about scope three, but even on other matters of scope one and two. It's easier to do that than CCS, to be honest. That's the journey. It's engaged. You have to look at it to accept that it will take not one night. It takes one year, two years. We are working on it with a clear speech from the three champions. If you don't play your game, you will exit the club. We cannot accept to have free riders in the club. We want them really to work. I will tell you what is happening today on the planet. The US exiting again does not help a lot. All this global stuff to think about is climate a priority.
You have to be pragmatic. That is where we need to continue to work with them.
Maybe I can take one question online. We have a question from Ethos Foundation, Switzerland. We note the scope 3 target of less than 400 million tons for 2030 remains unchanged. With the move from oil to gas, would a more ambitious scope 3 target not be in order?
The target, which is a cap, less than 400 million tons of scope 3 in absolute terms in 2030, is where it should be. Because as we have seen, I mean, it is a constraint that we have placed voluntarily on our emissions, on the scope 3 emissions. We are working on scope 1 and 2 emissions, oil and gas. We are working on the intensity. We are going to be producing and selling more gas. Gas is a transition fuel.
Gas has a positive role to play. Dealing with methane is key in this respect. We are doing that in our operations, and as just discussed, trying to do that with others. Gas is key. We are not going to constrain the sale of gas. We are going to increase the scope three that goes with gas because we are going to be selling more gas. That is voluntary because there is a good reason to do that. Namita presented the virtue of gas in power production, in the LNG, sorry, in maritime transportation. It does reduce emissions by a factor of 25%. It does reduce fine particles, coastal pollution. Gas is a very valuable transition fuel for quite some time to come. That is already quite a significant step we have taken with this cap we have. It is where it should be.
Okay. Maybe Caroline, maybe another question. Yep.
Does it mean that you are planning by 2030 to increase your market share if we are considering the energy market, the global energy market?
We're certainly planning to increase the energy production and energy sales. Yes, in a growing market, in growing markets, actually, oil, gas, and power are growing. We are going to increase that by 4% as we showed. Yes, we are going to increase energy production and energy sales. That's what we've shown, and that's what we'll do.
Market share?
No, the market share, just to be clear, it's not the same question. Oil will remain stable because we are stable. On the energy side, we have a market share of 10% or increase allow us to maintain the market share.
Where we are growing is more electricity, where we are growing, which is good for our customers and for the life cycle intensity index, which is a real, for me, marker with our customers. The real objective that we set ourselves and the real contribution to the company is that we will sell more energy products, but with, by 2030, a carbon content which will be diminished by 25%. At the end, in fact, that is why at the end you can see that it is a global equation. It is more energy, but less carbon content. On electricity, yes, we increase our market share. We were starting from zero, so it is not very complex to increase the market share and to have a growth. On the rest, no, the rest on oil is stable. If the market diminishes, we are likely oil.
On the gas, we intend to try to maintain. The energy market will grow a lot. We are growing. We are following the pace of growth on energy, which means keeping our 10% market share.
Yeah, we have a question here.
Potential question. May I ask you if you were surprised by BP changing strategy?
I'm not there to comment. I'm not there to comment, my colleagues. I stick on my strategy. We are consistent. We are delivering. The board is very comfortable. It is true that we are today a little isolated in our strategy, but we are fine. It is better to be differentiated. Again, the strategy was not exactly the same. I think the main difference, by the way, but we never said we will diminish hydrocarbons.
We were, by the way, some people were blaming us not to say we grow on the low carbon, but you maintain your strategy on oil and gas. In fact, I consider, we consider it was a right strategy because to invest in my low carbon business, I need to continue to make cash flows from the oil and gas as long as there is a demand for it. Then we have created the optionality. The big change we've done on oil and gas, what Aurelien explained to you, is we are stricken criteria. We diminish the emissions and we position the portfolio on the safe side in order not to have any stranded assets. That's the mainstream. Again, on our side, we are comfortable with what we continue.
Of course, we know that the condition, as it was perfectly asked by Caroline, is that all this low carbon business has to be profitable. Otherwise, we lose our right to invest. After five years, we have $20 billion-$25 billion of assets. We deliver $2.5 billion of cash and results. It makes 10%. We consider for it's quite a very acceptable results even if we want to increase it.
Maybe we have a question online for Namita. From Schroders, what are key policy and technology dependencies to your plan to 2030? In example, key subsidies or technological breakthrough or innovations required?
I think, for example, in the discussions that we had around hydrogen and electrolyzers, it was very clear that we needed to have a combination of subsidies and understanding newer technology to be able to bring it about.
Subsidies do play a role in us helping to push new technologies. Innovation cannot just happen on paper. Innovation has to happen with real projects where we can test new technologies and often to be able to take that risk. It is easier to take that risk when we have subsidies. The combination of the two is important. I think that for certain things like synthetic fuels, for example, we definitely need to push to have some sort of a technological breakthrough to be able to reduce the cost of what we are doing. For other things, there is a continuous improvement in the kinds of technologies that we are using. To be able to reach our roadmap to 2030, I think we have all the bricks. As I said, 2030 is not the end of our roadmap. There is beyond 2030.
We have to continue working on pushing technology to create better solutions so that we can get to our objectives, both of increasing our production and of lowering our emissions.
Questions in the room? Yes, we have one. Thank you.
Another one for Namita. It was super interesting to hear about the methane monitoring tech for fugitive emissions that you are installing. Do you also have a plan to use that for those small onshore assets that are close to urban life to cover other pollutants that may impact human health?
Yes, we are looking at and testing, actually, technologies which will be able to detect other types of emissions, other kinds of gases, and also other pollutants in terms of the environment. There is a lot of new stuff that is out, actually.
It is quite a step change because even when we were looking at these methane emission detectors to put offshore, this kind of technology three years ago was not readily available because it had to be qualified in a particular way. There are more and more suppliers and companies who are working on technology to detect all kinds of different gas emissions. We have a project, for example, which is called the Storm Project, where we have started installing controls, again, with IoT. It is not massive machines. There are actually very small IoT products around where we can then triangulate vision and sound and smell in terms of sound and trying to visualize with heat. You can triangulate all of those to then tell you what sort of other emissions that you might have.
You're right, especially on onshore facilities, which are closer to human populations, it can be something that is very useful. It is coming. We have solid examples, and we will be deploying.
The evolution has been with IoT, with sensors, which are obviously super cheap. In fact, to equip 13,000 equipments, it represents a budget of $50 million, which was not the case five years ago. Honestly, when the teams and Namita teams came to me and explained what was the budget to do that, I said, "Okay, it's nothing compared to what we spend, so let's equip that." Yes, it is true that during the presentation, I remember they began to say we could do more. I just told them, "Okay, let's concentrate on methane first." I think the same sensors could be used tomorrow to look for something else.
It's a matter as well of well understanding the noise. I would say some algorithms in order to be sure that the data we extract are quality, I mean, are well qualified, I think. The first program, honestly, today, this is a huge revolution with small sensors. You could easily equip. It's not a matter of cost. That's why I said, "I answer to your friend on methane. I know we can do it." Honestly, there was a little pushback. We say to everybody, "We do it worldwide for everybody," even because, again, it's a question of it's really cheap for a company. That's what we so it's a good question. It will come, I think.
Other questions? Yes.
Thank you. Maybe a question on the bricks beyond 2030. You were presenting some R&D investments.
What do you need to get to net zero, cracking, refining, liquefaction in terms of technologies?
Not net, it's near.
Or near?
Net, no way.
Gross, zero?
By the way, it's a big debate internally. I argue with my teams that we should stop speaking about net because net means negative emissions, means credits. I think our teams, our engineers, what I want them to achieve is go to near. We can use the net at the end. I think it's much more motivating for everybody when we say, "Let's try to function near rather than just the net because net, okay, let's rely on, I don't know, the NBS part, etc." It makes more sense, by the way, globally for all of us to believe that technologically, let's develop technologies to go near zero, like on methane. The net is the last step.
It's a matter of compensation. I don't want that to become the alpha and omega of the system. Maybe you have some, this is the objective of the program. We call them near zero, deploy to a near zero cracker. You can answer, Namita.
Exactly. We have been seeing in our different teams ideas in different teams who are working on these kinds of assets. What we've decided is that we want to put a program together, which is called the Near Zero Emissions Program, where we are going to be grouping all these teams with very specific objectives to work on near zero crackers, near zero FPSOs, near zero LNGs, and near zero CCGTs. There are some new ideas that people have a lot. For example, we have worked a lot with energy consumption and electricity.
We have worked a little bit less on heat, for example, which people believe is a real area where we need to push further, where we think that that can be the next big gain if we can find a way to produce heat and to use heat and then to capture that heat differently. It is just one of the ideas of the ways in which we think that we can push the envelope. Another interesting thing is we start seeing that even our suppliers, so if we even come back to something as simple as the gas turbine, which I have showed you we have already worked on, our suppliers are now beginning to think actively themselves about how they can change the technology in the heart of their turbines to be much more efficient in the use of energy.
We need to work with them to push them to deliver that for us as well. These are just a couple of ideas, but there are a lot of ideas like that, which now the teams are being organized to work on.
It's also the Marsa LNG projects. We made a big gap going from 30 kilograms per BOE for LNG plant to three. Of course, it has a cost. It's a small train, 1 million tons. We decided competitive voluntary. We said, "Okay, let's use that project to make a showcase." It's fundamentally electrification of all what we can. Of course, you have to find renewable energy to fit it. We can find it's also a bet because it's more expensive to make a traditional 1 million ton LNG train. It has another cost. Of course, it's small, so we're doing it.
I think now we've done it. More contractors are working on it because the fact that we gave them it's 1 million ton. We are beginning to speak about a second one, and we will probably be more efficient on the second one than the first one. It's also the way to open. It's a matter, again, of profitability, cost of technology, but sometimes you have to accept to be pioneer on the technology and then to make a jump on this one. There is some project that we, I don't know if you commented it, which is this idea in Brazil with Pedro Buaraz. We are investing today in order to make a subsea separation to separate the CO2 on the seabed in order to avoid to bring the CO2 to the FPSO, then to manage all the CO2 to reinject it. It's not a small project.
It's $1.5 billion. It's a prototype. No, it will work. This is a type of decisions. If you do it purely on profitability, why? We know that if we manage to do that, we unlock a lot of reserves without having to run or to manage all the CO2. In Brazilian reservoirs, you have 20% as an average of CO2. It changes a lot the way you produce with oil, protecting, avoiding also emissions. There are some things which you need to do in order for beyond 2030, this technology will work. We could deploy it in many other fields. That's what we do.
Other questions? Maybe I can take some questions online. There were three questions on Mozambique, so I will try to read them all. They are quite long. The first one is from Union Investments.
Could you explain what is injuring TotalEnergies to support and enable an independent international investigation into the allegations on human rights abuses at the Mozambique LNG site? Because the government, their military and national organizations are directly affiliated with the controversy, would not an independent international institution such as OHCHR or the African Commission on Human and People's Rights provide a much more transparent result? That is the first one. Maybe I can go to the second one. That is for Morningstar Sustainalytics. Does TotalEnergies have any comment on grievance reports in the Mozambique controversy? Where does grievance mechanisms established in partnership with the communities? Will TotalEnergies be reviewing the effectiveness of those grievance mechanisms, particularly with a view to whether the communities trust them? There is a third one from DECA.
Projects in high-risk countries in terms of social issues and human rights, like in Mozambique, bring along high risk for TotalEnergies. Will you be able to develop your portfolio towards less risk-prone regions in the future? There are different questions in it, but
the question of the investigation, it's a matter of sovereignty and effectiveness of the investigation. There are allegations that abuses occurred in Mozambique. If there's going to be an investigation, and there's going to be an investigation that's been announced, as I said, it has to be effective. There has to be evidence gathering. There has to be witness interviews. It has to be done by the sovereign state. It's about Mozambique. That's exactly what we've done with Mozambique LNG to try and get that from the authorities.
I think what's key here is that we've asked the National Commission on Human Rights. That's an independent body. They're, by the way, affiliated with the African one to have their own connection to the investigation. We will be publishing the report of the Commission on Human Rights. It is as transparent as we can be. Everybody will get to see exactly if the investigation has been conducted in a fair, effective, and impartial way, which is what the Commission stated in its reply to us, actually. This is how we've approached this issue. In terms of the grievance mechanisms, grievance mechanisms in Mozambique LNG, as I was saying, they've been reviewed by Mozambique LNG after the allegations were published last fall. They've been reviewed by third parties to whom we have entrusted that, to whom Mozambique LNG has entrusted that.
They were very much effective. There were hundreds of logs, hundreds of logs in the grievance mechanisms, sometimes for petty grievances, sometimes for very significant and serious grievances. Some of them are related to abuses by authorities. In the grievance mechanism, they were acknowledged, and they were given suit. There was consequence after that. There was engagement with the authorities back to who's the sovereign, who can investigate. There are investigations and consequences in terms of sanctions, potentially. We have seen for a fact that these grievance mechanisms were effective as far as Mozambique LNG is concerned through this exercise I have just mentioned. Finally, high-risk countries, that's a good question. I think first, it goes with our pioneer spirit, and we have done that for 100 years as a company, going to some places where others maybe do not go.
We've done that in the past, and we think we're well equipped to do that. It can come today with controversies, but you bring in value to the country. You bring in development potential to the country. You need to bring in your values and your way to do business, certainly. I think it would be a mistake to turn away from the least developed, higher-risk countries because they're high risk because they're least developed. Otherwise, frankly, we're an energy company, and we really care about energy development. I think we'll be missing something of who we are in our DNA if we're just to shy away from these complex countries. I think it's very important to be there and foster development because fostering development is really what drives away insurrection and terrorism in some cases.
I think there are many good reasons to do that, but we need to be very well equipped to have good processes, good stakeholders, good partners to do that, certainly. Transparency is key.
I would remind you that on Mozambique, I have asked myself to Jean-Christophe Rufin to make his mission to report to me. He has made a mission. The report is available. He has found some points to be improved, and I took it very seriously. I said to my team, "Okay, we need to review that, including some processes regarding communities," and it has been done. He went back one year after in order to check if the recommendations were really in place. He's done as well. You can always say, and it's not because a journalist in the media says something that is right.
We must be a little careful today in this democracy, in our democracies. We are today, we cannot give lesson to all the countries of the planet. When I see that only independent because you do not rely on the Mozambican authorities, but do you rely on some authorities in some Western countries? You should ask a question yourself. We succumb to social media launching something, and then it becomes the truth, and we have to demonstrate that all what is written in social media is not the reality. We are damaging a lot of democracy. This is what a lot of emerging countries today are thinking. We took that very seriously. We made our own due diligence. I have been to visit the new president of Mozambique, and half of my discussion was about, "I want you to do it." I visited the Minister of Defense.
He was the most convinced man to say, "Yes, we need to do it," and I asked him to convince the others. We have added ourselves on the top of it, the relationship with the National Commission for Human Rights, because it was advised to me, to be clear, not to go to the African one, but to go to the national one by people who are experts in human rights, because we told them, "Be careful. There are politics behind that." The National Commission is a better counterpart. We have done what we think is right. You can always ask us independence, but that's a sort of view which I don't share. I think we have to respect the institutions and to believe in them and asking them to work properly.
This case is enough public, I can tell you, so I'm sure this investigation will be done. It's not because I don't know what they will find or not. It's like in all our countries, there are justices. Let's make the justice do its way, and let's accept whatever results. It's not because it's an emerging country that we should find some arrogance and believing that it's not our standards.
Questions? I have one on Uganda from AP3. When do you expect to publish the Zanzu report regarding ECOP?
I can answer. There is a sentence in the report. Lionel Zanzu, unfortunately, authorized me to say that he had a real health issue in the middle of 2024. He was completely stuck during more than six months.
He has done the mission, and he told me, "I will give the report to you in 2025, but sorry, I cannot work." I'm sorry to say that, but as Lionel Zinsou authorized me to sell it. There is a sentence in the report which explains what you for due to personal circumstances to link to his own health. He wasn't able to make this report. There's nothing to do. He has done a first mission. He wanted to do a second one, and I think he will finalize that, I hope. As I told him recently, we need to have his report before mid-2025. That's very unfortunate, but there is a point. We will not write the report for him. We have to wait him to do it.
Okay, I have a final one. Maybe you have questions.
I have a final one from Alejandro Vigil from Santander. In comparison with your global peers, TotalEnergies has the most ambitious decarbonization strategy. Are you concerned about the potential impact of this strategy in your future returns versus the global energy sector?
No, we're not. Short answer. Long answer is, no, look, we had the best return on average capital employed last year among the majors when we benchmark ourselves to our peers. We have, I like to think, one of the best oil and gas businesses providing significant returns because we've been very consistent in these criteria you've seen in terms of financial selectivity, in terms of low emission selectivity, but we're talking about the financial here. We have great cost control in our oil and gas, generating very good returns. That's the two-pillar strategy. We are building a profitable power business.
It generated 10% return last year, as Patrick was saying, more than $2.5 billion cash flow. We are aiming for 12% returns by the end of the decade, which is what you have in oil and gas projects in a $60 barrel environment. No, the answer is we are not concerned about that. We are making profitable businesses on both fronts.
Okay, I think we are done. If you have no other questions, maybe Patrick, if you have some closing remarks, no, it is okay.
No, I think it is okay. I mean, it is up to you to appreciate the report. It is a continuous dialogue. There is not a conclusion. Your questions help us also to improve. Let me be clear. The strategy is there, has been implemented for many years.
I will tell you, if I had to change the strategy, the board will have to find another CEO to execute it because I will not come in front of you to explain to you that what we've done since many years is wrong. No, it's not wrong. Again, we know that we have to completely, and the board monitors that carefully, is a profitability is fundamental because this is what shareholders expect from us. My objective, by the way, on this integrated power business is to be cash positive by 2028 in order to begin to contribute to dividends. That's the reality of a company. I think we are on the way, on the path. We know that 2025, we expect more or less the same type of result than 2024 for different reasons. We continue to work on that.
We know in energy, we need time. We need to have the time to execute it. Our relationships with our investors, wherever they are, here in the European part or in the other part, we organized recently, and we were bored, a field trip with 30 US shareholders in Texas about electricity only, which was a little boring today in this landscape. We are very interested because, again, we know that it's a long-term view, and we need to keep it, to keep on it. That's a bold view that I can express. I think we are aligned. Again, we'll monitor that. If there are segments of low carbon energies which are less profitable, then yes, we slow down, but not on the main one, on the mainstream.
One last word for me.
I just wanted to say thank you to a lot of people because all of that is a lot of hard work from the teams on the ground. Actually, they're doing that in the business units, in the branches, in Namita's team, in Ronu's team, in my team. Thank you to everybody who's done that, who's doing that on the ground, and those who make all of these reports and presentations. It's a lot of hard work. Thank you, everybody.