We start today, of course, with the presentation, which will last a bit more than one hour probably, and will be presented by Patrick and the leadership team of the key business units of the company. We will then move to a comprehensive Q&A session where, of course, you will have the opportunity to ask all the questions that you have. We have, as usual, an open line for people who are not able to join today. We should break around 11:30, 11:45 to go for the lunch, which is next door. You should have your number of table for today. It should be indicated on your badge. We will resume this afternoon at 2:00 P.M. for our now traditional roundtables sessions with the executive committee members. You should have all the details of your individual program. If not, ask a member of my team.
As you know, at TotalEnergies, we love rituals. When we are starting a meeting in the morning, we do systematically a safety moment. The safety moment of today is a video which was recorded a few days ago on the CLOV FPSO, which is located in Deep Water, Angola on the Block 17, and which is one of the six FPSOs that the company operates in Angola. Let's watch the video and enjoy the show.
Protecting our people is my main priority. It's my job. TotalEnergies in Angola, it's about 20 million man-hours per year and sometimes some tricky operation. So it's clearly a challenge. In TotalEnergies, we have high safety standard, but they can always be improved. One of the tricky operation is work at height. Work at height is covered by golden rule number 10.
My name is Kevin Smith. I'm the new Rope Access Technical Authority for TotalEnergies Angola. This position has been created to raise the level of excellence at the same level as which we have the CPL Technical Authority. I start by challenging the teams to make sure that no other option is feasible. I then do risk analysis, and I confirm that we have competent people on board. As with in TotalEnergies Angola, all rope access activities are approved by the MD.
On FPSO like CLOV, corrosion is strong, and we have to follow an intensive inspection program. Unfortunately, some pressure vessels or piping are quite often at high in areas which is not accessible. To reduce the rope access activity, we are using a new technology that holds ultrasonic telescopic probe that can be deployed at 12 meters to perform remote inspection. This tool allow us to do thickness measurements as well visual inspection. With this new tool, we hope that we will save our lives. Safety for me, for you, for all.
Good morning. I think this video from Angola is a very concrete illustration of the work we are doing to reduce human exposure in our operations. Here it is for work at heights, but we're doing the same for inspection of confined spaces, for subsea works. Each time looking at technology to avoid exposing people. It connects directly to this first slide on safety, showing our journey of continuous improvement on both occupational safety and process safety. I will start with occupational safety. You know our first objective is zero fatality in our operations. Today, I am very pleased to share with you that we have achieved 500 days just recently without any fatal accident in our operations. It was not the case last year at the same time. But now here we are, 500 days. At the same time, our recordable injury rate is continuously decreasing.
We are at 0.45 injury per million man-hour, a reduction of 35% over the past five years, which places us in the best position amongst our peer group. For process safety on its graph on the right part of the slide, we track the primary losses of containment, so the leaks in our facilities, which is a key leading indicator of process safety. Those losses of containment are down 60% over the past five years. All these results, they've been achieved through the daily commitment of all our teams on site every day, as you could see on the video in CLOV FPSO. At TotalEnergies, safety is a value. These results, they are certainly not a signal to relax, but they are clearly an encouragement to carry on. Thank you.
Thank you, Nicolas. Good morning, everybody in New York. Good afternoon in Europe to all of our listeners. Happy to join you again for our traditional ritual Strategic outlook that we do regularly end of beginning of October and for some years here in New York. I'm happy today to be together, not alone, but with most, except one, because one person stayed in Paris in case of we face a crisis there. Catherine is not with us, but I'm sure she's listening to us. Good morning, Catherine, as well, or good afternoon. I'm here with the executive committee members. Some of them, as you know them well, they will intervene during the session, during the presentation. Others are in the room.
Just to introduce you have Namita Shah, that you know, and they will all participate with roundtables this afternoon but me, so that is good. We have a new face, Emmanuelle. You can maybe stand up. Emmanuelle Guégan, which is our new President for Marketing & Services. She has taken over Bernard Pinatel, who has elected to retire. I am sure I am waiting. Somebody else. Aurélien, sorry. I see two women and so they are hiding you, Aurélien. Aurélien Hamelle. Aurélien, I know him. He is our Strategy President. We will engage this.
This presentation, of course, is taking care of a time of quite, I would say, I do not know if I can use unusual times because when I am looking to the last six years or seven years, 2020, there was a COVID, completely unexpected events to have the world closed almost during six months, a year. 2022, another totally unexpected event. War is back in Europe with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 2026, we have what seems to be quite unexpected, which is a closure of the Strait of Hormuz. War in the Middle East, unfortunately, we could have expected that, but the consequence was not so clear to most of us. We are clearly in a world where there are regular, I would say, crises, which impact all of them, by the way. The energy.
Energy is clearly for those who have doubts in the middle of a center of geopolitics. It was impact of COVID on the energy markets were quite down, but we had to demonstrate our capacity to react. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has some huge consequences on the gas and power markets. Again, this year, it is oil and gas. We expand, I would say, the impacts. That is, I would say, interesting to see how the companies react. I would say from this perspective, what you will observe and the message today is a message of confidence in our business model of TotalEnergies. We are demonstrating that we are very resilient to these different crises, but we are also more interesting, of course, for investors able to capture the value which is created by the crisis.
Because we have two fundamentals characteristics, which is one is our integration, and I will come back on that. The other one is a diversification of our portfolio. Of course, more than that, we are growing. The other message today, of course, and it was before the crisis, is to give you more information on the growth, the growth towards 2030. As you have probably noticed, there is no link with the meeting, but the last two projects which were still to be sanctioned, which were Ima in Nigeria and Absheron in Azerbaijan, have been sanctioned. All the projects are now sanctioned. We can count in front of you. Now it is really just a matter of execution of the project, but no more decision of the project to reach the target of growing the oil and gas production by more than 3%.
And more importantly, you will come back on that's the core of the presentation, the increase of the free cash flow. That's on one part of oil and gas. On the other part, for power, we will come back as well on it. As you notice, we have made this major transaction of gas to power in Europe, which give a clear visibility to the capacity of the integrated power segment to become cash positive. Balance in 2026, even a little more, and for sure net cash positive in 2027. So that gives, of course, a very strong basis until 2030.
The presentation will also give you more visibility on beyond 2030, because even if we begin, of course, to work for 2030, 2035, and you will see that through the presentation, we have a strong portfolio, strong basis to express an ambition of growth on both segments, oil and gas and power. So that's, I would say, growth, resiliency, integration, diversification. That's the four keywords which allow us to, again, face this short term, but also to be confident and strongly confident on the long term. Just not to be longer, it's clear that, as I just said, the energy is more and more an attractive sector. Some people a few years ago were afraid by the energy because of transition. Today, honestly, what all these events demonstrate that it's really at the core of all the economic growth on the planet. It's combining a growth value.
There is a strong momentum. Of course, this Middle East crisis, there are some fundamentals, which is the fact that population is growing and is aiming for higher living standards. So there is an increasing need of abundant and also reliable energy supply. The new motto today is security of supply. You've seen the G7. People are now, head of states are looking for finding gasoline and diesel around the planet. They will all keep what they have for themselves, by the way, it's quite clear. At the same time, I feel more than ever, we must keep. But somewhat I'm repeating from different conferences. In fact, the reality is that we need more energy, and abundant energy. We need more energy to feed the growing population. We need an available, an affordable, and a sustainable energy.
The three pillars of the trilemma should be equally, I would say, considered and not one above the other. Because when one is above the other, you have, I would say, an unbalanced energy policy, and you face difficulties and consequences. This is reinforced by this conflict in the Middle East, which, by the way, demonstrate that it's a very interesting lesson in term of management. We have built, during decades, a world of oil, a global oil world, very liquid. We have one notion which was just in time, being efficient. When you are efficient, you don't like to invest in capacities which are backup capacities in pipelines which are not supposed to be used.
Suddenly you discover that when the global supply chain is not as liquid than what it was, you need to add a word which is resiliency, and you are looking to, and you are asking a question, why didn't we build such pipelines to circumvent the Strait of Hormuz? That's a good lesson. It's more difficult to put in the economic models, but it's in our world, where clearly we are exiting, again, a global world governed by WTO and thinking that trade will bring peace. It's no more the case. Today, you are in a world where superpowers wants to even be stronger, and they create conflicts, and these conflicts have some impacts, clearly, on the energy system.
At the same time, yes, we need to invest more, more in all energies, more in oil and gas, but also more in electricity, electrification, because one of the clear lesson which will be driven, taken by governments in emerging countries, in consuming countries will need, there will be a, we must rely more on our, I would say, domestic resources, and part of that is electricity, electrification, renewables, et cetera. So that's why energy is definitely an attractive sector in which you can invest. I will come back why within TotalEnergies rather than others. Just a few comments on the market. Strait of Hormuz, there is, I would say, a daily news from the Strait of Hormuz. And the players there are, I would say, moving in different directions.
The news of the last week is that Saudi Aramco, which was once they have been deprived to the exit to the Red Sea, on which they relied during, I would say, the first four months of the crisis, now are really becoming bolder, and they are crossing the Strait of Hormuz under the, I would say, protection of the US Navy. So there are more players willing to try to exit from the Strait of Hormuz and manage to do that. When we look to the way that the 20 million barrel per day which were flowing through the Strait of Hormuz have been absorbed, there are, in fact, I would say, four or five blocks of lessons. The first one is that still it continues to flow. It was 5 million barrel per day, I would say, between March and July.
Today, it's more than that, and we are more around 10, I would say, than five. But again, it's fluctuating. It was very poor last week. This weekend was better, so it depends. The key, I will come back, being to find the tankers and the crews who are ready to cross the Strait of Hormuz at a cost. Of course, then there were some UAE and Saudi Arabia has routed part of their supply through their pipelines, either to Fujairah or Yanbu, which was existing. There was an increase of the production outside of the Gulf, which allows for us to absorb part of the crisis. Then there was quite a lot of, I would say, draws on commercial and SPRs. Commercial inventories in particular in China, but not always. SPR more in the U.S.
Both countries being very active in order to absorb the crisis during the first, I would say, until summertime. Then there was a demand reduction, 4 million, which in fact is quite relatively small compared to the initial fears, coming as well from China, by the way, which has played an important role to make the global system quite resilient. Now, of course, after a certain period, we begin to face a more complex situation, in particular on the product side, as it's a strange market where you have, I would say, quite a lot of oil being ready to flow into the market as soon as the Strait of Hormuz will be open or is open.
Today, countries, again, in the Gulf who are willing to commercialize their crude oil by making big discounts to exit to, I would say, overcome the cost to cross the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, you have in product sides quite very low inventories, so you face a crisis on, in particular, on diesel and gasoline, which push the price of the products very high. Another lesson of this crisis has been the importance of logistics, and it emphasized, from my point of view, the role, the critical role of midstream activities, including trading. You can benefit from the crisis if you have some capacities to really have access to shipping capacities, again, to cruise. I think it has been an interesting lesson.
We try to emphasize in our companies on the role of the upstream, on the downstream, and the midstream is always in the middle. But in fact, we observe that they can generate and they are very key, in fact, including, by the way, to evacuate the production of the upstream, the E&P, outside of the Strait of Hormuz. So that has a value. There is a small map just in the right-hand corner of the slide, which is the history of the company. There is a lack of pipelines, but in fact, our company was born in 1924, and we made our first discovery in 1927 in Iraq. Just to remind you that our ancestors have managed to build two pipelines from Kirkuk to Syria to Banias and one to Lebanon in less than six years. In 1933, the oil was flowing. So it's feasible.
We've done it in the past. What is also interesting in terms of geopolitics of the region is that most of these pipelines have disappeared because of the wars and the conflicts which happened in the Gulf. So we are well-positioned when we speak about investing in networks and pipelines. We've done it in the past, so it's the lesson story come back. On the gas, it's more, I would say, the situation has been, I would say, two phases on the situation. On the short term, I would say, despite, of course, 20% of the LNG is produced in Qatar and Abu Dhabi, so behind the Strait of Hormuz.
I would say as there is a growth of U.S. capacities at the same time, this increased growth capacities, U.S., American capacities, have absorbed, I would say, the fact during the spring until summer, they have absorbed the fact that there is no Qatar production commercialized. The market was expecting the conflict not to last too long, to stop by summertime. When the market understood that it could last longer and that we will face the winter season without Qatar and LNG from Qatar in the market, then we saw this hike in the market. Because again, there are two different concepts. People like to comment. I mean, I am amazed they are in the two type of comments. It is true that on an annual capacity, the increase of U.S. capacity compensate Qatar.
It is not true on a seasonal basis because on the seasonal basis, unless you have big storage, you cannot absorb without the Qatar capacity the peak demand, which is coming by wintertime. This is what is happening. There was no incentive in the market to store in Europe, so the storages are quite low. Today, we have reached $25, and we will not be surprised to see a $30 per million BTU coming soon in this gas. It is not the same situation than in 2022, because in 2022, Europe was also facing a problem of electricity as their French nuclear was not working. That would be tense. Again, between Europe and Asia, the Asian countries being pushed to use more coal.
The other impact of the crisis is that we were expecting a wave of supply, of LNG supply, in particular because Qatar is increasing its capacity as well, and Abu Dhabi, there are new plants which are being built. Today, they are not there on stream. Minister of Qatar, Saad Al-Kaabi, said last week, first half of 2027, I think, for the new trains. We will see. In fact, it is clear that today, crossing the Strait of Hormuz with LNG tankers is very difficult. There are limited, very few of them managed to do it to serve Pakistan in particular. This conflict is postponing the supply wave on this slide. At the same time, by the way, the increase of capacity in the U.S. since we met last time in March in Rio Grande did not stop. It continues.
You have your news flow almost every 2 weeks, if not every week. You have an increase of capacity coming on stream. Almost 50 million tons have been sanctioned since we met in March. That means that the supply will be there. The impact, obviously, we postpone, I would say, on our graph, we say 2029, maybe mid-2028, we begin to see some impacts, but clearly 2029. Where the available capacity would be above the potential demand increase. Of course, if the Strait of Hormuz come to a new normal, which is 50%, so we put a red line. If it is open 50% of the time, or if there is a sort of new restriction of the Strait of Hormuz, this is not the case. Then in such a case, even in 2029, 2030, there is no supply there.
There is some capacity, but with the restriction which would impact the Middle East capacities. This with an assumption of 50% only, then we are in a, I would say, a normal market. What we have observed in the past, which make us optimistic, is that each time we had this situation of, I would say, overcapacities, the demand was rebounding very quickly because the price is going down. It's a very elasticity of the demand, so the price is high. We put an assumption of 8% max, which has been, in fact, when you look to the previous cycles, rather 9%, 10%, 11% we have observed. So that could be absorbed quite quickly. That's the situation on the gas. On the electricity, it's, I would say, more stable because, in fact, the reality is that these disruptions on hydrocarbon supply is pushing customers to electrification.
It was already the case. We observe in the data more than 3%, 3.4%, 3.7%. It will be again the case if we follow the IEA statistics in 2026. We have observed in the last six months a huge surge of electric vehicle sales. In many geographies, people tend to comment China. Yes, it has doubled compared to, I would say, a year ago, but it's also the case in other countries in Asia, in India. In Latin America, it has been surprising, 150% increase. The figures were small, but again, we see an acceleration and also in Europe, even if it's not as, but the base is also higher in Europe. So it's spectacular. There is a push from this, I would say, hiccups in the oil and gas markets towards electrification.
Of course, on the top of that, you have a main phenomenon of data centers, AI, which is in particular very strong in the U.S. and in China as well, which is also a fundamental support to this acceleration of power demand. That's constant. I would say from this perspective, what we draw at the board level as a consequence for our own strategy, in fact, when we look to this crisis, it reinforce us the feeling that we need to continue to grow, to grow on both pillars, to grow on oil and gas because we need more oil and gas in this planet to meet the demand and to grow including in electricity, in power, because this one is even more stable in terms of growing demand, and it's adding some resiliency to our business model, and I will come back on that.
That's, by the way, the key, I would say, message on our business model. It's a chart which puts into evidence the fundamental, the anchor points of the business model. Once it's integration, as I just described the midstream, but I could also comment this, I just commented also the gas to power integration. I think we can see that facing this crisis, I think being along the, having a full integration between our different energies is really adding some capacity to capture value from the disruption and also to add to the resiliency. It's also clear, by the way, some people comment regularly our European refineries are being laggards. In fact, the reality is that they are not because Vincent is making a wonderful job. They are all running full speed, and they are like golden mine this year.
So that means that any of these tools are able to contribute, to capture value from disruption. That's a big lesson, and the integration model, the integrated model is even stronger, I would say, in this type of situation than when everything is more quiet. Diversification. Diversification, I know that some investors consider we are quite diversified and maybe too much in different countries. But again, we have been able, thanks to diversification, not to declare force majeure to our LNG customers. Contrary to most of our peers, we have absorbed the lack of supply coming from the countries behind the Strait of Hormuz, Qatar, Abu Dhabi, thanks to our portfolio, which is quite diversified. Strong in the U.S., strong in, I would say, we produce energy in 11 different locations. We are developing, by the way, this number of location with projects like Mozambique on PNG.
I think really, to face this geopolitical risk, diversification is key. A comment, by the way, on our midstream exposure, which in fact is true that we have, of course, deliberately, we have invested in what I say the very low cost oil producing countries like Abu Dhabi or Iraq. In fact, the impact is we have 20%, more or less, of the production. And thanks to different actions which were taken by the different companies, national companies, the impact on the second quarter on our production will be limited to 5%, 6%. We gave a guidance of 5%-10%. The reality is more 5%, 6%, 6% this last month.
Again, because we find ways with national companies, in particular in Abu Dhabi, also in Iraq, to, I would say, find some outlet for the oil being produced and not only in Fujairah, but offshore Abu Dhabi is clearly producing to their high level, for example. And the last characteristic of the company at which I consider, which is the way to be sure that we capture value is a very low breakeven, so $25 per barrel. In such circumstances, of course, when the energy prices are going up high, we are capturing the value from the disruption in a large way. That's, I would say, to introduce. Then growing, because we are growing. That's good. I speak about energy abundance is required. We express this view of more than 3% per year up to 2030 in the last, in 2024, in 2025.
I confirm, and I confirm because again, I'm little even I'm very confident because all the projects which are underlying, and Nicolas will come back on that, have been sanctioned. We are growing on both, on oil, of course, in LNG, and Stéphane will comment it, but also on oil. We have, as you know, a very strong reserve life index of proven reserve, more than 12 years. So it's not only a growth where I would say we consume the portfolio without thinking to the future. It's a sustainable growth, and I will come back on that when I will speak about Horizon 2035. Integrated power continues to grow. This year, we will reach 60 TWh per year. We grow at a, I would say, pace of 10, 12 TWh per year. We will reach 120 TWh per year by 2030.
Of course, it has to be a profitable growth. I will come back on the return on capital employed, and Stéphane will comment it. At the end, we see a mix evolving two-third renewables, one-third flexible assets and production. It is mainly CCGTs. Obviously, a battery does not produce, just store. That, I would say, is a mix with whom we are more and more comfortable in order to deliver the profitability. At the end, it gives globally a growing company, which will reach 3 million BOE/d oil and gas, which will reach the equivalent of 600,000 BOE/d in electricity. Which means 20% of the global mix will be electricity and growing at 4% per year. More importantly, this growth will deliver strong free cash flow growth. I told you last year $10 billion more compared to 2024.
I repeat the $10 billion more compared to 2025. In the meantime, 2025 was EUR 1 billion higher than 2024. So the $10 billion, which I am repeating today, is more, it has to be, is 11 in the old referential of last year. But we like the round figure in the company. To repeat you, turn. The turn are coming from both pillars, right? First important. From oil and gas, and you will have again on E&P and LNG more details from Nicolas and Stéphane, $7 billion-$8 billion. It is at the same price deck. So in this chart, 2025 has been put at either at 60 or 80. In fact, the average was 70, and we compare same price deck. By the way, the increase is the same at 80 or at 60. It is not as independently. It is a differential of additional free cash.
On integrated power as well, on this chart, you see 2028, not too high, 2027. In fact, it will become positive, net cash flow positive again and free cash flow positive in 2027. But it will also contribute to a $2 billion-$3 billion of additional free cash flow and to the growth of the dividend. This free cash flow per share, this $10 billion represent more than $4 per share. So it is a reason why the board begin to consider how we redistribute this additional free cash to investors. I will come back on that on my last part of the presentation. Another way to express it is that the post-dividend break-even, it will be lowered from $50 to $35 by 2030. So the resiliency and when we speak about sacrosanct dividend, I think we can use that word. 2035, to give you some color about it.
We have begin to work on it, and I will, again, my two colleagues will come back on it. But what I would like to express is that first already, we have a very strong portfolio, a rich portfolio of projects which will begin to produce post-2030. It is a case of the Namibian projects, Venus, Mopane. It is a case of some Nigerian projects like Owowo, like Libya on Waha concession, in Malaysia, in Mozambique, we will have some trains will come beyond 2030, and we have Papua New Guinea. All that, all these projects, which are clearly identified, on some of them, we are in the way to sanction them. So it is not just we are not sanction them, but they will be sanctioned in 2026, before in 2026 or 2027 or 2028.
When we just make these additions, we have a plateau of 3 million barrels of oil per day. The 3 million we reach by 2030, 2031, will be maintained. As you know, we will not sleep during the next coming years and just observe and deliver. We will continue to work either by exploring, we have been successful in the last 10 years and last five years, so exploration will continue to bring some additional resources, but also by continuing to look for accessing additional discovered resources. We are working on different topics today. When we, again, as I said to the board, if in 2015, I had the visibility of a plateau until 2025 to build the growth, I would have been very happy. It was not the case. We have the declining profile.
We have no decline, which make us very confident that we can reach our ambition to grow by 2% to 3%. We give a range because, again, it will depend on our success in accessing resources. But if we just repeat what we have done in the last five years or 10 years, the 2% to 3% ambition is achievable without speaking about big M&A, just to be clear. There is not a message of a big M&A behind this figure. There is a normal work of oil and gas companies. That is for the oil. Of course, we have in mind that we need to find additional resources because we want to keep our position in terms of sustainability of our reserves. Proven reserve, keeping 11, 12 years like we have done since 2018 is important. In our view, it must be a sustainable growth. On integrated power, the same.
We, again, have a track record. We do not think we can accelerate the growth per year, but if we continue to grow at the pace of 10, 12 TWh per year, of course, it is no more 20%, it is 10% because the company is bigger. But we think that there are opportunities in particular, and Stéphane will come back on in the U.S., in the E.U., on the gas to power integration. But also we have development platforms and renewables pipelines with which we are comfortable. We will continue to deploy this very consistently, this strategy, and electricity might represent then 25% of our production in 2035. Continuing as well, again, the value of integration as I described today, a sophisticated integration between, I would say, the gas, the power, the trading, et cetera.
All that is interacting and in this world dominated by energy and energy transition, it is a source of value. To make that program, there is a slight increase of the CapEx we described for 2027, 2032. If I remind you the sequence, last year, we told you in September, $15 billion-$17 billion. Then we corrected it because we made the EPH acquisitions, which represent almost $1 billion per year, which was embedded in the $15 billion-$17 billion.
But we, I would say, loaded it in front. We said we will diminish to $14 billion-$16 billion. I am just very transparently tell you. In fact, when we begin to look to 2030 plus, it is quite clear to us that to grow a company of 3 million barrels of oil per day by 1%, 2%, we require more CapEx in oil and gas than a 2.5 million barrels of oil per day. So it is just a question of, I would say, to make common sense.
The $1 billion which is added is for oil and gas, to be clear, because I just told you that on the electricity, we want to keep the pace. The pace where the CapEx which are spending today are allowing Stéphane and his teams to deliver 10, 12 TWh per year. We consider it is a good pace to maintain our position to continue to grow. So there is not more, I would say, but the $1 billion will be dedicated to growing the oil and gas, in particular the gas, but also if we have opportunities, the oil. We keep the 14 because you never know, the crisis. Today, we have high cycles, you could be low cycles. We consider that we need to keep flexibility.
We have short cycles, and we must keep the flexibility in case of low cycle to maintain, to face the situation. Of course, today, it is not a matter. That is the guidance, and consider that the guidance for 17 is more for the years at the end of the cycles than at the beginning. Do not expect to see $17 billion in 2027. There is no hidden message. It will be around 15, 16. I do not have the budget, but that will be the normal, I would say. Like in 2026, by the way, just I confirm, 2026, what I told you at beginning of the year, it will be $15 billion, around 15 that we will spend. It is more to prepare the growth beyond 2030 plus.
Last slide, I think, of my introduction, which is good. It is about return on capital employed. I know that it is important. All this growth, all this additional free cash flow is translated by an increase, I would say, and a better return on capital employed. You can see that today at $60, I would say we are around 11, 12%. We will reach 13, 14%. So that is, I would say, a good outcome.
It is because, again, all these new productions are accretive and also because the integrated power segment will increase its profitability from 10 to 12. All that contributes to have a higher return on capital employed, and at $80, we could reach 17, 18%. I would say that is my comments. I wanted to set the scene. Integration, diversification allow us to capture the value from the crisis and a growing company with anchored on a rich portfolio of projects, execution until 2030, and continue to have a strong base for and maintaining the pace beyond 2030. Now I give the floor to Nicolas.
Thank you, Patrick. Let me now focus on our upstream oil and gas business, which continues to deliver more oil and gas production, while at the same time lowering our emissions. Today, we confirm our growth trajectory, more than 3% per year production growth from 2025 to 2030. A growth that is well balanced between oil and gas. As mentioned by Patrick today, this 2030 production is entirely supported by projects that have been sanctioned after the final investment decision of Ima in Nigeria, Chronos in Cyprus, and Absheron last Saturday in Azerbaijan. This production growth, and I will come back and comment in more detail the execution of the various projects, but for oil, you see the key projects here will be coming from GGIP in Iraq, from our development in Uganda, from Al Shaheen Phase 3 in Qatar.
Two deep offshore projects that are currently in execution, GranMorgu and Kaminho in Angola. Beyond 2028, the growth will be further supported by the startups of Sépia 2 and Atapu 2 in Brazil. For gas, we are going to start next year Ubeta to fill Nigeria LNG Train 7. In 2028, Chronos in Cyprus and Marsa LNG. Qatar NFE from next year, as announced by QatarEnergy, and NFS later on will contribute also to the production growth. We have Ima, a second gas project in Nigeria to further supply LNG Train 7, Absheron, and Mozambique LNG. If I just turn on the emissions on the right part, we have been continuously decreasing our Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions for oil and gas.
The numbers you have here is the entire oil and gas pillar, not only upstream, but also downstream. We reduced our operated emissions by 38% in 2025 compared to the 2015 baseline. This is a result of, first, a lot of work on the asset base to reduce our own energy consumption, to eliminate flaring, to eliminate methane emission, to use renewable power supply when it is possible and economic, and to adapt permanently our equipment, our processes to the decline of production for the mature assets. Existing asset base, number one. Number two, new projects. As you know, we have an investment criteria for all our new projects that they should have an emission intensity below the average of the portfolio. We deliver that each time.
Now we are confident that we will be able to achieve a 50% decrease of our operated Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2030. Methane, we achieved our target last year, minus 65%. In fact, our target was minus 60%. We are well on track to deliver the objective of slashing our methane emissions by 80% in 2030 or earlier in fact. The company has been a pioneer in the fight against methane emissions with a number of technologies. Last year, we installed permanent methane monitoring equipment on all our sites. We installed 13,000 IoT sensors with monitoring done locally and also centrally. We are able to detect basically all the fugitive emissions. By the way, today, we are also sharing all that with the operators of our OBO assets.
We had about 50 workshops with all the operators of our assets operated by other to basically share the good practices, the actions on what we've been doing. Upstream trajectory, beyond the more volume and less emission, our objective is clearly to deliver more cash flow. You see here the projection to 2030 on, I would say, the contribution of upstream to the $10 billion that Patrick described. Between 2025 and 2030, we expect to deliver an additional $4 billion to $5 billion of FFO in all price scenarios. It's true at $60, it's true at $80. When we look at it, this increase in FFO is coming both from the increase in production, of course, but also for an improvement in the FFO per barrel due to the fact that our new projects are accretive. You have the numbers here.
The average FFO for a new project at $60 per barrel is $25 per BOE, quite above the average of the portfolio of existing assets. This is also the result of the investment criteria that we've been applying for now a number of years. All new projects need to have a technical cost below $20 per barrel or an after-tax breakeven below $30 per barrel. I just mention it as well, the increase in FFO is also underpinned by a continuous cost discipline. You know that we've demonstrated once again last year, and we'll demonstrate this year that we are able to maintain our production cost below $5 per barrel equivalent, which ranks us at the best level amongst our peers.
$4 billion to $5 billion additional to 2030, with a good diversification also of the cash flow growth coming from Africa, from the Americas, from the Middle East, and coming from new projects which are in LNG, in deep water, and also in onshore. Let me now turn to the execution of our projects. All the projects bringing the production growth to 2030 are now in execution phase. In this list, you have three new entrants compared to last year at the bottom of the table, Chronos, Ima, and Absheron Phase 2. Let me start with the oil project. Ratawi Phase 1, we expect, which will increase production to 120,000 barrel per day.
This one has been a bit impacted by the situation in the Middle East for the import of equipment, so now we expect to start Ratawi Phase 1 in the fourth quarter of this year. Uganda. Today what we target is to have first oil production from Kingfisher on a startup of EACOP pipeline by the end of the year, and we expect Tilenga oil production would start in the first half of 2027, which is later than what we announced before. Tilenga, the equipment delivery and material delivery of Tilenga, part of it coming from the Middle East, has been also impacted by the situation, so there has been a bit of delay in equipment delivery and in construction progress. Now, for Tilenga, today, we've drilled 260 wells out of 420.
By the way, we are out of the park currently. We have completed all well pads in the park except one on which we may come later, but we are today out in the park. Progress of construction on Tilenga is about 80% and it is moving forward. EACOP, the pipeline is fully installed, so 1,500 kilometer. All the cables for heat tracing is fully installed, and now we are moving into a testing phase with the objective of first oil into the pipeline before the end of the year. We have now Al Shaheen in Qatar, which we expect to start up with QatarEnergy next year. On our two large deep offshore projects, Kaminho and GranMorgu, which are progressing really in parallel, in fact, for a start-up in 2028 as per plan, and both projects have about 50% progress rate today.
We are going to start drilling next year. On the installation of the modules on the FPSO will also be done next year. Ratawi Phase 2, still expected to start towards the end of 2028 to further increase the production of Ratawi field. Our two projects in Brazil, Atapu-2, Sépia-2, again, are progressing for a start-up in 2029. Turning to our gas projects, LNG projects, NFE today, QatarEnergy has announced a start-up in the first part of next year. Next year, we will have Ubeta also, which is progressing well and will feed Nigeria LNG Train 7, which will also start next year. After, the growth will be further supported by NFS, for which we expect a start-up in 2028. Same for Marsa LNG, Chronos in Cyprus, and Ima in Nigeria. Mozambique LNG, today, construction is progressing at, I would say, at a full speed.
We have 10,000 people on site, and the start-up is targeted for 2029. The last one, Absheron Phase 2, which we just launched in Azerbaijan, will provide gas to Turkey and to the domestic market as well. Interesting project with first production targeted in 2029. Let me now make a bit of a focus on what we are doing in exploration currently. I would start with the last part. When we look at the results of our continuous exploration and appraisal effort, about $1 billion per year, today, what we can see is that it generates discoveries, and it generates discoveries that then are turned into developments. Coming from our exploration activity, today, we have about 3 billion barrel of discoveries which are either under development or at pre-FID stage. GranMorgu in Suriname, which was a discovery. Absheron Phase 2, which we just sanctioned.
Venus in Namibia, still to be sanctioned. Then a number of discoveries in Nigeria, Preowei and Ntokon, which are tiebacks, but significant tiebacks to existing facilities, and that we are planning to sanction in the next three years. This is working. We are going to sustain the exploration and appraisal effort at $1 billion per year, at least as long as we are successful, as Patrick is telling us regularly. Just to give you an idea of where we are going to put our efforts in the next couple of years. First, Suriname. In fact, in Suriname, while the GranMorgu development was progressing, our exploration team have done quite a bit of work on Block 58.
We've had some pretty good OBN seismic results. We have today identified four prospects. We are going to launch a four-well exploration program over 2027, 2028, with a view to increase the rates of base and to extend the GranMorgu production plateau with tiebacks that will be a low-cost development and will bring quite a good value. That is for Suriname. Staying in the Americas, we are exploring in the U.S. Gulf. We acquired interest in 40 licenses in partnership with Chevron, some of them with interesting prospects. We will explore, of course, in the Orange Basin. Beyond the wells being to be drilled on the Mopane extension, we have, in Block PEL 83, two interesting prospects to explore.
We will continue in the Gulf of Guinea, Angola, where recently we got interest in two exploration licenses around our existing facilities of Block 17 and Block 32, really at the heart of the prolific area of the Lower Congo Basin. By the way, in Angola, you probably saw that we made nice small discoveries recently that was put in production three months after the discovery, just by tying it back to the existing subsea facilities. Nigeria as well, where we acquired a good exploration block as part of the last bid round. Also Liberia, by the way, where we've taken some interesting positions. East Med, and we are looking at Egypt again. On Southeast Asia. In Southeast Asia, in fact, after our acquisition of SapuraOMV, we managed to acquire interest in 12 exploration blocks together with Petronas, and it is for us one area of focus.
By the way, to better work those exploration opportunities, we've decided to deploy exploration managers in those key countries to be more efficient, in fact, in capturing new opportunities. As you have certainly seen, we entered into a significant partnership with Mistral AI, with basically a simple idea, which is to combine the expertise of Mistral AI in agentic AI in large models, together with our own expertise in geoscience and all the data experience that we have accumulated. The objective is to develop new frontier models able to integrate all the data that we have to process them, to interpret them in order to generate exploration prospects. We are going to start, of course, somewhere.
We are going to start with Angola, using all our dataset in Angola, which is very rich, with the idea that these new frontier models, they should be able, they will be able to identify prospects that cannot be seen necessarily with the traditional way of interpretation. Let me now move to beyond 2030, and Patrick mentioned it. I think the message here is that we have a very good visibility on our capacity to grow our production beyond 2030. I will start with the orange part of the chart. The orange part of the chart basically is all the identified projects that we have, and the list is there. With all these identified projects, which we should be able to function in the next few years, we are able to maintain a production plateau around 3 million barrels per day between 2030 and 2035.
These projects, they include, of course, Venus and Mopane in Namibia. They include some tieback developments in Nigeria, Preowei and Ntokon, Owowo. They include the further development on our Waha concession in Libya with North Gialo. You saw that in Libya, in fact, we extended the duration of Waha license to 2050. Today we have a very good basis for further investment in developing the oil production of Waha concession. On the gas side, these identified projects, maintaining the production to 3 million BOE/d. They include Papua LNG, a phase 2 of Mozambique LNG. Let's remember that in Mozambique Area One, we have 65 TCF of reserves. There is more to do than the phase 1 that we are building now. On Kikeh in Malaysia, which is one of the development that we acquired together with SapuraOMV.
That's, I would say, the plateau, based on identified projects. On top of this plateau, we have the ambition to grow further, as mentioned by Patrick, by 2% to 3% per year. That's our ambition. To do that, we need to generate new barrels. First, through our exploration activities. We have a track record of exploring in Suriname, in Namibia, in Cyprus, in U.S. offshore with Ballymore. Our exploration effort in the next three to four years is expected to contribute to part of this growth. The majority of it, we expect will come from access to discovered resources. Again, where there is a good track record of the company. In the recent year, we entered into Al Shaheen in Qatar, NFE, NFS, Mopane in Namibia. We acquired Maersk Oil. We took some interest also in the UAE.
We took interest in Brazil, in Atapu and Sépia with the Transfer of Rights surplus auction. When we look at the track record of accessing discovered resources over the past five years, we see that if we maintain the pace, we are able to deliver this ambition of 2% to 3% production growth beyond 2030. Of course, I can assure you, we are going to continue maximizing production from our existing portfolio. I will now hand to Stéphane for the integrated LNG part of the presentation.
Thank you, Nicolas. Good morning. Pleasure to be here in New York. As mentioned by Patrick in his introduction, our objective is to execute the plan and deliver the growth. In LNG, that's true for both the production on one side and the sales on the other side. We'll start by the production. As you can see on the left chart, with all the projects that are already in construction, we are going to increase our production by 10% per year towards 2030 to reach roughly 27, 28 million ton of production. I will detail the project in a minute, but the result is going to be a balanced portfolio with three quarters, one quarter coming from Africa, one from North America, and one from MENA, and the rest split between Asia and Europe. That's for the production.
On the sales, we should reach direct sales of 45 million tons by 2030, 15 million coming from the spot, and the rest long-term contract. And those long-term contract are going to increase. The supply of those long-term contract will come from the offtake of our production, and that is going to grow, and that is good because it is usually with a better margin than the rest of the portfolio, and from stable third-party contract as we have in the U.S. So that is for the supply. If I look now at our buyer of LNG, our buyer are mostly coming from Asia because we know that we have signed a lot of contract in the last 3 years. In America, where we have a strong market share in Latin America and finally from Europe.
And as you can see, we keep flexible volume in our portfolio that we can either sell in Europe or in Asia. If I add what is sold to the third party on one side and what I sell directly, you will find back around 60 million tons, which we call the managed LNG, and which is perhaps a figure that you have in mind. How will that growth translate in terms of cash flow? So we plan to add another EUR 4 billion to EUR 5 billion of cash flow to the current situation, and that is going to come both from upstream and from what I call midstream and downstream. So in upstream, Nicolas has mentioned it, growth of production with a relative project. And on the mainstream and the downstream, it will come from three subject. One, we are going to start Rio Grande in 2027, 2028.
That bring us a very competitive supply, even if we are not producing the gas, a very competitive supply from the U.S. That is one. Second, with all that we have signed, we have built a diversified and strong portfolio of both production and sales, and that portfolio has plenty of optionality and flexibility that enable us to capture the spike coming from the disruption, and you will see that is going to be the case in Q3. And finally, we work on the third subject, which is the integration through the value chain in Europe from gas to power. And we have especially worked in Europe to try to diversify our regasification capacity and to have regasification capacity which match with our CCGT presence to be able to better play the LNG to power and power B2B, B2C integration. So that is for the cash flow.
As I said, if I focus on production, you see on the left the list of projects. They are all sanctioned. They are all under construction. They were mentioned by Nicolas, except of Papua LNG, but the FID will come soon. And without adding to what he said, just to mention that as far as Rio Grande is concerned, the project is progressing fast, and we should start the first train end of the second part of next year. The beauty of all those projects is that they are very competitive. You can see their place on the merit curve on the right. So that merit curve, that is the price at which you can deliver LNG in Asia with the 11% return on capital.
You see that all of our projects are on the left part, either because they are very competitive in terms of production or because they are well-placed or because of two actually, typically, when you look at Marsa LNG, for example. That is for the production. Now, if I focus on the sales, the first message is that, and Patrick mentioned it, is that we have decided in 2026, despite the crisis, not to declare force majeure to our customer because we had the portfolio, a resilient portfolio, a flexible portfolio to do so. Second, because we wanted to highlight the fact that there is a lot of value to buy LNG from a portfolio player and that actually the security of supply is even greater when you buy from the portfolio player than when you buy only from a direct project.
I can tell you that it has been very well received and triggered a lot of interest for further long-term contract. That is the first message. The second message is that thanks to all that we have signed in terms of oil index long-term contract, we have been able to largely mitigate the spot gas exposure, price exposure that we could have in 2028, 2029, 2030. As you can see on the left part of the chart, that is what we call the net exposure. So fundamentally, you take all your supply, you look at your index, you take all the sales, you look at the index, you match them when they are the same, and you end up with a net exposure.
If I take 2028, you see that fundamentally, we are going to buy around equivalent of 4 million tons of NREB, a bit of TTF, and we are going to sell that gas on a Brent basis. The beauty of the portfolio we have built is that globally, both in 2028 and 2030, we are buying NREB that we sell on a Brent basis. We are marginally short or long on gas, but it has no impact, which means that fundamentally, we are immune to any drop on the TTF JKM price after 2028, 2030, which is consistent with Patrick just said on our view of the market.
Last but not least, as we say, resilience of the portfolio as well, thanks to our regasification capacity in Europe, because we are keeping the flexibility to actually redirect our sales going to Asia in Europe by buying back LNG in Asia, or quite the contrary, to move all the LNG that is planned to Europe and move it in Asia is a price signal if JKM is higher than TTF. So very resilient, very flexible, not exposed to short term, but at the same time able to size any opportunity of redirection. I hand the floor now to Vincent.
Thank you, Stéphane. Good morning, everyone. As you can see on the cash flow from operation figures, our integrated downstream generates cash flow through all cycles. It is true when the cycle is low, like last year or the year before. It is even more true when we have a favorable environment like this year, where our cash engine is able to capture these market upsides. As far as Marketing & Services is concerned, it is through a strategy of value over volume, and it delivers a very resilient and constant cash flow through the cycles. For Refining & Chemicals, which is more exposed to this volatility of the margin, it is paramount to be available, meaning maximizing the throughput because you need to be resilient when the cycle is low and to capture this margin when it is high.
All in all, this strategy of M&S and the availability of Refining & Chemicals will make that we see a growth of free cash flow by more than $1 billion towards 2030, if the economic environment would be the same as last year. To focus a bit more on Refining & Chemicals, as I explained, it is very important for us to be available. That is why we have built, two years ago, a huge program around operational excellence. It is called Boost 27, and this program today is already delivering results. What we track as a KPI is the unplanned events. Unplanned events is the sum of the production stops, but also what we call the technical slowdowns when your plant is running, but in fact it is not running at full capacity.
What we have seen already today is that this KPI has reached back the good levels of 2017, and there is more to come. The program is not over. But already there are very good results. I wanted to take a practical example of that. It is our Port Arthur refinery in Texas, U.S.A., where we have taken the opportunity of a big turnaround end of last year, which was very successful in terms of planning and budget delivery. We took this opportunity to fix technical issues on the reformer. The reformer is an equipment producing gasoline in refineries, and also to fix steam shortages we had in this refinery. It has given very good results. We have already broken records in terms of gasoline, jet fuel, diesel production in this plant.
Year to date 2026, we have already generated more than half a billion dollars cash flow in Port Arthur. On the short term, of course, we have specific action plans and agility actions to take the best of the current margin environment. I will take a few examples. Of course, we have optimized the yields of all refineries worldwide to maximize the production of jets and diesels because these products are the most shortened product today in the market. We have done that everywhere, but we have also decided actions to postpone maintenance, and the best example is probably the Normandy platform in France, which was supposed to in turn around in a few days.
We have decided to postpone that turnaround to next year, which means that the plant will run three additional months in 2026, and as such, generating a lot of supply for our European market. The last example is Donges. Donges has started up the new gasoline scheme this summer, allowing us to produce unsulfured gasoline for the European market. You see a lot of concrete, a good example of this availability for Refining & Chemicals. When it comes to Marketing & Services, I mentioned it, Marketing & Services deploys today its strategy of value over volume. What does it mean? And concrete examples here as well. For retail, it means focusing our strategy in these markets, these countries where we are top players, number one players. It is true, of course, in France. It is true also in a lot of countries in Africa.
We want to maximize our strategy there and also offering different product, non-fuel products, through, of course, food, but also non-fuel services. When it comes to lubricants, our worldwide business units in lubricants is fully operational now. Here we focus as well on premium products and high-value segments like it is, for instance, for the manufacturing segment. We develop also a more sustainable and circular product, incorporating into our lubricants re-refined base oils for lubricants. Finally, as far as EV is concerned, here what we want to do is to be very disciplined and pragmatic in the way we invest. We want to follow, in fact, the penetration of the electrical vehicles on the market. We focus, for instance, on the very high power charging station on the highways.
As far as the on-road charging is concerned, there it is more a low equity model through JVs and partnering. As you can see, the mission is clear for downstream. It is to be a cash engine. A cash engine, taking the profit of the high environment when it is the case and being very resilient when the environment is slower. Thank you, and I will give the floor back to Stéphane to speak about integrated power.
Thank you, Vincent. I am back for integrated power. I start by one message is that after five years of effort, we believe that we have built a proven business model that one, allow us to grow. We will reach 60 TWh this year. To grow in a profitable way as normally for the first year. In 2026, we will be balanced in terms of cash flow. The idea is that we continue on that base, adding around 10 TWh per year in the next four years, growing at 20% per year to reach 100 TWh of production, two-third renewable and one third from CCGT. That would represent 20% of the company energy mix. To do that, we want to focus on integration. The first one is integration in term of gas to power integration in Europe.
I will come back to that in a minute. Integration of the portfolio between renewable CCGT and battery to deliver Clean Firm Power on our key market, U.S., Europe. Integration with the trading so as to capture volatility and spike. Finally, to work on continuing to deliver a resilient marketing cash flow, both from B2B and from our B2C business, by building and growing where we have already a good presence. If I zoom now on that integration in gas to power, in Europe, the integration in gas to power will go mostly through our JV with EPH, called TTEP. We have now four months of operation. TTEP is putting on-stream their Italian plant, and they are currently in ramp-up. That's one.
Second, we have signed tolling contract as we are planning with our JV, which is important because one, we are able to integrate that offtake of electron within our global portfolio in terms of marketing and trading. Second, the JV will rely on very secured cash flow, capacity remuneration, contracted revenue, and the tolling contract, which will enable the JV to raise in the coming months some debt to finance its growth. That's all the JV. When I look at the generation of cash flow of that business, we should deliver more than EUR 500 million of cash flows this year from both the JV itself and our activity. That cash flow should grow to EUR 750 million and more. Globally, that growth will come from the growth of the production on one side.
Second, the growth of the marketing and trading activity we can do from the integration of that portfolio in our own activities. You probably have seen that we have actually purchased some renewable assets from a competitor in Italy, Netherlands, and U.K., to play on that integration between CCGT on one side and renewable on the other side. If I turn to the return on capital target, we have a plan to grow from 10% to 12%, and we are progressing on at least four of the lever we already mentioned in the past. One is to improve the CapEx per megawatt of our project. We are now in the second quartile in Europe, and we have to continue to go to the first quartile.
Second, because we are lowering our capital employed per TWh, because fundamentally, the ratio of unproductive capital employed is decreasing with time, and we improve our project. That's one aspect. Second, sell better. We continue to sign month after month deals of Clean Firm Power, which is adding an extra margin versus usually plain vanilla PPAs produced. Finally, this year again, we will sell EUR 2 billion of asset recycling capital. One is done in Europe, one is coming in the U.S., and it's coming after what we've done in 2025. We are going to continue to recycle around EUR 2 billion of asset per year in the coming three months. We are confident we have found the good way to do it.
Beyond 2030, we are currently building a portfolio that will enable us to continue to grow at the same pace, 10 to 12 TWh per year, and with the same ratio. The idea is really getting focused, getting big where we are, and that is why in our plan, we plan clearly to do that with a strong focus on the U.S. on one side. In U.S., I am talking about ERCOT, which is a priority, and PJM. Here, the demand is very strong because of data center. In the world, we have already signed around 4 GW of data center contract in term of PPA, and that is something that we want to continue to grow. We have the pipe, a 20 GW pipe, to fuel the growth. That is one aspect. The second aspect is Europe, Italy, U.K., Germany, very good contract, very good country for different reason.
Here, we have either a good CCGT portfolio or renewable, and we try to actually have both. Finally, France as well, where we have a strong retail presence and we are developing, actually, our nuclear offtake from EDF. How does all that translate in terms of figure? The idea is that we will be able to bring an additional EUR 2.5 billion cash flow, going from EUR 2.5 billion to EUR 5 billion, 60% coming from production and 40% from sales on the trading and retail. That is one aspect. The second aspect, how it translate in terms of net income.
We should reach EUR 2 billion this year and moving to EUR 4 billion in 2030. We make a small exercise looking at the price earning ratio of our European peer in terms of utility. You will see that it is around 15 as a ratio. If you use the 15 to the EUR 4 billion of 2030, we imagine that we will, at the end, create an equity value above EUR 50 billion in 2030 with our power journey. Thank you, and I will hand over back to Patrick.
Final part, the return to shareholders. Once we have explained you the strategy, the growth. Free cash flow, what we will do with the free cash flow is additional free cash flow for dollar per share. We will not come back on these fundamentals. Just about the emissions, remind you that we have a key performance indicator, which is life cycle carbon intensity of the sales that we follow. With the mix that we are developing by 2030, minus 25%. With the ambition to 2035, of course, we will continue to decrease. The more we put electrons, the more this carbon intensity of those cells will diminish. We will come back to that. We need to consolidate all the figures.
But again, the free cash flow of $10 billion, and I am sure that you have been convinced by the presentation and details given by my three colleagues. First, as you know, we give a priority to the dividend in the capital allocation. We can qualify it of sacrosanct dividend. No cut of the dividend since 40 years or more. No cut in 2020. Since we have grown it by 35% since 2021, we are not the best in the classroom, but not far. With this additional cash, we have the board has taken a sort of commit itself to a bold commitment. Of course, it will have to be approved by shareholders AGM after AGM. At the end, it's a decision with AGM. But we see a strong perspective of a growth of at least or more than, which is a flow. It's not a figure.
It could be more like it was this year, 5.9% or at least 5% per year to 2030. With such a guidance, I think we are at the top of our peers. Again, it's possible because we have a very good, strong feasibility on the free cash flow growth by 2030, even at lower commodity price. So it's not a matter of price. Again, this commitment is not linked to price. It's linked to the fact that there is an accretive growth and integrated power as well it will deliver enter into a net cash positive world. So that, I would say, is the first message. Continue to grow dividend at the highest pace among our peers. Second one is a payout, so it's no news. We said payout at least 40%, so we come back to 40%.
There is a very strong news, by the way, on this slide, is that we anticipate to have a gearing lower than 10% as early as end of 2026. With the cash flow which is being today generated by the company, we have put here an example of price deck with $90 Brent, 20 TTF, 20 refining margin, which will generate around $40 billion, might be a little higher than that. So that will, of course, this year, as the board told you, that we give a priority to leveraging the company in such a year to gearing lower than 10. The intent of the board, of course, the objective of the board is to maintain this lower than 10% gearing through cycles. So that's a strong message. Of course, then we have room to increase the buyback and to reach the 40% payout.
By the way, you have the math, capital investment, EUR 15 billion. The leases and other minority interest represent EUR 3 billion. The dividends around EUR 8.5 billion, EUR 8.6 billion probably this year at 1.15 dollar per euro exchange rate. So the buybacks, as you know, we have been cautious at the beginning of the year, but everybody in our earning as well was quite bearish, if you remember, end of last year.
So we started at $750 million in very different environment than we made 1.5, 1.5. So we need to catch up to reach, I would say, something like EUR 7.5 billion to EUR 8 billion in order to be consistent with the 40%. So we will increase the buyback. We have decided to do it in two steps, not to suddenly reach EUR 4 billion in a fourth quarter or EUR 4.5 billion. First step, EUR 2.6 billion of buyback for Q4.
Second steps, beginning first Q1 2027, 2.5, we will adjust it depending on the reality of the cash flow. We will consider the 40% on, I would say, a consistent economic environment from Q2 to Q1 2027. Then we will see for next year, we might continue at the same pace. It will depend, of course, on the evolution of the environment. Today, we have no idea of, because as all of you, we are following the daily headlines, and we will adapt ourselves. That is, I think, the 40% will be there. It will be done. We tested the market, by the way, just another message before I have a question. We have asked a number of investors if they would be interested by the special dividend.
Th ere was very little interest, to be honest, unless we put on the table a complex formula to plan the future. We know we are engineers, we love complex formula, but after 10 or 11 years of CEO, I am afraid by formula from time to time. We decided that it was better to stick with simple return to shareholders based on dividend and buybacks. That is the proposal we have done.
Again, by the way, on this, which we cumulate, it is another way to look to this free cash flow, is we cumulate on the next five years, the cumulative cash flow from operations we will generate is around between $165 billion at $60. I think it is $185 or almost $190 at $80. There is a lot of free cash flow which will be generated around $100 billion of 80, but even at $60 billion, it is quite a lot.
As I said, the post-dividend break-even is under $35 per barrel. There is one information which is new on this slide, which is the sensitivity of the Brent, which is increasing from 2.23. Why? In particular, because in the LNG business, as we are signing more and more Brent-related contracts, we begin to have more sensitivity on the cash flow coming from the business from Stéphane. It has been integrated. So $3 billion for $10 per barrel. The other sensitivity did not change. There is room for high return to shareholders there. That, I will conclude the presentation with. No, I still have a slide after that, a funny one to please Renaud. But the serious one is this one. It summarizes, I think, the investment case for TotalEnergies. There is a world which is differentiated. Yes, we are different from our peers.
We are different by the way, generally, we save more energy, less emissions, more cash flow. This time we save more oil and gas and more power, because more power is clearly a differentiation. We strongly believe this is positioning the company of a better integration to gas to power to get more resiliency because the power business is more stable. Of course, it is a more complex energy as well for sure, but I think after we learn the way to get some profits out of it and we grow in competence year after year, it is not finished. We think the board is very supportive to maintain the consistency of the strategy. On the upstream, again, let us maintain our advantage to be a low cost company, but continuing to grow. On the LNG, we are arbitrated.
Yes, it is true that we had some few quarters where we are weakened on the markets. The second quarter was not very good. The third quarter will be very good because when you are long on the market, which goes to be long, of course, it is better. So the position was maybe a little too early down, but now it is okay. Integrated cover is turning. We said balance in 2026, you know that we are a little cautious within TotalEnergies. So I am with Stéphane here. So balance plus, I would say, for sure. But again, the TTEP joint venture with EPH is new to us, so we discover a lot of things. So we have some figures, but we want to consolidate them. Strong visibility, again, with the message to 2035.
I am happy to be the CEO of a company, an oil and gas company who has no decline until next 10 years. Normally we have 3% decline. So this one, we have already the portfolio and the projects which have been given to you by Nicolas are real projects. We are working on them and some of them will be sanctioned in 2026, 2027, 2028. So that will be given and growth will come on the top of it. A strong balance sheet with a gearing lower than 10%, that we intend to maintain there, with keeping, again, with a payout of more than 40% with this 5% per year dividend growth.
The last slide is to please Renaud because as we are in N.Y. and we are traded as ordinary shares since December 8, this afternoon, I will have the honor to ring the bell and to celebrate the 35 years on New York Stock Exchange for TotalEnergies. Thank you for your attention for this, and then we are open to your question.
Okay, let us open the floor for questions, so raise your hands. Biraj, here. We have, please.
Hi, thanks. Hello. Hey. Biraj Borkhataria, RBC. Thank you for the presentation. Just over here.
Oh, yeah.
Hey, sorry. Just a question, first one's on the upstream. As you're looking to build out the 2035 hopper, how do you think about the competitive landscape going forward? Because you've been very successful in the discovered resource deals, but it came at a time when there was not many people playing in the international E&P playground, and now you have more and more companies sort of seeking to do more.
Just some reflections on how you see the competitive landscape there. Then the second question is on LNG. When you took us out to Rio Grande, it was very early in the crisis, but you talked about buyers being more wary about LNG more generally because of multiple crisis in a short period of time. Today, you're talking about buyers looking to portfolio players. Could you just talk about whether your view on longer term demand has changed based on everything you've seen this year? Thank you.
It works, yeah, I think. Yes. It's okay? Yeah. On the first question, it's true that a lot of companies, in particular U.S. companies, retired to the U.S. in the last 10 years, and now they are suddenly, the risk seems to have disappeared, which I'm not sure that the risk has disappeared, but suddenly we see they're more international scene. Maybe it's a good time for us to come to the U.S., by the way, because we have lower exposure than our peers, so maybe it's a good idea. We consider the U.S. as an area of development for the company, and the gas for sure, but maybe on oil as well. Having said that, we continue, I would say there are two different parts of the competition. One is exploration. The exploration is open. It's not because you take a license, but you find oil.
I see a lot of announcements taking exploration. Yes, we take exploration license. Then you need to discover oil. Again, the company has been quite successful. It is not a linear business, so I know it is not a 2.5, 200 or 300 million BOE per day. Per year, it is more. It is not linear. Let us continue to trust our teams and to support them, which we do. Nicolas mentioned, and I think we are very well positioned for the next five years into potentially prolific basins. It is Suriname one, where we are more and more confident we will find more oil because, by the way, this OBN seismic technology, which is normally used in the phase of production, now we think we will use it more and more for exploration because we have a stronger visibility.
Also, the partnership with Mistral AI could help to, on this prolific basin, to identify some targets because you have the machines could do many more scenarios than the human brain, I would say. Also the Orange Basin, of course, in Namibia, where we are very well positioned. We have more to explore on the Mopane license, and we have taken some new license. So I am optimistic that we have at least two positions. Then beyond it, again, Nicolas spoke to you about some countries in which we are taking new positions. So that is exploration. On the access to discovered resources, there is a lot of in the Middle East, of course. In the past, we have a good track record. There is also some countries in South America which are opening up.
It is a matter for us to position ourselves without keeping the right mix of risk and reward, because in some of these discovered resource, there are some countries with risk profiles. It is clear to me that when you speak about a country like Iraq, you need now to, if you want to do to develop another project, we will need to find a way to secure the outlet and not only to bet on the Strait of Hormuz.
So it is a little more complex than just jumping on large fields. But our history, and that is, I would say, at the core of our DNA is there. So I see, yes, there is more competition. It is true. But again, it does not mean that we cannot succeed as we have done it, and we have a But I will not reveal today all our business development ideas. That is for this one. By the way, on the LNG side, there is something that was mentioned to Nicolas, which we could accelerate is the Mozambique LNG phase 2.
You probably noticed that our peers of Exxon are launching a new project. They are asking to have access to more reserves of the splitted area, of the merged area, which gives us the opportunity to have also more reserves. And there is a scheme where we could accelerate the phase 2 quicker, including betting on synergies, not demobilizing construction teams on the site. So that is also quite a large resource base, which allow us to move forward. We are also looking in LNG to other opportunities on the Pacific Coast in different areas. But also, by the way, Rio Grande might expand and over.
So when we made the list of opportunities to grow LNG business, which are, I would say, not today, but which are not in the list mentioned, but which are accessible, it is a matter of choice, and again, observing as well the way the demand will develop. It leads to your second question. That is a good question, Biraj. You know the debate. The debate is that it is true that the Asian and emerging Asian buyers have been a little, I would say, shaken by the fact that in 2022, they faced a huge hike, in 2026 again. That is a spot market. So the lesson to them is, okay, it is better to move to medium and long-term contracts when related to Brent, or some of them want HH plus, but it depends what we can give. This is a trend we observe.
There was a Gastech, I think, recently in Bangkok. That is a term, but that is a trend we observe. It is also true that some few years of lower spot price will be good to convince this customer that LNG is, I would say, an accessible energy, and not to see them more moving to coal, which could be the alternative. So there are some challenges, but again, what we show you as a trend, betting on an average of 6%, 7% per year is, I think, a good trend on considering the different geographies which are willing to have access to gas and to LNG. But finding a way to stabilize the market is surely good.
Okay. So we go Michele on that side, please.
Thank you very much. I wanted to ask you two more macro questions. The first one is this potential Middle East distillate ban on exports from the U.S. If it came in place, how do you think Europe can cope with it? Do we need to go into demand rationing, or it is actually enough to unlock some of the strategic inventories of diesel that have not been used so far? Then my second question goes back to the chart you were showing on the huge uptake of EV sales. For the last few years, we have always pushed back peak oil demand. We pushed it probably into the 2040s. Is there a risk that this crisis is effectively now starting to push it back, and that we may see peak oil demand in the 2030s? Thank you.
Yeah. The second question is very interesting, and I think it is completely linked to the cost of EVs. What is dramatically changing the landscape is to be clear that the Chinese car manufacturers are able to deliver EV cars. Go to Brazil. It is impressive the way they have penetrated the Brazilian market, very cheap ones. Then, of course, this type of crisis that we follow, the customers think themselves, okay, it is one way to absorb is a hike of when you see the gasoline or at EUR 2.5 per liter, of course, you push people to look to electrification. But it is really linked for me to the cost of EV, and we see there a dramatic change, which is, of course, a big challenge for, I would say, Western car manufacturers.
It's not my job, but I prefer to be an oil and gas CEO from this perspective today, even electricity. That's a clear trend. It's not because in Europe you have a, yes, you have a, I would say, a narrative to push a 2035 to 2040 in a specific environment, but it is happening in the rest of the world. Again, even in Asia. You've seen the statistics. I was amazed. It has been published by the IEA when I read these figures. There is a clear trend to electrification, and I think it will be encouraged by government. So we like it. That's the reality. That could affect the oil demand for sure. The ban, honestly, it's a bad idea, the ban.
Although it's bad idea, maybe I was reading a lot of reports because a distillate ban could have an impact of, would oblige U.S. refineries to lower their throughput, and then it might impact the gasoline price in the U.S. I think the U.S. authorities should consider that globally and not only on an immediate point. Of course, there are the midterms. We know the story behind. To be honest, I don't see other alternative than using the strategic reserves if it was happening. Today when you make the math, you don't see the U.S. distillates were clearly contributive between March into July to the European balance. It was clear there was some export from diesel from the U.S. to Europe. Today it's weaker because during in winter season, the distillates have a trend to remain in the U.S. more than exporting.
If there is a ban, we have an issue. As all the countries, I know the French government, we have a lot of discussion, is trying to find more diesel, but any country will keep for them their own resource, I would say that's natural. So strategic reserves in diesel, so might have to be tapped in. They didn't tap in that until now. It was mainly crude oil, I think maybe except Japan, but it was mainly crude oil, I think, until now. That's a point. That's a clear point. But honestly, it would add another, I think the political consequences of such a ban are beyond only the energy markets. So the U.S. authority should think seriously before to act on that. But I listen mixed message from them. So we'll see. Lydia, in the front, please.
Thank you, and thank you all for the presentations. Two questions. The first one, just going back to your opening comments, Patrick, on volatility and the idea of superpowers just in time, how do you think about the trading contribution as you go forward? Are you having to make changes to any of the trading organization? Do you think that trading contribution grows through time? Then the second one, if I just come back to the CapEx side, a billion-dollar uplift doesn't actually sound that much for what you're planning to do into the next decade. How do you keep the costs down? Is that new technology? Is it thinking about contractors differently? Just how do you actually keep that cost under control?
We keep that under control because we invest only if a project is less than $20 CapEx plus OpEx. It is this very simple rule. Nicolas, she is under stress, but with Namita, by the way. Namita and Nicolas must deliver projects together less than $20 per barrel. That is a point, and they make efforts. We work with contractors. We innovate. Again, there is not much inflation today on this segment. Of course, if we are remaining in a high-price environment at $90 for 3 years, I am afraid. We have time as well, some time. We can think of that. That is a lesson. That is a point. By the way, there is no secret if we divest this few percentage point from PNGs because it was not fully fitting with our portfolio.
At the same time, we have the interest to have access to 1.5 million tons of LNG. We find a mix, a compromise within different businesses. That is for this one. Yes, that is true that this is done without more inflation, and it is done on a stable environment. Again, I think we have been stabilized for some years, and so we are okay. Volatility, trading contributions. I think clearly our trading activity is efficient, even more efficient when there is a huge volatility in the market. It is not a matter of organization, it is a matter of criteria that you are using. The value at risk. We have adapted it, to be clear. We have adapted the rules because normally we are taking, I do not remember the 10 moves.
Jean-Pierre should know better than me. The 10 worst events in the last 5 years or something like that? No. We have decided to, because as we have a lot of events at the end, we were not able to make any trading anymore. We told them, "Okay, let us relax." Now, in fact, we have done it as well because the way they have, I say the old trading has managed the crisis, is quite remarkable. The contribution is very strong. If you have seen a figure which was going above $10 billion on the downstream cash flow, I think it was more around 12 than 10. Trading is clearly contributive to that. Again, it is a trading because they are good to have access to midstream assets.
The capacity to have access to oil tankers able to cross the Strait of Hormuz requires some effort, some network, some activities. It is not given. You do not go on the, it is not on the screen that you find it. There is a lot of business development, in fact, beyond it. I think people tend to put trading like if it is a casino story. It is not at all that. It is a lot of business to have access to midstream assets at the right time, at the right point, and to be able to mobilize them, to find crews, et cetera. That is this business development activity fundamentally, which is rewarded today. The lesson is that it is better to have a big organization. I think we have today.
All companies like, I would say European majors, by the way, have benefited from the fact that banks have went out of that business during after the crisis of 2008. So we had a limited number of players, in fact. So of course, we have more players today coming to that. In particular, national companies of the Middle East are willing to trade as well. We've seen some important, and they are taking quite a lot of risk, by the way, in terms of midstream and shipping, et cetera. Also some U.S. peers which are willing to come. That's I would say, but the organization, no, it's more a question of risk management, which has been adapted to the system rather than the organization itself. Okay, so we have Doug Leggate there, please.
Thank you. Thanks, Patrick. Patrick, you said a couple of things today about TotalEnergies is typically conservative. You don't want to share all your business development outlooks, but you've also given a visibility to 2035 that we can't really pin down. So I guess my question is, how much of the growth through 2035 do you believe you have already secured versus what you still have to identify? That's my first question. My second one is, curious slide on slide 37, differentiated catalyst for re-rating. You're talking about the power business, obviously. You say an equity value of more than $50 billion. Are you signaling to us that you would like to have a different approach to recognizing the value for the power business, maybe an IPO?
No, we just want the $50 billion to be within TotalEnergies' equity value. That's a simple message. Very simple one. Very simple one. Having said that, we are different from, because this is the limit of the benchmark, because the utility, they invest a lot in grids and things like that with a low return, which secure cash flow, which we will not do. So be clear, we'll keep our model as it is. So this is the limit of the benchmark. We've done it. The board wanted to have an idea. We made the math. It's to share. But by the way, it's not fully logic. We'll have a business which will be contributive to the dividend, which will represent 20% of the production of the company. $50 billion is more or less 20% of the equity value of the company.
I would say there is no big surprise. What is the share of the $50 billion already is on $200 billion of equity value? I don't know. There is probably some, but I'm convinced as with, that the catalyzer will be all this positive net cash flow that is growing, will be a catalyzer for this value. Again, we feel comfortable. So the second question, the first one, I think until 2032, we see easily the 2%. Then it's a matter of to continue to grow. So the 2% I think are not easy. The 3% will be more challenging. But, 3 from 3 million makes 100,000 barrel per day. 3 2 is make 60. So there's a difference. So 2% I'm clear. We are clear.
Thank you.
We have Jason there, please.
Yeah. Hey, thanks. Jason Gabelman with TD Cowen. First one, just wanted to ask on the GranMorgu project. You obviously reflect the carried CapEx in your guidance. I was wondering if you also reflect the cash flow uplift that you get once the project comes online, with the accelerated payback of that carried CapEx. So, how do you treat that cash flow from that project within your forecast to 2030? Because it could be quite meaningful in the early years. The second question is just on U.S. gas. You've previously expressed aspirations to acquire additional U.S. shale gas. You discussed that at the March event. Is that still a target of yours or has that aspiration changed? Thanks.
The first question is related to GranMorgu?
Yeah.
Specifically to GranMorgu?
Yeah.
The CapEx are within the guidance, yes. There is no change on that. I'm thinking about your control. Yeah. No?
Cash flow.
What? No, it's okay. The cash flow uplift of accelerated payback, I'm not sure to understand the question. What did you say? A cash flow?
Just because you got payback on the carried CapEx, right?
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Is that reflected kind of Is that cash flow reflected in the guidance of 2030, or are you reflecting some kind of lower steady-state cash flow from the project?
No, it's reflected.
Okay.
It's captured. We don't consider the production linked to that carry. We don't take the production, but we consider the cash flow. Clearly. U.S. shale, yes, it's an objective. We have made some JVs. We continue to look to different possibilities. There are, by the way, today, even if I did not comment, one of the surprise, I would say, but not only for us, but probably for many of the markets of the crisis, is that you have people who are betting that with increasing energy export, you could have an impact on the domestic gas price of NREL. This year, it was completely flat, even a little declining. The valorization value, the company we have valued with $4 per million BTU. Today, it's a little lower than $4. We are more around $3.5, $3.6 per million BTUs.
I think it's linked to a change, which we did not fully anticipate on our side. That's the limit when you are not in the business, is that there is a lot of permanent producers who want to give a value to their gas. They are all looking to that. Building pipelines, so quite a lot of activity to connect the Permian Basin to the Gulf Coast. If it is a case of fear, which was in fact, the way to integrate the shale gas was to protect the company from a hike on the upstream is maybe less immediate than what we were thinking. But I continue to believe it is better to try to be integrated. Shale gas, we have no objection to find condensate or oil as well. It's not bad.
Considering the Middle East, I would say a challenge when you look to geopolitical risks, in the same way that we move from Russia to the U.S. for gas, we could move a little more the U.S. for oil if there are opportunities. Of course, today, completely much too expensive, but we'll see in the future. Okay? We'll see in the future. So yes, it's still an objective. Okay, so we have Lucas, please.
Thanks very much. It's Lucas Herrmann at BNP Paribas. Two, if I might, Patrick. The first is just if you could talk a little bit about the discussion around dividend and dividend growth, the at least 5%. At least 5% is a healthy number, but when I look at what's happened over the last three, four years, when I look at in a $70 world, it strikes me that you're going to continue to buy back a sensible level of equity. So the underlying growth in the dividend seems little more than 2% to 3% at best. That's probably exaggerating, actually. Look, the greater than opens the sky to many things, but it seems modest, let's put it that way, given the potential for underlying cash flow in this business and the extent to which you're offsetting absolute growth. Sorry, I labored that too long.
The second was the one thing that surprised me perhaps today is that there's been so little comment around Namibia post Mopane and the fact that Venus feels as though it's gone back for reasons that I'm sure you're about to explain. Just to add some more context to Namibia, Mopane, you were very upbeat in January, February when you talked just after the deal. Where are we at the moment? Why less emphasis?
We are very well. We are even better. That's true that we didn't make a specific slide on Namibia, but we know we spoke about Suriname today, so we changed from one basin. You will have more news in next presentation in February. On Namibia, so we have been, I would say it's progressing very well. So we became operator of Mopane beginning of September. So now it has been fully approved. So the transaction is closed. We are working together in close cooperation with Galp. We intend to bring a rig, which should come mid-November to make We have three wells as a sequence. The objective is to go to the sanction of Mopane by 2028. We have three wells to drill.
More to, in fact, these wells are, one is exploration, the other one is more appraisal, is to be sure that we don't make an undersized development or a development which not will be well located. That's more optimizing the development of these resources, which are very large. So for me, that's exactly as per plan, approved, deploying this campaign and then moving to the sanction. On Venus, we are working together. I think today we know where the CapEx are in line with our expectations. As you know, it's a more complex field because of the lower permeability, so it raised some challenges. The plateau has been increased to 160,000 barrel per day, or for a project which is more or less the size of GranMorgu. Of course, it's a lower plateau, so we need to protect the project as good returns, I would say, on high prices.
We need to protect it on low prices. So there is a discussion there, progressing discussion with the authorities, and I'm optimistic. Everybody wants to make that project, that sanction. So it's a matter of weeks, but we need to be patient sometime. That's the point. This is where we are. So we are working to sanction the project in the coming months. Okay. That's the situation, and I would say for Namibia. I understand what you said. Okay. Again, we tried to establish, the board wanted to make a difference on two aspects. Our peers are more speaking about 4% per year. We go to more than 5%. That's true that we have space to do more potentially, and we've done 6.56%, so doesn't mean that we'll stick on 5%. That doesn't think like that.
Oh, yeah.
The board decided to make two bold moves. There was a debate, which is also to give a multi-year, several years of horizon telling you from 2030, matching with the free cash flow. So take 5% as a minimum, but might be higher than that, like the 5.9%, which was decided this year for the interim dividend. We buy back less because the share is higher, which is good. I'm sorry, but with $8 billion, the share has been for good reason went up by 30%. So, instead of-
Your cash flow is about-
buying back 4.5, I'm buying back 3%. So that's it. So it's a reality. So that's the differential might be, yes, but we buy back less. I hope it will continue like that.
Yeah. Your free cash flow is about to double, though, as well.
I agree. There is more room for news, but we cannot as well. It is quite unusual for a board to try to commit to a multi-year growth of a dividend. So take it positively. Then if you are optimistic like I am, you can put more in your model.
Thank you.
Okay. We have Ryan there, please.
Thanks. Ryan Todd at Scotiabank. Maybe first off, you have mentioned some of these on and off, but we are six months into the disruptions in Hormuz. Can you maybe talk a little bit more about what you think are some of the longer-term impacts that come out of this? Is this more redundancy of infrastructure? You have talked about some of the impacts in terms of maybe contracts or demand on LNG side, but downstream infrastructure, upstream.
What are some of the longer-term impacts that you think come out of this? Secondly, on the power side, your 2030 target for cash flow from the power business was revised to the high end of your prior guidance expectations. Can you maybe talk about what is exceeding expectations on the power side and maybe what the contracting environment is like as you try to sign PPAs during the data center build-out here in the U.S.?
Okay. Strait of Hormuz. I think the first point is that I joined the industry in 1997, and I always hear about Strait of Hormuz as a threat, but nobody was believing in it. Now, it happened. That means fundamentally we have this. It happened, it is a major shock point, because 20% of the world oil and LNG production is behind the Strait of Hormuz. So that it is obviously has an impact. An impact I think on the market, it is difficult to understand of today this risk will be priced, but when you have 20% of the world market, which is potentially at threat, you cannot behave as if it does not exist, or it will remain. Today, we are still in the crisis, but it will have an impact. So yes, of course, we need to have more infrastructure. It is clear to me.
On the map, we show you there is, of course, the immediate actions taken by Abu Dhabi, which is to double the infrastructure for Fujairah to which we said to ADNOC that we are ready to participate. Of course, there is also an immediate action taken by Saudi Arabia to transform a gas pipeline, an oil pipeline from east to west. But they have begin to work as well on the pipeline to down to Duqm in Oman. There is this Baghdad-Iraq, Syria pipeline to which we will participate as well. So yes, it has some impact. Is it enough? I think it is also a matter of there will be some impacts on the way we look to our own, as not we own, but how many tankers do we have under, I would say long-term charter. That is a point.
Having today access to these oil tankers has a value. So today it is a world where everything was fully optimized and efficient and just-in-time system. It was the way we work because we were building a global world. We have no WTO, free trade, no problem. We were all thinking like that, which you can model in Excel, by the way. It is more complex to model an impact of disruption. It is true that I remember one year ago, my LNG teams in trading were telling me, "Okay, look, we have the arbitration between Asia and Europe is not as strong as before, so maybe we have dimension of fleet with too many LNG tankers." I can tell you this year they are very happy to have all these LNG tanker. So that is I would say the resilience has a cost. Resiliency, yes, to have more infrastructure.
By the way, I prefer to have more LNG tankers while building pipelines, which might be not used. But we have to integrate that in the way we invest. Otherwise, it's worth nothing to make plenty of risks analysis if you don't draw any consequence. So that's something. On refineries, it will be an interesting debate in Europe. We want to go to a growing EV market, so these refineries. Fundamentally, if I'm reading the market, we need less refineries in the future because there will be less consumption of gasoline, diesel. But suddenly, we rediscovered, by the way, it was as our ancestors, that refineries in a war have a huge value. TotalEnergies was created in 1924 by the French government. The first mission was to build, to find oil and two refineries, one in the south of France, one in Normandy, which still exists.
La Mède has been transformed. Because during the First World War, France had no access to hydrocarbons. So it was one of the big problem we had during the First War. This is coming back again, and I'm reading articles all that the governments in Europe have let companies to close down the refineries. Yes, because if you just follow the rule of the market to maintain a refinery, when your margins are generally low, where you have increased energy cost, increased CO2 cost, to be honest, you are asking yourself some questions, should I really keep all these infrastructures? Or do you factor in the fact that in 2022 it was quite positive, in 2026 it's positive, and in the meantime it was quite poor? That's a different way to approach the point.
Of course, for, I will not build the new refineries, but for the existing ones, I think it's really a question, and it will be an interesting debate with the government. At the end, the solution for me is if we want to keep the infrastructure, to find a way to have a sort of capacity remuneration. Capacity remuneration is like for gas-fired power plants to maintain an infrastructure which is vital, but at the same time, which maybe might be weak during most of the time. So, I think it's open, this Strait of Hormuz crisis opens many questions like these ones, including for us. So that's that point. 2030, the cash flow target, what is created, I think it's, Stéphane, you can answer to this one.
Yes. Well, I think that one of the big difference versus last year at the same time is that we have done the JV with EPH, which somehow speed up our growth, and there is part of the cash flow. That's, I guess, one of the main reason. Then it's true that we see a lot of development of data center. We sign in the U.S. Worldwide, we've signed around 4 gigawatt with data center. A bit more, between 2 and 3 in the U.S. and the rest in Brazil. And we see that we are able to sell that at PPA price that are increasing and above what they used to be. Just to give, we are talking $5 per megawatt hour, for example, 10%, something like that, if you want a range. That's one.
The second thing which is coming is that we are trying to market and we are in discussion not only to provide PPAs, but to provide power land, which mean, lands where you have the renewable production, but at the same time, you can install data center, and you can withdraw from the grid at the same time. So, buying from the renewable on the site and getting them from the grid. We have more than 10 project in the U.S., three of them quite advanced in terms of approval and a lot of discussion on that. Yes, it's a promising market on which we try to develop.
But fundamentally, your question is linked to, as you said, the clarity of EPH, the JV, which we didn't have last year, so more cautious. Now we have some long asset we figure, so we have a model, we can be more certain about what we said to give to the market. Okay, so we can take a question. Matt Lofting now, please.
Thanks. Matt Lofting, JPMorgan. I wanted to just ask you, within the $10 billion of free cash flow growth to 2030, I think 12 months ago, you sort of presented around $2.5 billion of that free cash flow growth in MENA, coming through the opportunities in Qatar, Iraq, et cetera. If you could just expand on what you're assuming from that portion of the portfolio today compared to 12 months ago. Then perhaps linked to that, if you could just add, as a global company that's had a long history investing and being present in the Middle East, how you've reflected on and assessed the sort of the necessary hurdle rates to support future investment in the region and the extent to which that's changed or not. Thank you.
Again, we should not discard the Middle East suddenly because there are risks. By the way, I'm amazed to see that most of my competitors are rushing to Iraq. When we went to Iraq in 2021, everybody was leaving. I'm not sure that Iraq is less risky today than it was in 2021, to be honest now. When I see what is happening in the region, so happy to see that they are joining the club. We were happy to sign the first contract, probably because the risk and reward balance was high. That is, for me, it's clear, but only there is a real question of the reward compared to the risk. Otherwise, it makes little sense. Again, one of the lesson and also to look to, but it's not only true, by the way, for MENA.
The question of do you have different outlet to export your oil, look to Kazakhstan. It's not in the MENA region, Kazakhstan. We are facing some few difficulties from time to time, and when the Ukrainians want to damage the access to the Black Sea, that's making tense. I think it's a lesson for me, a global lesson. Let's look to do we have two routes when we invest in a project. It seems to us obvious that one route is enough. No, maybe it's not enough. That's one of the lessons. Again, from this perspective, it's more a question of, I think, drawing the lessons from the crisis in terms of outlet. The other rate was already high when we invested in Iraq, for example. Abu Dhabi, by the way, thanks to the crisis, we have had a very nice last 6 months, I think.
I've never seen such an acceleration of business development with Abu Dhabi. We are friends. We signed a deal with Masdar in Asia. We had access to Bab gas cap, which was a historic quest for the company. We managed to find a way to progress on Umm Shaif gas cap. By the way, it's gas, not only oil. That's true that I'm convinced that Ratawi LNG could be as well done with a train in Fujairah and not only in the Gulf, for sure. It's a matter as well to there are risks, there are opportunities. For us, the answer is also to diversify and to look to other geographies like we've done. That's also the mix of it, but not to give up on this is a region where you have the largest resource with lowest cost, so we like it.
That's the point. Again, even if the Strait of Hormuz will find a new normal, I don't think we can have this planet running without the oil of the Gulf. The consequence in term of macro impact are important today. That's my point. Yes, we are conscious of that. In term of LNG, again, compared to some of our peers, which were more exposed or less, our diversification allow us to have no false measure. We are gaining a good momentum in the market thanks to this concept of a portfolio company able to ensure the security of supply to our customers.
I did not answer that before, but it's clear that my teams told me that in Bangkok, they had a big line, a big queue in front of TotalEnergies booth because that's, I think, we really demonstrated what a portfolio company can do by securing the supply to our customers. I think it's a very strong message, not only for gas, but also for oil. This is a mission we have today coming back to the diesel for your question, Michele. I think at the end, what you're expecting from TotalEnergies, at least in France, is to be able to bring the diesel they need. Then it's a question of cost. We will bring the volume.
We will find it. The cost might be higher because we'll deprive it, and this is where our global system will work. That's a point. I cannot secure that for all the European countries alone, but my peers will have to do. Suddenly, I think maybe European countries will find value to have an oil and gas company in their territory instead of pushing them back out because of transition.
I will take one question from online. Alastair, can you ask your questions, please?
Thanks, Jean-Louis. Thanks for the presentation. Patrick, how do you assess the opportunity in Venezuela? For a second question, if I am allowed, I am a little bit confused on the cash flow growth, slide 19 and slide 25. Both show $4 billion to $5 billion of cash flow increase. I just wanted to clarify if there is double counting here. Is it essentially the same $4 billion to $5 billion? Is all the upstream cash flow growth really in effect coming from integrated LNG? Thank you.
Venezuela. It was long before I had the question. Yes, I was in Venezuela last Saturday. It is public. To meet president of Venezuela. We evaluate some opportunities in Venezuela today. I cannot be longer than that. We evaluate. Honestly, but more, I would say outside of the oil and the cobalt, there are opportunities, and we will see if we can converge. What I noticed is that we were very well welcomed by Venezuela authorities who want to diversify their partners, including to European companies. What I told them is to find, if we invest, it has to be a sustainable contract. Sustainability, it is the main point for me. Do we enter into a sustainable contract? Will you have to be progressive? We are working on that, and we are. We were there for long. We had large investments in Venezuela in 2021.
We decided to leave because it was becoming too complex, in particular from an HSE point of view. There were really some huge risk, technological risk with the installations. Not only the sanction, by the way. But again, we are happy to come back if there are It's a matter again of risk and reward. We need to understand what are the opportunities, but we have some ideas, yeah. It's not part of the secured growth from you that I answered to our friend. No. Yes, there is a double counting, of course. Yeah. So it's EUR 2.5 billion, if I remember well. Renaud, this is the point?
Right. Yeah, Jean-Pierre.
I think yes, because you are right. By the way, you can reconcile the figure. So all the figures are right figures. By the way, it's quite clear. The red part, which is on the chart page 25, which is the upstream CFFO, is included in the upstream, which was page 19. Okay? So on one side, it's included on page 19. Yeah, this is the same part. So that's why we put the two colors, by the way.
Upstream was reported as global upstream oil and gas by Nicolas because he's running the plans, but it's also part of the integrated LNG. When we make the integrated LNG report, it's not on E&P, it is in integrated LNG. So this orange part, it's not 4.5 plus 4.5, by the way, four plus five plus 4.5, it makes plus one from downstream. It makes 7 to 8 on my slide number 12. So 4.5 plus 4.5 plus one, it makes 7.8. The difference is the double counting on the upstream LNG. Thank you, Alastair, for the clarification.
Okay. So we have a question, Paul, now?
Oh, one moment. Yeah.
Thank you, Renaud, and thank you all for being in New York. It's greatly appreciated. We all agree that the diesel export ban would be a terrible idea, but that hasn't really been stopping things from happening over the past year or so. It seems that the consequences for Europe and European refining would be pretty severe, and when we think about the Russian LNG export ban, it seems like you'll be in a, we won't say good position, but TotalEnergies is obviously very highly exposed to these threats. So the short-term question was just, I was wondering how you see a diesel ban playing out in Europe, given the level of emergency inventories, given where your refineries are, and then adding on the problem of the LNG that you mentioned can be more of an issue than people realize because of the shortage of storage.
So that's terrible idea number one. Second terrible idea, arguably, is to mix a major power business with a refining business, which is what you've got. A long-term question would be in 15 years' time, do you think you'll still be in power or still be in refining? Because really, in theory, you're diluting the multiple, obviously, of the power business by mixing it with refining and chemicals perhaps. Wouldn't you be better now separating the power into a standalone and gaining the higher multiple for shareholders? Thank you.
In 30 years from now, I will not be there. I'm still there for some years, but no, honestly, if there was an export ban, it's not necessarily bad for the refining business in Europe. Margins will explode, so it's not necessarily bad. But I don't like it because it's bad for the consumer, so it's a backlash on the global companies we are facing. So yes, but again, in term of exposure, we have taken a bold initiative, which is French consumers are benefiting from a cap on the diesel. It has allowed us to avoid any specific taxation on the company, and I continue to believe it was a good, smart move from us not to be obliged to answer to many requests from government. So we navigate with that. If it's going to very high, we'll see what will be the consequence.
But again, and I agree with you, we cannot exclude it. I agree. This is a lesson of everything is possible. Maybe for a short period of time until the midterms elections, unfortunately. So that might be a point. I do not know. We are not in the secret of that. Governments are mobilized. Or do we see supply be playing out in Europe? Again, we will have to do our best to bring the diesel. I think the best is to ensure the security of supply.
Then if it is going to high, you will see an impact. You will see some demand destruction, for sure. We begin to observe it, by the way, and not within TotalEnergies retail stations because there is such a queue in our stations that we are very popular there. So it is usually popular in France today, which is a good in the mix. It is helping us, by the way, to navigate the different politics. I do not know why you made a mix between power and refining. It was oil and gas and power or refining specifically?
The two extremes of the multiple.
Ah, the two extremes of the multiple. Yeah, okay. But again, at the end, we bet on the integration. There is a value in integration. Our power business would not be developed like that if was not also linked to the balance sheet of TotalEnergies. The deal we have done with EPH, it is also because we are TotalEnergies, which we are able to make that big deal with them, and they have chosen us to do the deal. So it is difficult to say. I do not think an independent power company would have been developed in five years at the speed at which we are doing it, and delivering this cash flow six years after, positive cash flow, and investing EUR 344 billion. So I see a link between the integration, the balance sheet of the company, the integration. That is the limit.
We are very different from these utilities, which have high debt, huge debt. We have some debt on our renewable business, that's for clear, which is deconsolidated. We have some advantage to develop this power business. Refining, again, it's clear to me that it will be a declining business. We'll have to find a way out. The limit of that is the security of supply of do we play it in Europe. Logically, we will have less refining in our portfolio if the trend. Then the question will be, will the government be able to support us to keep some refinery alive? But we will not keep the whole system as it is today. That's clear.
Thank you.
Okay, so we have Chris there. Please.
Thank you. Chris Kuplent from Bank of America. I want to go right back to security of supply, Patrick. We talked about windfall taxes a while ago in Europe. Now you're talking about capacity payments. I wonder if you think about the conversation around European gas. We went into the winter with low storage while continuing to try and keep out more Russian LNG from the market. More broadly, how is TotalEnergies, other than from integration, able to benefit from an environment that you, I think, have described where your customers, politicians are prepared to put a higher value on security of supply? Is it primarily through new business models or simply higher slopes to Brent and LNG? Open wide question, but I thought worth asking.
The second one, I think one thing that has changed over the last few quarters, and certainly since we were here last year, is the interest rate environment that we are in. Maybe you can comment to us how that has evolved, the board's view on long-term balance sheet protection, and if you can give us any comments on how it has changed access to financing, particularly some of the off-balance sheet financing projects. Thank you.
It is awfully complex. Again, on the first security of supply, I think we will benefit of that if we are able to ensure the security supply to our customers and to be considered as the right partner. That is why we did not declare force majeure on LNG. It was a big debate into the company. It was not like that. My LNG teams immediately wanted to declare force majeure. We told them, "No, be careful. We have a unique opportunity to demonstrate to our customers that we can do it and that it is not only when we go to their portfolio company, that there is a reality." I think it is the same from this perspective for the oil. We need absolutely to secure that. Then people will be able to question of trust. We might gain some market shares.
I am sure that this is a discussion we have today. We are maybe gaining market share because of the crisis in France. How do we consolidate them? But positively, not only by subsidizing, I would say. That I think is a global, and I am convinced. There are some polls today, again, we are testing the brand, retail brands in France. We have increased our image. We were the number 5, we are number 1 today. So that you can capitalize on it in the future. Positioning the company as the partner which can secure the supply has some interest, and I think it is always protective, I think as well from the political debates you can have. The last bond. The bonds, yes, it has an impact, clearly, for me on the renewable business, potentially. That is clear.
That is why we will see at which pace we can develop it, okay, and deploy the capital. Even if until now, we did not see a major impact on the farm downs. Because again, I think the last deals we have done with insurance funds from KKR or others, they like to have a partner like TotalEnergies in front of them. We are not a defaulting party. We have a strong balance sheet. So for them, they have a cheap, I would say, equity to invest. Having a counterpart with TotalEnergies able to be, by the way, large deals, which we discovered. If we have access to this equity, we need to make 1 gigawatt, 2 gigawatts, not small things.
They are not interested. But we have this capacity. So the size matters as well to be able to deploy the business model of Stéphane. But we understood it, and we are exactly there where we wanted to be. And we are, I would say, building some strong partnership with them. So that might be impacted, for sure. At the financial level, the bond, we see no impact. In fact, no.
Try to be opportunistic. So two years ago, we went with very long maturity because it was cheap, 30 years. So now, we try not to go to the market when the conditions are good. I go to the market when conditions are good. And honestly, at present time, more than 90% of my portfolio is fixed.
Yeah. So we have taken that policy fixed on the long term. So we can manage the volatility on the short term on the global financing of the company.
Okay, so we have Mark Wilson now, please.
Yeah, thank you. Mark Wilson, Jefferies. I would just like to come back to the upper end of your CapEx range, the $17 billion, 2027 to 2032. I think you mentioned there is no inflation really in that. Is that an optional increased level, or do you have visibility of years where you may well be spending that right now based on, obviously, exploration that can come, so i.e., things that could come?
It is an optional one. Again, we told you that the growth might be 2 to 3. We do not have the full portfolio today. If we want to go at this pace of how much billions of dollars should we have done, thanks to some metrics of thousands of dollar per barrel per day. You make the metrics, we will find. So we estimate that we need to go up to. We will need $1 billion more to what we spent until now in upstream. That is all.
The second point on that, do you think we are getting to a stage where you may even consider spending on refining within that? Maybe not capacity, but in sort of complexity within the portfolio.
No. Clearly no. No. No way.
Thank you.
I leave that to other players to do it. It is not the complexity which makes money. It is running the plants properly. So if I have to invest, it is on the availability on the plant. Solving this team shedding in Port Arthur, that is not a matter of big CapEx. That is just invest, not sure it is $50 million and you solve the problem. It is more today going through the plants to check what are the choke points in terms of availability, and it is a matter of tens.
It is not a matter of the complexity, honestly. We went through that 10 years ago. We built some cokers and things like that. Then the crude shift to heavy to light, and it was not making money. No, I do not think it is on. I have clear ideas on this one, which is availability. That is good. Okay. That is good. Energy efficiency, you can decrease the energy you spend, but not making complex system. I am not in there.
Okay, I will take a question online. Maybe Kim Fustier, you could go, please.
Hi. Thank you for taking my questions. First, could you confirm that your production guidance to 2028 and 2030 effectively assumes fully de-risked production in the Middle East? I am just assuming this judging by the presence of several Middle East projects on your slide. We have the QatarEnergy expansion, Al Shaheen, and Iraq's Ruwais all by 2028, and all of which require unrestricted Hormuz access. Maybe put another way, are you able to say what the 3% production CAGR would look like in a new normal scenario where Hormuz is only 50% open?
Secondly, you referenced the value of midstream, clearly in desiccated markets, both liquids and LNG, it is very important to be able to move the molecules yourself. Could you talk a little bit more about shipping? What does your own fleet currently look like? What of your needs it covers, and whether you are planning to expand that fleet to enhance flexibility or reduce transport costs?
The guidance into 2030 is you take the list of the projects that Nicolas has shown you. Of course, but again, we are in a different world. We did not position this guidance at 2030 in a world where the Strait of Hormuz will be closed for four years. Because there it is completely different world. Then maybe I will lose on the upstream, but on the downstream, where I put EUR 1 billion more, I will have EUR 5 billion more. Again, we are back in a reasonable world. The projects we mentioned, of course, you have projects in Qatar are supposed to deliver in 2027, 2028. Compared to 2030, we consider there is enough margin.
You have Al Shaheen Phase 3, which is oil. The main topic for me is LNG within the Gulf. To be clear on which one, because oil within the Gulf, you can find ways, and again, big tankers, 2 million barrel of oil tankers, they can bring the oil out as we are doing it today. LNG is more complex because it is more costly, because it is more dangerous, et cetera. This is the main topic. On our growth, it is two Qatari projects and I think Ruwais LNG.
Yeah
mainly, which by the way, that's not bringing any production, this one. It's not a matter of production. But the two Qatari, I don't see that conflict which will last so long that we will not see these two projects. But there might be, again, some ICAPS. That's the point. That's the only two projects, NFE and NFS, which really might be impacted. The others, it's oil, so we are not too concerned about them. I don't have the CHGA in the new scenario with no Middle East, which could be. But again, if it was such a case, as we've done it, when we lost Russia in 2022, we find other ideas, and today in 2025, we managed to replace part of the production. We are agile enough. We will not just wait and look to the plan being executed, losing the Middle East.
Again, the impact, I repeat what I told you, in the last quarter, in this quarter, the third quarter, the impact on our production of the Middle East is only 5%-6%, September. It's limited, in fact, and the production will grow compared to the second quarter thanks to projects which are outside of the Middle East. Again, we should not overstate the impact of the Middle East in our portfolio. Fleet expansion plan, again, we don't own the fleet, but we charter, long-term charter. We said to our trading teams that they can consider that what we agree. We told them, "If you consider that it's a good policy, we'll support it." It has some impacts on the lease capital employed, I would say. It's marginal. Yes, I think it's a lesson.
But again, that's a question complex for trading teams because they are very short-term, and then we ask them to take a longer-term position. But I think from their point of view, they agree that it has a value to have a larger fleet at our disposals to manage these different disruptions in the market. And we are convinced that we'll face new disruptions. It's not the end. There will be other topics. This planet is dangerous.
Other questions? Bertrand now.
You go.
It's working?
Yeah, it's working.
Bertrand Hodée, Kepler Cheuvreux. Two questions, if I may. I see that Nigeria is getting more momentum in terms of potential FID over the next few years. There's a lot of discoveries that have been done for many years, is there something changing in terms of Nigeria will from-
Yeah
in terms of reform and-
The fiscal terms.
Yeah.
It took years, but we have convinced this administration, and President Tinubu has been very good. Took time, but to give new fiscal terms which allow to unlock these deep water resources like Owowo, which was discovered 10 or 15 years ago. So we were quiet, but now we have the right fiscal terms, and they recognize that deep water is not an onshore. You cannot develop deep water as with the same terms that onshore terms. That's it. Yes, there are incentives, which by the way, we have to go quickly because these fiscal terms, these are open to us during 2-3 years. There's a limited time. So they want us to accelerate investment in the country. So there is an opportunity.
I had also on Nigeria, Train 7, is finally coming on stream 2027. Is there enough gas? You've sanctioned a lot of gas project associated with Train 7, but are you going to be remunerated for that?
Yeah, because we negotiated a new formula. The fact that the upstream gas producer was subsidizing the plant, we modified the scheme. It helped to decide all these projects. Our shareholder, our partners who are not investing upstream will lose part of the value.
Okay, understood.
That is why it was a little slow all that, but at the end, we obtained what we want, so now we sanction projects.
Beyond Nigeria, I had a question on your multi-year joint program with Mistral AI. What do you expect from this partnership? Is it a transformational deal, or can you expect also some low, I would say, hanging fruits in the very short term? Thank you.
Well, it's innovation. It's R&D. The fundamental ideas there is to use. A human being cannot keep in his head all the scenarios of exploration, successful and unsuccessful. Like in trading, you cannot keep in your head all the schemes which work, which will not work. The machine, if you educate it well, can have a huge library of all what has been worked. So we will develop these specific models on the basin of the Angola Basin, where you have plenty of data, huge amount of data, to try to educate the machine. The idea is that this machine will help us to have a multi-scenario approach. I will take an example. Recently on the Block Zero in Angola, there was a discovery down. We are partner with the Block Zero. Block Zero, we have it for 40 or 50 years.
This exploration well, despite what I learned, was well only because it was a mandatory well imposed by the government when you reduce the license. Nobody wanted to drill it. Nobody, including the head of exploration of the company, which was part of our company. Then we discover, I think, 200 billion of oil. So the question is, why didn't we be able to? I am sure in these prolific basins, there are some other targets. It's a matter of enough people, enough explorers, enough geophysicists, geoscientists to review. A machine can help us. I think there is one company, I will not give the name, we have tried to apply this type of technology on a specific basis. They have identified 50 new targets. Out of that, they kept 20 only because 30 were clearly noise.
But out of the 20, 5 of them were totally not identified by the explorers teams, which were there for 30 years. That means that there is somewhere augmenting our capacity of identifying targets. That's what we are looking for. It's true for exploration, it's true as well for reservoir management, for producing gas, for producing fields. In Angola, again, we have plenty on Block 17. Violeta 4. No, it's not Violeta, I do not remember.
Acacia 5.
Acacia 5 was discovered, immediately put into production. You can also apply these type of technologies to producing fields, mature fields, to better produce. This is what we think, what we are targeting so specifically. But we need to work together with, they bring some experts of AI, we bring our people, our geoscientists, we have plenty of data, we merge them. Are we able to learn to the machine the way we think, the way we explore, the way we did? That's a big challenge. It will not be tomorrow morning, it takes time because it's ingesting a lot of data.
But the teams are really, we'll have a team, it's 45, 50 people together, 2025, so it's quite an investment. For the first time, I see a real added value of all these AI tools in the company. It's not about productivity, it's about augmenting the capacity to invent, to create, to deploy. There, I understand what we want to target. Can we do it? We'll see. But other companies we know have engaged this type of program, so we are very supportive of it.
Okay, so we have Henri Patricot now, please.
Thank you. Henri Patricot from UBS. Two questions, please. The first one, a bit of a follow-up on the previous question. On the exploration budget, which is staying at $1 billion. It's been at this level for a few years now. Your oil and gas production is going up. You've been quite successful, and you talked earlier about more competition in accessing undiscovered resources, so why not increase the exploration spending instead? The second one, in terms of the net CapEx guidance, you mentioned $2 billion per annum of farm downs in integrated power. Should we still expect something around a billion-dollar net contribution from disposals within that net CapEx number? A billion higher for the gross CapEx, effectively. Thank you.
I did not understand the second question. Yes, $2 billion farm down. What is your question?
In terms of the net contribution from disposals and acquisitions to net CapEx, should we expect that to be a positive, maybe $1 billion per annum over the next few years?
I do not remember. I will try to find a figure to you. I think it is neutral for me from 2027, 2032. For me, it is neutral. The budget of organic CapEx, it depends on the segment, but for me, it is globally neutral. Again, maintaining the $1 billion budget for years, this is what I promised to the new president for exploration. I think it was a good compromise between when we tried to increase the exploration budget, 2010 to 2014, it has been a catastrophe. A catastrophe. We increased it to $1.5 billion to $2 billion. Our explorers were not making any choice anymore, drilling everything, making plenty of failures, losing confidence, losing trust in themselves. I observe it. Going to elephants, which was white elephants or even a smoggy white elephant, nothing. When we came back in 2015, because the landscape came back, we say $1 billion.
They are obliged to be selective. Again, when they ask us, "Okay, we want $100 million, $50 million," we find the money, but it is all right. For me, considering the size of the company and the size of the teams, I see some virtue to maintain it, and it is better for them to have a stable one than something which will go up and down. I prefer to give them a visibility, stable. It is a commitment. The big difference between before, by the way, today, we do not pay crazy bonus to have access to exploration despite the competition. In the old times, I remember even we were able to pay $200 million, $300 million, $400 million for a license. Today, nobody is doing that. Much more pragmatic. It is better, by the way, to build on work your works and drilling rather than bonuses.
So this has also changed. So the bonus part of the budget finally is quite small. So we don't see this. Maybe it could come back, but I don't see the countries as well to go into the last country where you had big bonus for exploration was Brazil. And if you look to what has been the results of the discoveries in Brazil in the last 10 years, the risk was higher than the reward. So more people looking to that, but more reasonable as well on this point. So I'm comfortable with that.
Okay, so we have question online. Still we have Fergus online. Can you go? Douglas, please.
Yeah, brilliant. Hi, everyone. Thank you very much for taking my question. Just a couple of quick ones, please. Just first on North Field East and Ruwais Phase 1, which I know you've given us updated dates for. I just wanted to understand if the Strait of Hormuz disruption persists and the conflict in the Middle East persists for longer, what the residual risk to those dates might be. And then secondly, I noted in the footnote to Slide 24 that Yamal LNG sales are excluded from 2028. Could you talk to the current situation with the LNG from Yamal and the EU rulings? And perhaps comment on how those cargoes will essentially be replaced now that they've been excluded, given the overall LNG guidance for sales in 2030 is essentially unchanged. Thanks.
Okay. So that's two specific questions. The first one, Ruwais Phase 1, we intend to start up by November. By the way, it's a comment that, I know that Nicolas does not like too much to admit it, but in fact, the reality, and it's also true for Nicolas in Uganda, in Mozambique, the Strait of Hormuz not only had impacts on the oil flows, but also on some equipment flows, to be honest. And even on Yamal, I think the very large equipment, we try to make our best to go through roads with trucks, but we have some very large equipment which today cannot cross the Strait of Hormuz, and we will not take the risk to put them in the middle of the war. So we are working on that, and it has some impact.
It is not a six-month delay everywhere, but there are some impacts on equipment which have been slowed, because in fact, we are using a lot of yards within the Gulf. Not directly, but as contractors subcontracting for more EPC contracts. These yards are very efficient normally. That is a general impact. On the Ruwais Phase One, I think we consider November as a reasonable one. I think we have people on the ground.
Yes, 1970.
There were some hiccups with the customs, but I think it has been solved after our visit to Baghdad, so we will do our best. Yamal. Again, it is a pure assumption from us. There is no message there. But I think, again, honestly, the longer the war is, the more sanctions could be applied. From 27 today, we are in a situation where I tried to explain it during the call. Jean-Pierre told me it was not very clear, so I will try to be clearer because now we have the papers. We can export, not only us, a EU company can export some LNG from Yamal outside of the EU, providing that we will use some specific EU LNG tankers, which has been built for the purpose of LNG.
Let us be clear, there was a Greek ship owner who has built quite a number of LNG tankers for Yamal, and the Greece government said, these tankers could be used for exporting Yamal outside of the EU because we do not want it in the EU. The last sanction regime has given that possibility. The point is that, if you go outside of EU, of course, you will transport less quantities with the same number of tankers, because you have to go to India or Van to go to the EU. So it will be a limited business. Ourselves, we were exporting 5 million tons of Yamal LNG. Maybe we could export 3, but not more. So it is physical. How long will this exception will last?
I do not know, because at the same time, there was a law which has been adopted, a bill has been adopted at Congress and signed by President Trump, where he has a right to put sanctions on Yamal. We do not know if there are secondary sanctions. That is honestly the point. In all our perspective, we keep the Middle East to answer to Kim. We do not destroy. But we said, "Okay, let us consider that this Yamal business will be out of the figure," which means, as I mentioned to you during the call in July, it represents more or less $400 million of cash for the LNG business. So it is out of the perspective that we have given to you. That is it. That is very clear. I hope I have been clearer this time, but it is a little complex point.
We have still time to take one question.
Or one or two.
Yeah. John.
Good to be with you, and thank you for the time today. It's interesting as you evolve your power business and the consternation around cash flow volatility or lack thereof, an annuity-ish type attribute associated with power, you see an incredible regressed relationship between NPV volatility and NPV upside across the global integrated. It's almost literally 100%, and I'm just putting an unstatistically significant Shell, ExxonMobil and TotalEnergies in that relationship. The point is that your cost of capital should devolve with time as your volatility of that cash flow stream devolves. You should also see that manifest in fixed income yields that also reconcile closer to ExxonMobil or even inside of ExxonMobil as your cash flow stream becomes more annuity-ish. The concept around disaggregation and valuation, the market internalizes almost perfectly. Let me shift to a question, and thank you for entertaining my discourse there.
There's clearly what permeates your LNG strategy, Stéphane, is a view of being effectively be long low cost Henry Hub gas. Sorry, short low cost Henry Hub gas and long global Brent, as you'd characterize in the configuration of contracting as you migrate out to 2030. Maybe amplify just a bit. I get your point, and Patrick, you've made the point about some of the price structure challenges as it relates to U.S. gas, but your commentary around maybe being a little more optimistic, i.e., $80 Brent structurally, and then anchoring your LNG contracting configuration around that. Long Brent, I get the short Henry Hub, please, and thank you.
I'm not sure it's a question or a comment from John, but right through.
It's clear that it has been constantly the strategy because of our market view on the fact that there is more risk on the downside on the TTF, TGAM, that on the Brent. That's the way we have done the portfolio. That's one aspect.
So you are seeing some things in your understanding of the global LNG market that does suggest longer-dated pressure as exhibited by your $8 TTF figure.
Yes, that is clear. That is one aspect. Second, if we talk about post 2030, 2035, it does not have to be an everlasting choice, which means that hopefully we have a contract that will expire post 2030 going forward. That is a decision we have consciously taken for 2028, 2031, and that is a decision that is still to be made later for the rest of the portfolio. That is one aspect. Second aspect is that we took the decision to be short in regasification. We have tried to cover that exposure by buying shale gas asset in the U.S. as well, which we have done successfully in the last two years.
One of the outcome of the current crisis actually is that, and that is a good outcome, is that despite the increase on the LNG export in the U.S., we have not seen any regasification rising, which was not the case in 2022, and which as well means that we have to cover that short, but we probably got time to do so.
Yeah, John, I think it was the first question from Biraj, in fact. We are joining the loop. It is a perspective on growth demand on LNG. It is less obvious to me. I think one of my big peers answered that. It is more complex today to forecast the pace of the growth demand for LNG than what will happen on the oil market. Be clear. Then on the power market. So it is probably one of the complexity.
Thank you.
Honestly, I am amazed to see all these projects being sanctioned and people being ready to commit to larger offtake from the U.S. LNG. I am surprised. That is the point. Okay.
Okay. Any last question? Patrick, closing?
No, thank you very much. I think we almost respected it. We spent, no, we did not respect the length of the presentation because we speak too much, I know, but we wanted to do it quietly without rushing. But we respected it, so we gave you all the ample time to ask a question. Thank you for your attendance. I hope it has given, if possible, even more clarity to our perspective, which is the purpose of that, and the commitments which were taken by the board. You will have, of course, I invite you to continue the discussion during the lunch, during the roundtables with my colleagues. I would like to, again, thank you and our next meeting will be end of October for the third quarter results with our, I think, confirmation about all the trends that we observed today. Thank you very much.