Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the TotalEnergies third quarter 2026 results conference call. At this time, all participants are in listen only mode. After the speech, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star one on your telephone. I must advise you that this conference is being recorded today, the 29th October, 2026. Thank you for holding. The conference will start shortly. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the TotalEnergies third quarter 2026 results conference call. I now hand over to Patrick Pouyanné, Chairman and CEO, and Jean-Pierre Sbraire, CFO, who will lead you through this call. Sir, please go ahead.
Hello, everybody. Good afternoon or good morning, wherever you are. It's the third quarter result, not the first one, just to begin. It's a live intervention, live speech. As Jean-Pierre will show you in a moment, TotalEnergies has demonstrated once again, in this quarter, its capacity to achieve an outstanding operational performance and to deliver a very strong set of results and cash flow, clearly reflecting the ability of the company to fully capture high prices. I would say all is green, not only the different market indicators, but also the operational performance, and I must praise all our teams around the world that delivered these results. I could add that all is green as well, not only for the third quarter, but also for the first month of this fourth quarter and probably for the rest of the year.
Market conditions have been indeed very supportive for all commodities that we are selling. The oil prices started the quarter at $80 per barrel on the hopes of a lasting ceasefire signed between the U.S. and Iran, the MOU signed between the U.S. and Iran, and finally rose again at levels above $100, $110 per barrel, and the dated Brent being today at $121 per barrel as a result of the broadening of the conflict through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait of Saudi Arabia and reflecting the persistent volatility of the situation in the region. The petroleum product prices, diesel, gasoline, have increased in a larger and unprecedented way as a consequence of massive disruption to the refined products logistic chain, triggered not only by the conflict in the Middle East but also by the unavailability of some Russian refining capacities due to the efficiency of the Ukrainian attacks.
Refining margins have reached historical records in Europe and in the rest of the world. Gas and energy prices in Europe and Asia started to rally this quarter as countries have started replenishing their inventories in view of winter consumption. This rally consequently pushed electricity prices up in some European countries, where gas reflects the marginal cost of production of electricity. Beyond these favorable market conditions, this strong set of results highlights the strategic strengths of TotalEnergies, the integration, and the geographical diversification of the company. I explained during our last CMD in New York that these two differentiating factors, together with our leading position, being a low-cost producer, make TotalEnergies best positioned to capture value from market disruptions. First, this quarter, we were able to fully leverage our integrated business model to capture margins. In the oil value chain, integration has never been so relevant.
We have been able to capture oil prices from our growing upstream activities. We are while taking full advantage of our midstream and trading capabilities to bring crude oil into our refineries and capture record high refining margins. This reflects highly valuable integration. The downstream have delivered the best quarter ever from an exceptional combination of record high margin and strong throughput increase as all our refineries are running up at full speed, and SATORP is now back at nominal capacity since the end of the third quarter. We anticipate, of course, same level of refining treatments in the fourth quarter. In the gas and LNG value chain, our LNG and gas traders were able, this quarter, to capture benefits of our long position on gas, which is now proving to be a winning position as gas prices have been rising during first quarter.
With Europe attracting more LNG volumes right now and the TTF currently at around or above $30 per million BTU, LNG is still going up and we anticipate strong results as well for gas trading in Q4. Not only for gas trading, for LNG trading more globally. Second, our geographic diversification allowed us to mitigate the impacts of the Middle East crisis on our productions. The impact of the crisis in the Middle East on TotalEnergies' overall production was reduced to around 5% over the quarter on average, which was in the low range of the guidance provided last quarter. Still, the company was able to grow oil and gas production by more than 3% quarter t-over- quarter, supported by the ramp-up of projects launched in 2025, located mainly outside the Middle East.
Excluding Middle East impact, the production growth even exceeds 4% year-on-year, clearly reflecting our diversification in upstream growth. By the way, importantly as well, as we explained during the last CMD, during this quarter, we took a certain number of final investment decision, Cronos in Cyprus, Ima in Nigeria, Umm Shaif Gas Cap in Abu Dhabi, and Absheron Phase Two in Azerbaijan. All the projects contributing to achieving the upstream production growth targets of more than 3% per year by 2030 are in execution phase. In integrated LNG, with geographic diversification, we are producing LNG in 11 countries, and as well, the length of LNG portfolio allowed us this quarter to compensate the effects of Qatar volumes lost and not declare any force majeure to our LNG customers, which today is making TotalEnergies very popular in Asia.
At Gastech, Asian buyers were lining up at our booth to negotiate long-term contracts. By the way, this was also possible because we had a large LNG fleet tanker available at a cheap cost, which means that this, I would say, no force majeure had no impact, in fact, on our costs, on our global costs, and we delivered that very efficiently to our customers. We also achieved some key milestones this quarter, establishing our LNG marketing JV with Kumul Petroleum, the national oil company in PNG, for 2.4 million tons per year, and the signature of an offtake LNG agreement of 1.5 million tons per year, strengthening the diversification of our LNG portfolio towards fast-growing Asian markets.
I would say that this geographic diversification that some were considering some times ago as a weakness, because being deemed to be to expose globally is considered today as a strength by our customers and a strong edge against geopolitical risks. Finally, and very importantly, our operational performance across all business areas has been excellent again this quarter, I would say once again. Running our refineries at full capacity, optimizing utilization resulted in an increase of nearly 10% of our refining throughput this quarter, enabling the company to fully capture record high refining margins in Europe, but also in the U.S. and in the rest of the world, in particular Saudi Arabia. The company, once again, demonstrating its leadership to control costs with operating costs of $4.7 per barrel, anchored strongly below $5 per barrel.
By the way, this is the results of the cash saving program we launched in 2025 in view of a bearish year 2026, but the program is still live today and delivering. The power business also saw an increase of more than 20% in net production this quarter, taking, of course, full benefits from the integration of the assets from our JV with EPH. Integrated Power is again well on track and will be net cash positive in 2027. Given the company's strong operational and financial results delivered by each business segment this quarter, given the sustained high prices, the full year 2026 cash flow is now expected to be above $42 billion and maybe around even reaching $43 billion, supporting dividend growth while anchoring gearing below 10%. It is already 9%, but will be lower by the end of the year.
In this context, and in line with the objective and the commitment of returning 40% of cash flow to shareholders, the board of directors has taken following decisions. First, we confirm the third interim dividend at EUR 0.90 a share, up 5.99% compared to 2025. Second, with the board authorized share buybacks of $2.5 billion in the fourth quarter and also $2.5 billion share buybacks in the first quarter, the board finally asked me to tell you that it reiterates its commitment to return 40% of cash flow to shareholders, and that if necessary, it might adjust upwards the final dividend to meet the 40% return. I will now hand over to Jean-Pierre to go through the details of the third quarter financials.
Thank you, Patrick. I will start by commenting on the price environment for the first quarter of 2026 versus the second quarter. We capture high prices across most commodities. Brent and liquid price remain elevated and increased throughout the quarter with the prolonged impact of the Middle East conflicts. Brent averaged $97 per barrel during the third quarter versus $104 per barrel in the second quarter, down $7 per barrel, while the average liquid price was $87 per barrel. Liquid selling price continued to reflect an elevated freight cost and decreased by $4.50 per barrel compared to the second quarter. TTF averaged $21.5 per million BTU, up 38% since last quarter average price of $15.6 per million BTU, driven by low inventories and the upcoming winter season demands.
Our average LNG price increased by 20% to $12.3 per million BTU, reflecting the lag effects embedded in our contract pricing formulas and the increase in spot gas prices. The European refining margin, which include cost of natural gas, CO2, and freight costs, increased to an historically high level of $33 per barrel on average over the quarter, 2.5 times higher than the last quarter, supported by an unprecedented combination of unavailability of Russian refining capacity, the disruption of the supply from the Middle East, and global inventories at historical lows. In this high-price environment, TotalEnergies leveraged its integrated business model and geographical diversification to deliver very strong financial results, underpinned by the outcoming operational performance of all businesses and the company's ability to capture value upside in disruptions.
We are reporting adjusted net income of $9.1 billion in the third quarter, increasing by more than 50% compared to the second quarter, and cash flow of $12.3 billion. TotalEnergies has delivered strong profitability this quarter with return on equity at 19.6% and ROACE at 17.4%. Let me now highlight four key takeaways from the quarter. Upstream delivered production growth up more than 3% quarter-to-quarter, notably due to the lower impact from the Middle East conflicts. Downstream achieved record-high quarterly results with cash flow increasing by almost $2 billion compared with the previous quarter, underpinned by all our well-functioning refineries. This allowed the company to fully capture historically high refining margins in Europe and worldwide. Oil trading activities also outperformed at a level comparable with the two previous quarters.
Integrated LNG delivered very strong results, more than doubling compared to the previous quarter, reflecting the 20% increase in average LNG price and the outperformance of LNG and gas trading activities in the bull markets. Integrated Power cash flow generation continued to increase this quarter, supported by full quarter contribution from TTEP, our joint venture with EPH. Let's now dive into each of the business segments, starting with hydrocarbons. Third quarter hydrocarbons production was 2.47 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. On a year-on-year basis, excluding the impact of the Middle East conflict, production would be up by more than 4%, supported by the startups and ramp-ups of the project launched since the beginning of 2025 and benefiting from gradual return to normal oil operation in the Middle East.
Over the quarter, the impact on production from the conflict in the Middle East is limited to around 5%, which is in the low range of the guidance given last quarter, the guidance being 5%-10%. Looking forward, we expect to maintain strong momentum with hydrocarbons production in the first quarter, excluding the Middle East impact, expected to grow by more than 3% year-on-year, in line with the annual guidance. At present, we observe the impact of the Middle East below 5%, mostly coming from limited export from LNG volumes through the Strait of Hormuz, but we note that the situation remains volatile. Turning now to quarterly results for E&P. The segment generated an adjusted net operating income of $3.2 billion in this quarter, and a cash flow of $5.4 billion, reflecting production growth and sensitivity to declining oil price and rising gas prices quarter-to-quarter.
On the cost side, as mentioned by Patrick Pouyanné, we continue to lead low-cost operation with an average OpEx per barrel of $4.7, below our guidance of less than $5 per barrel of oil equivalent. On integrated LNG, the LNG production decreased by 7% quarter-to-quarter, mainly due to plant maintenance, notably on Angola LNG and Ichthys LNG. Adjusted net operating income was $1.9 billion, and CFFO was $1.7 billion, underpinned by a 20% increase of average LNG prices, and in contrast with the second quarter, positively impacted by the outperformance of LNG and gas trading activities in the bull markets, given the ongoing conflict in the Strait of Hormuz and seasonality of the months.
Given the evolution of oil and gas prices in recent months and the lag effect on pricing formula, the company anticipates an average LNG selling price above $14 per million BTU for the first quarter 2026. Turning now to Integrated Power. Over the first nine months of 2026, net power generation increased to 44.3 terawatt hour, up 25% year-on-year, driven by the growth of Integrated Power generation portfolio, notably the commissioning of new renewable capacities and the contribution of TTEP's assets in line with expectations. TotalEnergies is therefore on track to reach its annual objective in Integrated Power business to generate more than 60 terawatt hour over the year. Cash flow from operation was up 7% quarter-to-quarter at nearly $0.8 billion, supported by the contribution from TTEP assets over a full quarter. Moving to downstream.
During the third quarter, refining and chemicals achieved record results, driven by refinery throughputs up nearly 10% over the quarter, underpinned by all refineries well functioning in Europe and in the U.S., for Arthur, and the progressive return of the SATORP refinery in Saudi Arabia to its nominal capacity successfully reached at the end of the quarter. Refining and chemicals adjusted net operating income was up to $3.6 billion, and cash flow was up to $3.9 billion, demonstrating the segment's ability to capture historically high refining margins in Europe and worldwide. Meanwhile, oil trading activities continue to outperform. Marketing and services delivered solid results with adjusted net operating income of nearly $0.5 billion and cash flow of nearly $0.7 billion in the third quarter, reflecting higher unit margins that more than offset lower volumes.
Let me reemphasize the strong CFFO generated by the company over the quarter of $12.3 billion, up 25% compared to last quarter. Net investment remained disciplined at $3.3 billion in the third quarter, in line with the annual guidance of a full year 2026 net investment of $15 billion. The company delivered an attractive shareholder return this quarter, totaling $3.7 billion, including dividends of $2.2 billion and share buyback of $1.5 billion. At the same time, the company reduced its net debts, underpinned by a free cash flow after payment of dividends of more than $6 billion and a positive working capital contribution of $3.1 billion during the third quarter. This reduction of the working capital, notably driven by the increase in tax liability related to higher prices and an increase in suppliers payable related to the increased shipping costs.
As a result, the gearing improved by four percentage points to reach 9.1%, already below the 10% level we guide at CMD for end 2026. To conclude, the integrated model and geographical diversification of TotalEnergies continues to demonstrate the company's exceptional ability to produce and deliver reliable energy and to capture higher prices and higher margin with a growing cash flow that supports growing the dividend, deleveraging the company, investing to deliver attractive growth by 2030 and beyond, and increasing share buybacks for our shareholders to $2.5 billion per quarter in the first quarter and in the first quarter 2027. With that, Patrick and I are available for your question. Operator, please open the line for questions.
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session. As a reminder, if you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. Please kindly mute any audio resources while asking a question. If you wish to cancel your request, please press star two. Once again, please press star one if you wish to ask a question. The first question is from Lydia Rainforth, from Barclays. Please go ahead.
Thank you, and good afternoon to both of you, and I really appreciate the call. Two questions, if I could. Firstly, just coming back to, Patrick, what you said on the potential for the final dividends being adjusted upwards. Are you thinking special dividends on that one? Secondly, I know it's only a month since we had the Capital Markets Day, but I did want to come back to the upstream growth ambitions to 2035 because there has been a lot of discussions about the resources that need to be added. I know the ability to add resources at a competitive cost has always been a strength of TotalEnergies, and you've given us a lot of visibility on the plans for 2035.
But the gap that you have, is that an unusual gap this far out, or are you better positioned than you would expect or slightly weaker? I just want to get a sense of the urgency in which you might want to add resources or whether it's something that you're relaxed about. Thanks.
Okay. The second question is just related to the third quarter results versus CMD. Just to clarify, we have no urgency at all. Be clear. I think what we told you at the CMD is that we are already in 2026. Until 2035, we see a plateau of 3 million barrel oil per day. It's quite unusual for an oil and gas company to have zero decline during five years. We gave you the list of the projects which are already there. So from this strong basis, announcing potential growth for 2%-3% is not, I would say, there is nothing spectacular. Of course, 2% it would be easier than 3%. It's just a normal, I would say. We are demonstrating our ability in the last 10 years, either through exploration or through access to DROs, to, I would say, deliver this growth.
So it's just a continuity, so we have no urgency. Secondly, I would say, just wait maybe with Monday morning, you will have a beginning of an answer to that. We'll make some announcements about access to DROs. You will see that we continue to be active on this matter. It's a permanent, I would say. I think the strength of TotalEnergies, since 2015, we have consistently looked to, I would say, book reserves, either 1P, 2P, and I think it's a strength of the company, so that's just a question of trust. So we are very good. Yes, and I would say, are you better positioned than usually? The answer is yes, because we have already a visibility of zero decline until 2035, from 2030 to 2035. Thank you, Lydia, for the question. I hope I clarified. Maybe my English is not good enough.
The question I just mentioned to you. Look, we committed to 40%. Okay? If you take $42 billion, 40% with $8 billion of buyback plus $8.6 billion dividend, it's okay. If we are not at $42 billion, but we are at $43 billion, and I mentioned that figure during my speech, then there is a lack somewhere of, let's say, $400 million, let's say 500. So the question for the board is just what I told you. The board asked me to tell you that in that case, when we will decide the final dividend in February, in fact, we have a normal final dividend, but we'll consider, I would say, an uplift of the final dividend and $400 or $500 million represent 2,400 is $0.20 per share in fact. We have 2.5 billion shares.
We might consider in order to meet the commitment to put, I would say, I do not know if you call it special, an uplift dividend on the final dividend, not making it. We will pay it together with the final dividend. That is the way that we want to respect the commitment. Honestly, we will all be happy if we reach 43 billion rather than 42. That is, I would say, what I am adding today. First, some of you told us we are conservative on the $40 billion at the CMD. Not sure. Honestly, we learn month after month, but today, maybe we are less. We say 42 and maybe even 43, and then we are committed to 40%. That is what you need to understand.
Amazing. Thank you.
Thank you.
The next question is from Biraj Borkhataria from RBC. Please go ahead.
Hi, thanks for taking my question. Just two, please. The first one is on Integrated Gas. You had a really strong result, and obviously you flagged the long gas position with the CMD and the commentary around that. I was wondering how we should think about the flow-through into the fourth quarter and sort of the exceptional element and the reversal in the third quarter, and how we should think about the earnings sustaining at this level into the fourth quarter. My second question is just on Uganda. Can you get a quick update ahead of the startup and sort of commissioning activities and where we are now and risk factors and so on? Thank you.
On LNG, I told you during my speech, I think I gave you a good indication of what we anticipate on the fourth quarter. In fact, our position, you have seen that TTF continues to go up. It is at $33 per million BTU. We anticipate, I would say I was looking to exactly what I just told you a few minutes ago. I just told you that with Europe attracting more LNG volume right now and TTF currently around or above $30 per million BTU, LNG is still going up and we anticipate strong results as well as for gas trading in Q4, which means you should expect the performance in the same range for Q4. That is part of why when I am trying to anticipate or I would say the global cash flow for the year, there is today a range of $42 billion-$43 billion.
I would add as well that we put in the forecast, we announced that the LNG price would be above $14 per million BTU. In fact, it was based on an assumption on TTF, I think around 25 or 27. At 33, we are more next to 15 than 14, I would say. I see only potentially, I would say some good upsides on the LNG business in the fourth quarter. That is what I could comment on this one. On Uganda, I think there are two different things. We have, of course, EACOP, the pipeline, which is progressing well because the intent is to start up Kingfisher, the offshore production this year. To start up Kingfisher, we need the EACOP to be fully commissioned. So we are at 95%, I think, or something like that.
As I said during the CMD on Kingfisher, we expect to start up during the first half, I think of 2027. As I explained, we had some delays on some equipment coming, going through the Strait of Hormuz. So we have a six-month delay, but all the teams are today working hard in order to deliver this production by first half. That is what I can tell you on your two topics.
Thank you.
The next question is from Jason Gabelman from TD Cowen. Please go ahead.
Yeah. Hey, thanks for taking my questions. Patrick, you commented at the CMD a month ago about potential appetite for U.S. shale acquisitions. We have had investors asking about those comments since then. Prior to the event, you previously said you were interested in shale gas rather than shale oil. I was hoping you could clarify if you want to grow your oil business in the United States and if it involves shale. I will ask my second question now as well. The other focus from investors that we have heard is on the uncertainty in France. I was hoping you could talk through TotalEnergies' earnings exposure directly to France, potential risks of new taxes the government can impose on TotalEnergies, and then any thoughts around impact on cost of capital given what is going on in the country. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you for the two questions, which will help me to clarify the first one. Let me be clear. Our M&A is countercyclical. I am not sure that acquiring any oil production in the world today will be a lot. There will be a countercyclical when you see the price of oil. So no panic. Secondly, we always said in the U.S. that our priority is on gas, natural gas. We have a big LNG position. We want to integrate the value chain. By the way, today, natural gas is quite low and it is more countercyclical. Today it is $3, I would say. But there are also some liquids with gas. That is all my comments. I like gas. I like the liquids as well. There is no opposition of the liquid. So that is the priority today. We said that we are targeting something like 1 BCFD.
We want to continue to grow in the LNG in the U.S. so 1.5, 2 BCFD would be for us a good target. Keep that in mind. My comments has been extrapolated. I just continue to think that liquid is good as well as gas. That's all. The U.S. is a good area of investment for TotalEnergies. We are, I would say, compared to our peers, not weaker or less exposed to the U.S., if I can speak about exposure. We have a larger buyer base of U.S. investors. Our board is pushing, is supportive of move in the U.S. if we have the opportunity. Again, as I said also today, we have a strong base of growth today, so it's not to grow. It's more to another position to be at. It's a question of finding reasonable access to resource.
We have done already three JVs natural gas. We continue to work as well on this mode of continuing to develop the gas position. We'll have some news in 2 months on that. France, good question. First, I repeat to all of you, the French state is not a shareholder of TotalEnergies. I spent my whole chose to re-explaining that to all our investors. Maybe you could help me, all of us, all of you, by explaining that there is no direct interest of French state in TotalEnergies. There is no golden share. There is no say. We are a publicly listed company which is managed independently. First comment. Second comment, we are a global company, largely international company. I think our results or our cash flow, let's say, and capital employed is around 7% is located in France.
To give you a round figure, I don't know if it's 6, 7, 8, depends on the year. It's not a French company. It's headquartered in France, and we are proud of that like all the French people. We have grown on that basis. I think it's even sometimes a strong advantage in some parts of the world. Geopolitically, we are the only non-Anglo-Saxon major oil and gas company, so it has some value as well. I would say that's the second point. Third, on taxation, if you had listened yesterday to the debate at the parliament, it was a lot about the taxation of TotalEnergies. The government has pushed back all the amendments. None of them has been adopted. Why? Because again, I repeat, we took this initiative in the country to put a ceiling on the gasoline and diesel price for the customers.
We have been very clear with all the authorities that if they were taxing us, then we will, of course, give up this ceiling. I think today, government rightly, I think I saw, consider that what we bring as a protection to the customers is largely worth, I would say, politically, the addition, what would be a taxation. By the way, you probably noticed that France did not sign the letter to the EU Commission to ask for a special taxation of oil and gas companies. Of course, politics is politics, but that's the situation. I'm convinced that our direct action to customers in France was the right move that we've done. Of course, I know it's bold, it's innovative, but it's a way to preserve. By the way, we have the benefit of it in terms of image with our customers.
I'm sure you have asked questions. The cost of this protection is, of course, more expensive today because with the diesel and gasoline going up, it costs us a little more, is around, I would say by end October, a little around $500 billion, more or less. I remind you that in 2022, we paid more taxes. By the way, for French people and French auditors, the good news is that because we have good French business this year, refining in France are running well. We should pay around EUR 500 billion of corporate tax. If I'm adding up both, it's an exceptional contribution to the country of EUR 1 billion, I would say, which I think is quite sizable with a direct impact to customers. That's my comments.
Again, we don't control politics, but we do our best in order to explain that today, and I think it's more and more perceived by TotalEnergies is an asset for the country and should be as well considered by the different leaderships.
Great. Thanks for the answers, Patrick.
Yeah.
The next question is from Martijn Rats of Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Yeah. Hi. Hello. Two questions from my side as well. I just wanted to come back to the CFFO figure of $42 billion- $43 billion. Because if you look at where commodity prices are, dated Brent is 120 TTF, nearly 100 yesterday. Refining margin is pretty darn good. If the comment is also that trading in the fourth quarter will be once again strong, it wouldn't be beyond the wit of man to think that the fourth quarter would be even higher than that. This then raises the question whether the $42 billion- $43 billion sort of indication either just embeds some conservatism because, okay, these prices are on the screen now, but they might change. Or whether there might perhaps be some working capital outflow or some payments that might be overlooking, that might be sort of a bit unusual in the fourth quarter.
I presume it's the former rather than the latter, but I wanted to raise the question nonetheless, whether there might be anything in the fourth quarter that we should be aware of from a cash perspective. The second question I wanted to ask relates to the hybrid. There is about EUR 1.7 billion in the net debt from the EUR 1.5 billion hybrid that you called, and I was wondering what your approach to hybrids now is. Would you expect the hybrid to be refinanced with another hybrid, or is this hybrid now called and that's sort of the end of it? Perhaps give some clarity on that and also how that is impacting the various line items in the balance sheet. Maybe some detail on that, because that can be quite tricky to figure out.
Hold on. First, no, I said cash flow from operation will be above 42, might be around 43. With that, honestly, Martijn, I don't know if you know and whoever knows in the planet what the U.S. president will decide after the midterms in the Middle East. I don't know. Nobody knows, in fact. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal that it could be a short but brutal conflict. I don't know. We'll see. What will be the impact on the market? Honestly, today, I'm somewhere amazed. In the spring, everybody and the forward curve, all the markets were behaving as if the war will end by summertime. I don't know where it was written. The forward were lower. Today, everybody believes, the market believes the war will stay for long. I don't know.
Honestly, by giving you, I would say, a guidance of above 42 and around 43, I think we are probably right in the ballpark. If it's more, again, the commitment of the board is that if it was 43.5, for example, you will get back the 40% of the additional cash flow from net list on the final dividend. That's what I can tell you. There is no way. On the second point, when we speak about cash flow from operation, there is no impact on working capital. Honestly, on the fourth quarter, that's true that this quarter is quite unusual. We had, I would say, an inflow, quite a big inflow in the third quarter. Generally, the fourth quarter, we explained to you why.
We anticipate, but it's very difficult, to be honest, to anticipate working capital movements with this, because with the price of oil, which has an impact on all the inventories, et cetera, where the company, where the price of Brent will be end of the year, I don't know. Today, I would say we anticipate a plus one, minus one, a neutral position on the fourth quarter under the control of Jean-Pierre. We don't have any unusual cash items that we anticipate for the fourth quarter. Again, I would be happy to have been wrong, but I think we give you a good guidance today, and if we are wrong because we make more cash flow, that will not be bad for our investors because, again, we return 40%. The hybrids.
The hybrids, it's a typical topic for Jean-Pierre, which is an expert in hybrids, so I will give him the floor to explain. Today, in fact-
Yeah, that's true that we call hybrids maturing in October, in our balance sheet, will impact our balance sheet end of September for EUR 1.5 billion, so $1.7 billion. Year after year, we decrease the hybrid stocks. We'll see in the future, the strategy that we will follow on that topic.
No, but I think it's important. Jean-Pierre is a fan of the hybrid because of the cost of the hybrid.
Yes, it's 3%.
It's 3%.
Yes. At present, yes.
The question for us at 3%, today, if we issue a bond, it's about 3.5-4.
Four, yes.
Why should we get rid of these hybrids at 3%? Of course, the question will be, and it is a good question, linked to what will be the perspective of the interest rates, at which price could we refinance these hybrids or not. But again, it is linked to, I would say, the low gearing position. If we continue to have some cash flow, of course, this could impact the way we manage the different source of, I would say, treasury for the company. This is one of them. There are also, as you know, some standards, and if standard is the right name, discussions regularly with rating agencies, and at which point do we consider that hybrids are equity and at which point they become a debt. That is part of the debate.
Again, for me, on this topic, I would say to you, what is the most important for me as a CEO is what is the cost of the debt? This is a cost for me, for the company, because this is the out cash. You call it a hybrid or it is called a bond, I do not see much difference from my office. That is the policy that we are following on this topic. To have the detail of the impact on the balance sheet, I think before to explain you that, Martijn, I will need Jean-Pierre and Arnaud to explain that to me. It will take a little time.
I recognize that.
Okay. Thank you.
The next question is from Christopher Kuplent from Bank of America. Please go ahead.
Yeah. Thank you very much. Patrick, I am going to keep it to one question on your outlook regarding Europe's gas prices and the market that we now enter into, given we have heating season and you have, I guess, more insight than we have into what is happening at Yamal. Do you think, with the re-routings going on in 2027, that Yamal can maintain its utilization, or do you think there will be a net loss of LNG volumes because it will be harder to send tankers around the world if Europe is no longer taking it? Thank you.
I think you have the answer in your question. Because as you know, first, on the outlook of European gas price, I would say it is quite clear that we are entering in a dangerous period. We have seen the price has reached as anticipated, by the way, EUR 100 per megawatt hour, so it becomes to be a political, I would say, a strong signal. It is clear that unfortunately, winter season is a peak season, but Qatar has restarted some LNG production and exports. But today, in September, October, I would say you had more or less around from Qatar or from Abu Dhabi, by the way, because both countries are producing. We had only 25% of the normal LNG tankers flow going through the Strait of Hormuz compared to pre-war.
Only 25%, it means that you have quite a big volume, knowing a month is more or less 6, 7, 8 million tons, 7 million tons. If you have 25, you have a lack of LNG, and this LNG would be useful. That is true, but there is a stress, and today you have, I would say, a competition again between Europe and Asia to get this LNG, the remaining LNG flowing to Europe, and Europeans are ready to pay for that. That is, I would say, Yamal, as you know, first, from January 2027, 1st of January 2027, Yamal LNG will not come to Europe anymore, to the EU, by the sanctions regime. Yamal was representing, in fact, more or less 15 million tons, I think, to Europe in 2026 or 2025, 15.15.
The rest of the production of Yamal, which is around 19 or 20, if I remember, is going to China, to Asia, fundamentally to China. As you also know, there has been an amendment to the sanction in July, in which there is a Dynagas, which is an EU ship owner of an LNG tanker, has been authorized to ship some LNG from Yamal outside of the EU. That means that this fleet is limited. It is a limited LNG fleet, and of course, there is an impact. Where will the LNG go? If it goes to Mediterranean Sea, that is not much different with EU. If it has to go to India, of course, it is a longer trip. If it goes to China, it is even longer trip. On our side, historically, we had, I don't want to make it, 5 million tons of LNG contracts with Yamal.
There is 1 million ton, which is in fact not possible because of the sanctions for different reason, which is not eligible, so we have 4. When we make the math today we think that we might off-take between 3, maybe 4, let's say 3 million tons. It will depend again about where this LNG will go through. I just described you for TotalEnergies, just to explain to you that I don't have the full picture of Yamal, to be honest, because we have limited today our interest only on what can be done according to the EU sanctions. But yes, the answer to you is yes, there will be an impact, if you have with less. The EU was a natural destination from the LNG tankers just because of optimizing the shipping freight, in fact, and the shipping costs.
The fact that it cannot come to EU definitely from January 2027 will have an impact on the capacity of the plant to export its full volumes. I don't have a clear vision as well, to be honest, about the relationship today between Yamal and the Chinese off-takers, because this is also the other part of the equation. That is my comment on this one.
Thank you.
The next question is from Michele Della Vigna of Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Thank you, and congratulations on the strong quarter. Two things I wanted to ask. First, in a quarter of unprecedented freight rates, I was wondering if you could tell us a little bit how you think about your current tanker portfolio, how much is on long-term rates versus spot, and how this impacts your realizations and trading capabilities. Then finally, we have seen a big increase in appetite for long-term LNG contracts with customers trying to diversify away from Hormuz. I was wondering if that is leading to an improvement in the pricing. I would think recently the oiling contracts have been around 12.5% oil slope, if we are seeing an improvement on that. Thank you.
So two questions there. Thank you. First, freight rates. I think it is a new topic. I never had a question since I am CEO about freight rates, and only they become popular. Different comments on this one. First, you probably noticed that our liquid realization, there was a difference between the third quarter and the second quarter of $6 per barrel. The $6 per barrel represents more or less these additional freight costs, which is, in fact, in our portfolio quite limited because our policy, in fact, today we have some long-term, medium and long-term, I would say, what I pay some.
Charter
charter, which represent more or less 40% of the equity that we off-take. Why 40% is a good figure? Because, in fact, as you know, our average taxation rate on upstream is around 45%, so 40%, that means that we are somewhere trying to neutralize the impact on our equity crude oil of, I would say, variable rates. The second comment is that all charter, with medium and long-term, are really with fixed rates. We do not sign within TotalEnergies charters, which will be with a link to, I would say, a spot market. We do not just reserve a capacity. We have a capacity. We have the tanker plus a freight. And of course, our traders this week during this quarter, and I think next quarter, are benefiting today from having this fleet available, which, of course, is giving some positive results to their value chain, in fact.
That is, I would say, the second strength of the positions. So it is impacting, I would say, positively trading capabilities. And then, of course, it is up to our trading, by the way, for the rest of their business. They are also negotiating, it is their job, access to a third party, I would say, tankers. One of the success of the third quarter, which I think will move on to the fourth quarter, is that they have been able to have access to some tankers going inside the Strait of Hormuz, off-taking, in particular, some Iraqi crude oil, and then exiting and then making this trade as generating some positive results. So that is our philosophy on trading rates. And I think there is a difference between different companies, because some competitors have some charters but linked to the spot market for freights, which is not our case.
When we charter, we charter on fixed rates. Yes. Second question. It is true, but again, as I mentioned during my speech, at Gastech, we had a number of long queue of customers coming to us. Clearly, there is a trend there in Asia, I would say, to try to escape from the volatility of those JKM. JKM is not very popular. It was the case in 2022. We tend to forget in 2024, 2025 today. Again, this volatility clearly for these economies is not good, so they are coming back to ask a link to Brent. And of course, in such an environment, there is a trend for some of them to move from 12 to 8.5. The improvement is not as well, I would say. You do not pitch today higher than 12.5, I would say.
But again, it is negotiation, so it depends where you are, of course, where the LNG is procured. In short, we are just commercializing the Papua LNG, I would say, volumes, 2.4 million tons with Kumul, and we have some good results from this perspective, which will help the profitability of Papua LNG.
Thank you, Patrick.
The next question is from Alastair Syme from Citi. Please go ahead.
Thank you. Hi, Patrick. Just one question. I wanted to get your thoughts about the current environment in downstream and whether that makes you think any differently about investing in that business. I am really thinking about geographical mix or pushing more into biofuels or mix of assets versus trading. Is there anything on your mind from what we have seen in recent months? Thank you.
I have been blunt during the CMD. I told you, no, I will not invest in new refineries. I maintain that position. I think it is quite exceptional. Of course, it encouraged us to maybe consider maintaining these capacities, and that is the old ports. Biofuels, honestly, it is a complex economy. It is a regulated economy. So there might be some pockets, but we have to be careful about the way that the regulation will evolve. There is, in some countries, a trend to more biofuels, but you know in Europe, there is always a debate between food and biofuel, which is continuously impacting the development of that business. We have been opportunistic. We will start up the Grandpuits biorefinery in this quarter. So we will have access to more HVO. HVO seems to become a more popular fuel.
In Europe, there has been a deal between France and Germany about the new light vehicles regulation, where the French have accepted that a vehicle, an IC vehicle, which would be supplied by 100% HVO, would be acceptable. We do not know for which volume, because it is a matter of volume. There is something happening there. All that is regulated. We need, of course, to be sure that this regulation will not change again in a few years. In our environment today, I would say, by the way, what we have done fundamentally was to maintain, reduce the European exposure because of the trend. This is a question mark that we maintain. Outside, we have developed our platforms in Port Arthur, and we have developed it by integration of petrochemical. We have this big refinery of SATORP, which we complement by Amiral.
I think it was the right strategy to go where the energy is cheap. In fact, for me, you make refineries, it is better to go where energy is cheap. That is very simple. I would say, but we will not change our strategy. Our strategy is fundamentally oil and gas upstream. It is integration and maintaining, I would say, downstream as a cash cow. I think today it is a superb cash cow, so that is good for us. And continuing to invest in Integrated Power, which has a good momentum, by the way, today in both sides of the Atlantic, U.S. and Europe, with all this AI and activity. I would say, I do not see an inflection on the business.
Having said that, the question will be, again, to consider that these midstream assets have a value, an opportunistic value, and then taking decisions to shut down might be more tricky than it was before. That is, I would say, the strategic conclusion. But we will review, and maybe my question would be different if I see three years in a row of $20 per barrel of refining margin. For the time being, I am happy with what happened. I think the refining margin in Europe will remain quite good, quite strong during the first half of 2027, because we will embark the consequence of the crisis, low inventories. Beyond, it is very difficult to say what will happen. And honestly, that is one of the most complex question for us is what assumption do we take on refining margin for 2027 for the budget?
Do not ask me because we will depend on our mood in December or January. We will see.
Great. Thanks very much.
The next question is from Matt Lofting from JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Thanks, everybody, for taking the questions. I will just ask one on capital allocation. Given the strength of position that this year's cash flow and deleveraging creates for TotalEnergies, do you see any further opportunities
outside of the comments that you just made on refining to accelerate the strategy through incremental organic investment, which can further enhance the business's cash flow leverage to price, whilst also helping France and Europe solve for energy security? If so, in what areas of the businesses could some of those opportunities sit? Thank you.
Honestly, I think for us, first, no. We have a strategy. We have a plan. We will not become procyclical because suddenly we have more cash. That's the beginning of the mistake, of the short-term mistake. Fundamentally, yes, there is a point. I would say yes on the point that, as I said during, I think, the CMD. Of course today, making infill wells to produce more oil in Angola, in Nigeria, there are opportunities. We will review their budget soon. If they are asking $500 million or $300 million, I will not say no stupidly because it's a short-term delivery. Of course, this is what we see. For me, the short-term, the short cycle CapEx that we can easily, I would say, arbitrate.
I think one of the lessons on the question is, of course, we are looking to do we need to have For example, where I'm ready to consider to have more, I would say, working capital is maybe more LNG charter, if we need to be long on the mid-stream assets. That's a possibility. Chartering, not to be perfectly efficient, but to have some margins, in order to be able to capture the volatility. That's one of the lessons. I would say investing in some pipeline in the Middle East, because this is part of the security of supply and it's also giving value to our own assets. That I agree. To invest in Europe for energy security in fossil fuels, I will need to see a different Bible at the European Parliament, to be honest. I'm not sure we are still there.
Honestly, let's not jump suddenly in that direction. I just mentioned that we could maintain our business today, and that's true. To grow in fossil fuels in Europe, I will need to hear a different narrative from the European political leaders, and I'm not sure they are still there. But again, we work with them on that. But our investment for TotalEnergies, honestly, when we contribute to security of supply of Europe, is more when we invest outside of Europe. Investing in U.S. energy, investing in Brazilian oil, investing in Mozambique energy. That's contributive to the security of supply of the continent. I think it's more our DNA. We have been created 100 years ago on this assumption, and I think this is what we do. That's my comment.
Very good. Very clear. Thank you.
Discipline on capital allocation is a key word.
The next question is from Kim Fustier of HSBC. Please go ahead.
Hi. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions. I have two, please. You've just referred to potentially participating in pipeline routes through Abu Dhabi, Iraq and Syria. What would you need to see in terms of utilization, tariff, and contractual protection for these investments in new export infrastructure to earn an adequate return, especially if this capacity might be valuable only during periods of disruption? Secondly, given the very high cost of moving crude long distances, have you sort of changed your crude sourcing or refinery optimization to reduce freight exposure? Does your integrated trading system allow you to protect your realized refining margins better than, say, regional or local refiners can? Thank you.
Well, first question, we are discussing today on different schemes. We are participating to two projects. I cannot today, I would say, answer precisely. There are negotiations, so I cannot enter into sharing commercial discussions today with you. Again, I think at the end of the day, the right word is that we need to be sure that the upstream revenue is not moving to the midstream one. So it's a question of balancing the position between the upstream and the midstream, and I think that's a question. It's a question of protection. Again, yes, I know all that, but this is being discussed, and when we'll have a better clarity on it, I will come back to you. Today is premature to comment on that, and I don't want to interfere today with any of the discussions.
The second one, it is a permanent, I would say, optimization of the crude slate of refinery. It is part of the permanent job of what we call refinery optimizer, working very closely with the traders. We have, in fact, an organization in Geneva around the same desk where we have the refining optimizer just next to the crude trader, and they permanently look to the different slates. When we lost the Russian oil, we had to find other slates for refineries. Today, of course, it is an optimization which integrates, obviously, the cost of shipping. That is part of it. Before it was, I would say, cost of shipping was 5% of the cost of Brent. I would say $2, $3 per barrel. Today, we speak about $25 per barrel. Of course, this is part of the equation to optimize the supply of the refinery.
Of course, if you can have access to some barrels from Norway, oil barrels from Norway, it is more efficient than from a longer distance. This is why I think fundamentally, I repeat, our model is very efficient Integration. At the end, in our results, as you notice, refining chemicals, this is the reason why we integrate in one segment, refinery and trading, because this is, for me, it is up to us to decide what is the price. What I want them together is not to have a fight between traders and the refiners, but to optimize the supplies of the refineries, which of course, has a value for our traders. By the way, just to clarify for you, in our European refining margin, but I am sure you know about it is not a pure difference of petroleum products minus crude oil.
It integrates in the European refining margin, the cost of the freight, the cost of natural gas, and the cost of CO2. That is why when you see $50 in the U.S., where of course, you have no natural gas, it is very cheap, energy is cheap. I would say, there is no CO2, and the freight is limited to pipelines. Today, Port Arthur is benefiting more from $50 per barrel and not from $25 per barrel. So the indicator is taking into account this long-distance impact, which could happen, again, which we optimize and we change the crude slate according to what is the best mix. Of course, we also optimize considering the slate of the products. If you want to make more diesel, we select crude oil, which are being able to deliver more diesel or jet fuel than gasoline. That is also part of the equation.
It is, by the way, a very interesting job for young people to optimize permanently, the refining optimizer. Maybe, Kim, you should be invited by one of them during one day. We will see what they do. I am grateful. We will have more interest. We will recruit you to do that. Thank you. Thank you.
The next question is from Doug Leggate from Wolfe Research. Please go ahead.
Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Patrick, I wonder if I could take two quick ones. First, your gearing is now under 10%. How much lower are you prepared to allow that to go? I assume, deploying windfall cash flow to the balance sheet is still a good idea. My follow-up is, if we can go back to a question from earlier regarding the post 2030 visibility. A really simple question. With what you know today from the portfolio, what's the most likely way to fill the gap to growth? Is it exploration, new project entries, or M&A? Thank you.
The second question is quite easy. You look to our performance in the last 10 years. It's DROs, access to new projects is fairly the easiest one. In particular, if you are able to make some direct discussions where we have been quite good at. I would say, when you look down, exploration is also part of it. I would say it's 25%. M&A is another topic. It's a different approach. It's not when we speak, when I mentioned the 2%-3%, we didn't have big M&A in ahead, to be clear with you. Just to clarify. The largest M&A we've done in E&P was Maersk Oil, historically for EUR 8 billion or $8 billion. So when I mentioned the two to three, don't interpret that at an announcement of a big M&A. If there was a big M&A, we'd be on the top.
The base would be higher. So that's not what we had in mind. It was fundamentally, I would say, 70% DRO, 75% DRO, 25% exploration, like we've done during the last 10 years. First one, it's a good question. I had several times this question, so that means you're good to hear. There is a point there, which is also, it's quite complex equation, because you could look at it from a financial point of view. There is a point today where as long as the interest rates are low, and that we deliver, if we pay 3% or 4% for the debts and we have a yield of 5%, I don't know why we would go to 0%. There is a point where I could see a financial balance.
Then you could also say, which is in fact, also share, that is why the board could be inclined to be a very strong balance sheet. We have a world of crisis. We do not know where we will go. Today, I would say, it is a crisis which is pushing price up. You could have another crisis, like we had in 2020, price would go down. So to have a very strong balance sheet will allow us to swallow this crisis. Our two U.S. peers in 2015 were in the positive part, and it helped them a lot. I think the journey of these two companies was quite different from 2015 to 2025 to the journey of the European majors, partly because of that. I will be happy to face, really, I think to face such questions practically. Maybe it could come.
We will have to continue to evaluate the pro and cons and to say where we go. But there is no taboo there. No taboo, but to be pragmatic in the way to, again, manage the global cash of the company, knowing that I noticed that some of you count the lease, et cetera, so we need to look at all the equation as well. Some of you have reported that we are not yet under 10, we are 14. So to be under 10 for some of you, I need to be under six, if I understand correctly the comments this morning. So maybe my objective to be under six, so that I will stop these comments that we are not at 10, but at 14. I can work on that. Maybe it is easier as a first target. Okay.
Maybe just for clarification, Patrick, do you see any value in a special dividend?
No, I told you, I answered to that. I have been clear. There is a value if you announce it in advance or in fact, what we are just doing today by telling you, we can put a small top-up on the final dividend, which would be 40% of the difference of cash flow to meet the 40%. I give you an equation today. I told you today that 40% of the cash flow minus $8 billion of buyback, that we have minus $8.6 billion of dividends, will be the base of this, I would say, top-up of the final dividend. That is the way we work on it.
But again, what I will notice, when we were clear at the CMD, when me and my investment team has done a road show with all the investors, that a large majority, not all of them, of course, but I see 80% or 85% were more in favor of deleveraging than a special dividend. Because the special dividend, we need to put a formula. Consider that today with a 40% of cash flow, we have a sort of formula. But we could also match it directly with a buyback. The buyback is a normal way to match the 40%. This year, because we are, I would say, running because the positive or high results, we will do it by putting a top-up on the final dividend.
Thank you so much.
The next question is from Mark Wilson from Jefferies. Please go ahead.
Okay, thank you. Just two points, Patrick, maybe you could clarify on. You spoke before about some LNG moving out of the Gulf. There has been reports of volumes getting back to pre-war levels in terms of oil, from some reports. Could you give us your understanding of movement around the Straits today or in last few weeks? I appreciate it is volatile. That is the first one, and then the second one is the Venus development we continue to wait for. Should we be expecting that in the very near future and the moving parts, any movement on that long license extension agreement? Thank you.
In Namibia, we are starting the drilling of the Mopane well this month. That is the good news. Second news, don't listen to contractors, but listen to the operator. I think I said everything during the last CMD, that we are optimistic to reach the FID. First point, today, what we can say on Hormuz, in fact, globally, you could say that there were 20 million barrel of oil per day going from the region, the pre-war. You have five, six through Yanbu. You have two through Fujairah, and you have 10, 12 through Hormuz. So that is 20 million are going to crude oil, are going to the market with different routes. So we are around for most amounts, 12 million barrel of oil per day, which represents six tankers per night, more or less. It is 2 million barrel of oil. The VLCC is 2 million.
To be honest, it is a new policy. The three NOCs have decided, Aramco, ADNOC, Kuwait, but also Qatar, for crude oil, have decided that they have their own tankers, old ones. They go through. They have attacks from their attack by Iran, but they have decided that now they have to go through Strait of Hormuz. On LNG, it is a little more tricky because LNG tankers are a little more sensitive in case of, I would say, attack. Again, I mentioned, I said during, I think, a previous question, that what we have observed today is that you have, let's say, 25% of the move in the last two months, compared to pre-war. So around, I would say, 1.5 to million tons compared to eight. I don't know if it will go up or not.
I think it is a decision which is more complex because then it is more sensitive. LNG tanker and the value is not exactly the same. But, I would say, decisions which will be taken by the Qatari authorities, and we are following that.
Thank you. I will hand it over.
Henri? Let's move on to the next one.
Yes, the next question is from Henri Patricot from UBS. Please go ahead.
Yes, hello, everyone. Just one question from my side, sticking to the Middle East and the Ratawi project in Iraq. Can you give us some date on what you expect in terms of the production ramp-up from the project in the current environment? Thank you.
While we are moving up, we are already producing more than 100,000 barrels per day. I think we are starting right now, I think last week, this week, we are starting the first gas project, the first what we call GMP 25. I think it's 15 million scf per day, if I remember well. The full phase one, which is supposed to reach 120,000 barrels per day, will be done by November. We are really, today, ramping up on the oil side and on the gas. The first phase of Ratawi, for me, is done, and then we are working. We have mobilized, I would say, we have 3,000, 4,000 people, I think I was in Iraq recently. 4,000 people in the field to build the full field, which will reach 110,000 oil per day and 10 million scf per day of gas.
Thank you.
Next one.
The next question is from Bertrand Hodée from Kepler Cheuvreux. Please go ahead.
Yes. Hello, thank you for taking my question. Two quick one. You had an underlifting position in your UAE offshore production in Q2. We are wondering whether those underlifting position have increased in Q3, and what was the impact on the E&P result and cash flow, and whether you can signal whether this will improve in Q4 or not. The second question is, you mentioned that Qatar LNG export is probably back to 25% in October. But I was wondering whether your train in Qatar has restarted or not.
No, the second question is clearly no. The Qatari authorities are doing that. They are commercializing most. In fact, as you know, most of the LNG is most commercialized by QatarEnergy, I would say themselves. I would say the supply contracts we have are in force majeure, and I think they are force majeure for long. Today, they prioritize, obviously, their own customers for what they can export, which is quite limited. So no, we are continuing to ensure the supply of our own customers without the supply coming from the Gulf. But it's okay, I commented that before. Yes, there is another lifting offshore UAE because it was difficult to go in the Gulf. We have done some liftings in the third quarter. But at the same time, the production is back almost where the normal level. So that means that, yes, we are in another lifting position.
To give the accounting impact on another lifting position, Bertrand, as I'm a little late because I know that Wael wants to speak at 3:30 P.M. after me, I will ask you just to go to the experts of the accounting. It's not me. It's Renaud and his team. Renaud is not an expert, but he has some people in his team which are good in accounting. Sorry for that. So yes, we have an underlifting position. We try to minimize it. We do our best. But we are not the only one. I think all the IOCs are in the situation, and we'll catch up as quick as we can. But all that is not an easy task. We are not national companies with our own tankers to expose. We have to pay insurance costs and all that. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
The next question is from Fergus Neve from Rothschild & Co Redburn. Please go ahead.
Yeah. Hi there. Thanks very much for taking my questions. Just a couple of quick ones on Integrated Power, if I might, please. It was good to see another strong cash flow at work and capital performance from Integrated Power this quarter. I was just curious what cash generation and asset sale proceeds you envisage in Q4 to finish 2026 free cash flow balanced, and how much of the 2027 positive cash flow target depends on further farm downs? Then secondly, just on the return on capital employed improvements expected in Integrated Power. When do you think we should expect to start seeing those coming through, given that it's been a little weaker over the last couple of quarters?
Okay. It's a good question because we have, in fact, in the fourth quarter, we have announced two important sales down, farm down to KKR, for almost 2 GW between Europe and the U.S., representing an easy global value of $3 billion. So it's quite big. That means that we'll get the impacts. By the way, I don't have any questions, but I saw some comments on organic CapEx. In fact, again, our commitment is, I repeat, the commitment is $15 billion of net CapEx. This will be reached because we'll have, I would say, some proceeds of this farm down during the full third quarter. It's almost $1.5 billion. The impact on the CapEx is even a little higher because we spent some money during the year, which will be recoup. You have also an impact, a positive impact on the cash flow from operation.
I think the target it's around $800 million, I think, for Integrated Power. We were already almost at $800 million this quarter. We should go up because I think for the year, the anticipated cash flow from Integrated Power for a full year is around $3 billion. We told you that we might be balanced this year. Free cash flow, we are way more, the CapEx, net CapEx will be around $3 billion. I think the cash flow, which I expected, is $3 billion. So you will see an improvement which is also coming, of course, from the full effect of the JV with EPH in the accounts. So I would say, yes, we are on the way to, again, 2027 will be a free cash flow positive, and Integrated Power will contribute to the dividend of the company. Okay.
The next question is from Ahmed Ben Salem from ODDO BHF. Please go ahead.
Yeah. Hi. Thank you. Just one question on the geographical mix. You have materially expanded your U.S. offshore acreage with Chevron over the last 18 months. Is this opportunistic or part of broader strategy to scale up in the U.S. Gulf? What is your long-term ambition for this basin? Thank you.
Yes, thank you for the question. It's a good question. In fact, you probably noticed that we have done some exploration, I would say deal or done with Chevron. In fact, as you know, yes, we have an ambition to continue to grow in the Gulf of Mexico. Today, all our assets are operated by Chevron. At Tahiti, Jack, Anchor, there is another, Ballymore, and we consider they are very good partner for us there. We had made last year a first deal about exploration. We increased it. By the way, it's not just acquiring some acreage, it's drilling because we plan to first prospect together in 2027. So for me, yes, it is part of the strategy. We like exploration, and honestly, our partnership with Chevron in the Gulf of Mexico is a good fit.
I think I had recently had the opportunity to discuss that with Mike, and we both agree that we continue. On the other side, by the way, you probably noticed that we have announced some JVs in exploration with them in Nigeria, for example, in Africa, so where we are strong. We try to combine our strengths in, I would say, our foundation territories where we are good together. As we are both considering the exploration as an engine for future growth, I think there is a good alignment between both companies. If we can do more, we'll continue to do more. That's the idea. In question, again, it's completely there in the U.S. Gulf. U.S. Gulf of America is okay.
Thank you.
The next question is from Jean-Luc Romain for CIC CIB. Please go ahead.
Thank you for taking my questions. It's about German offshore wind. It looks like Germany is relaxing its stance over renegotiation of conditions to develop there. You took large positions two to three years ago, and I was wondering what your willingness is there.
Okay. Honestly, they are contradicting news from Germany about what they want to do, what they don't want to do. It is clear that today, the merchant of offshore wind in Germany is a challenge. To be honest, we are not the only one to explain that. Maybe we are optimistic, but it's a challenge because, in fact, customers are not complete, because first, the costs are higher. I would also say that the connections are longer. The German government, which has a commitment to deliver some connections to the concession, has not fully fulfilled its commitment. So that's a debate between our companies and the government. So we'll see what they mean. On our side, I think we are evaluating the situation. We have different concessions. We have some which have been acquired with a cheap price, on which we intend to continue to work.
For the other ones, we'll have to evaluate the impact. At the end, the objective is to make, I would say, some affordable electricity for customers. So if it's not affordable, I don't know why we should invest. So that, I would say, is a condition of any investment by our side. By the way, you will notice in our accounts on fourth quarter or the third quarter, we have made some write-off on some of these concessions just to reflect the fact that today, on some of them, we don't see how we could monetize them in a profitable way for us and for the customers. It's not true for all the German concessions, so I will not be more explicit, but that's the way we consider this business. Thank you. Thank you to all of you. I think we are done. There is no more question.
So in such case, I would like to thank you for listening. I know that you will all rush to the call from a competitor, which is a good friend as well. I wish you the best. I think our next meeting will be in fact together in February, in London, where we will announce the results for the full year, the fourth quarter, and return to shareholders to meet the 40%. Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the conference call. Thank you all for your participation. You may now disconnect.