Good morning or good afternoon to you all. Thank you for joining us today. Our program today will start with a presentation of 2020 results and outlook by Patrick Pouyanné, Helle Kristoffersen, and Jean-Pierre Sbraire. This presentation will be followed by a Q&A session. Will come two presentations on how we progress our climate roadmap. Arnaud Breuillac will drive you through how Total reduces carbon emissions from operations, and then Adrien Henry, Vice President Nature Based Solutions, will explain how such solutions will contribute to net zero emissions. This session will also be followed by a Q&A session. Before we start, I'd like to share with you a safety moment. As you know, safety is a core value for Total, and we start all our meetings with a safety moment.
[Non-English content]
Good morning, good afternoon or good evening for those who are in Asia. Welcome to this session of our 2020 results and outlook. I'm happy to welcome you today, together with my colleagues of the executive committee. Jean-Pierre and Helle and Arnaud will take the floor during the presentation, but Alexis, Bernard, Namita, and Philippe are also there for answering your questions. I'm sure you will have for them as well. All of us will remember 2020 as a landmark year that brought unexpected challenges and led to significant changes. We look back and think of our lives in terms of before COVID and after COVID. The pandemic has taken a terrible toll on people, with global estimates of more than 100 million cases and more than 2 million lives lost thus far.
In response to the virus, widespread lockdowns disrupted the global economy on a worldwide scale, wrecking businesses and livelihoods to an unimaginable extent. We look back at 2020 and remember it as a punishing year for the industry. While dealing with the COVID-related health and safety concerns, as well as maintaining continuity of operations, Brent fell below $20 per barrel, and it became a real test of faith. 2020 was a year full of short-term challenges that we had to tackle, and once again, Total demonstrated its resilience. 2020 is also a pivoting year in terms of global consciousness of the planet's fragilities. We have built over the past 30 years a global interconnected world. Interconnected for the best, elevating billions of people out of poverty, but also interconnected for the worst, pandemic, climate change, biodiversity. In many ways, we recognize the world has changed dramatically.
There is no going back from here. There is only the way forward. Move to digitization, for example, has accelerated and is changing the way we do business, making somehow everything more efficient. Europe is leading the way on the Green Deal. Now this is becoming a global effort with other major markets moving in the same direction, including the U.S., China, Japan, Korea, India. That is also why we need to think long-term. That is why in the midst of the 2020 global crisis, Total launched a bold new strategy to transform itself into a broad energy company with a view to get to net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner, together with society. We see how science and technology has been able to identify the COVID-19 virus, develop new vaccines, and launch a campaign to provide global immunity all within a single year.
We share the same optimism in science and technology to face and solve the climate challenge. For Total, and indeed for the world energy industry, the energy transition means a dual challenge, satisfying growing global demand with more energy on one side, while safeguarding the environment with less emissions, less carbon on the other side. We see it as an exciting challenge, and it comes at a time where we need to become a stronger company playing a positive role in an evolving society. At the same time, we remain fully committed to the four priorities, HSE, operational excellence, cost reduction, cash flow generation. While transforming, we will maintain strict financial discipline to keep our breakeven low and our balance sheet strong. Diversifying the company will strengthen the resilience that allowed us to weather the storm in 2020.
Jean-Pierre will comment on our resilient 2020 performance, the strongest among our peers, that demonstrated the company is on the right track and that all of us at Total are aligned and ready for the transformation. Thanks to this resilience, and because we value the trust of our shareholders to come along with us in this transformation, we maintained our policy to support the dividend through the cycle. This dividend highlights an issue that has become more pressing during this pivotal time period, the future of the major oil and gas companies. In my mind, there is no doubt that Total offers a compelling investment proposal, and the dividend is central to that thesis. Questions about the long-term futures of oil and gas companies has become a weight on their valuations.
As an optimist, I believe the transformation in which we engage will resolve those questions as we redefine ourselves with ambitions that satisfy the long-term needs of an evolving global society. As Helle will explain to you, the writing is on the wall. Clean, low-carbon energy is the future. In 2020, global energy demand fell by 5% because of the global economic crisis. Oil demand fell by 9%. Demand for LNG and renewable power actually grew. In the context of achieving our climate ambitions while creating value, our strategy for profitable growth is focused on these two pillars, LNG and renewable generation. As I explained in September, we are entering into a decade of transformation because the transition will need time. Today, during this presentation, we'll put on the table four new elements which are comforting this strategy of transformation and that we will comment.
We upgrade our climate roadmap by setting new objectives on Scope 1 and 2 by 2030. We will increase disclosure on our growing renewable business as to fulfill all your expectations. We integrate our climate ambition into our financing policy. All our bond emissions will be now climate KPI- linked. Last but not least, we propose to anchor this new strategy in our identity, to change our name into TotalEnergies in one single word. This new name, TotalEnergies, embodies the course we have resolutely charted for ourselves, the one of a broad energy company committed to providing energies that are ever more affordable, reliable and clean.
This name is consistent with our social values and ambition to achieve net zero emission by 2050 or sooner, to gether wi th society and more globally, to become a stronger company, playing a positive role in an evolving society and putting sustainability at the core of our purpose. I love this image, TotalEnergies, in red, more energy, less emissions. It's exactly our purpose, it's exactly the challenge we face and that we will solve within TotalEnergies. I would like in this first part of the presentation, which is not traditional for the results and outlook in February, to come back on this sustainability agenda that we have put together within Total. Just to remind you, the strategy we presented to you in September, because all that is consistent and just adding, comforting this strategy by some few elements. The sustainability journey, of course, begins by safety.
Safety is a core value. You know it. It's a journey, and you can see on this chart that this journey is progressing within Total in the right direction when you compare the total recordable injury rate for Total and the peers since 2015 into 2020, going down from 1.1 to 0.74. It's a lot of effort of all the teams and our partners, the contractors in all our sites around the world. It's a positive, I would say, outcome, even if it's tarnished by the fact that still we had last year one fatality. One is too much, like always. One fatality in a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico. 2020 was also, of course, an extraordinary year from health, safety, and environment from the health point of view, as we had to protect all our employees and partners.
We have demonstrated within Total our capacity to face this type of crisis, mobilizing all the teams, delivering masks, million of masks, of gloves, mobilizing some plants to produce hydroalcoholic gel in six countries. At the same time, maintaining the continuity of operations as in fact we lost not so much of million of man-hours worked. Again, safety is the first tone of the journey of sustainability within Total and we'll maintain and we'll even enhance in future years, in the next decade, all these efforts. Safety is a value. The journey is also a strategic one to transform Total into a broad energy company, which now has the name TotalEnergies. It's a matter of focusing of producing and delivering different energy products, gases, renewables, electricity, liquids, and also to invest in carbon sinks.
This slide is a strategic roadmap, which I presented to you in September, which is to grow in gases in our LNG business, but also to develop some renewable gas. It is to accelerate investments in low-carbon electricity, primarily from renewables, and to integrate the electricity chain from production to storage, trading, and supply. In liquids, it is clearly to focus on low-cost oil, but also to develop a renewable fuel business. At the same time, to adapt our downstream capacities to the demand, in particular in Europe. Again, because it is mandatory for carbon neutrality to develop and invest in carbon sinks. More energy means growing our production because our ambition is clearly to continue to grow. The world needs more energy, and we will take our share of this growing energy demand.
Which means that fundamentally, as we said in September, growing by one-third in the next decade from the equivalent of 3 MMbbl equivalent per day to 4, or I should say more from something like 17 petajoule per day to 23 petajoule per day. That will be done with two pillars. The one which again was distinguished in the energy market in 2020 despite the crisis, LNG on one side and renewable electricity on the other side. At the same time, we will adapt the sales to the demand. Our strategy is fundamentally led by the demand evolutions, which means that the pattern of our sales, which was 55% oil, 40% gas, 5% electrons last year in 2019, will become in 2030 less 30% of oil products. This is a big shift. 5% of renewable fuels, 50% of natural gas, and 15% of electrons.
People could think it's not accelerating enough. This requires a huge transformation during the year 2020, 2030. Thanks to this evolution of our sales, and of our production, we will reduce emissions while growing. In September, we took a strong commitment, which is that the Scope 3 emission of our customers by 2030 will be lower at a worldwide basis than what we were in 2015, and that in Europe, they will decrease by 30%. We can today report to you the results of 2020, which of course is lower than 2015 because we are helped, if I may use the word helped, by the COVID impact, less activity, less sales. Even if we integrate the COVID impact, the decrease between 2020 and 2015 of the Scope 3 emission of our customers in Europe is 12%.
There is still a lot of work to be done to reach the 30% that we ambitioned by 2030, because it means that we'll have to adapt, again, all our activities and growing in some direction, decreasing, in particular in our oil businesses. Today, we are upgrading, I would say, our climate roadmap by giving you another commitment, another objective on the Scope 1 and 2. The emissions coming from our operated oil and gas facilities by 2030, the net emissions should decrease by 40% versus 2015. Until now, we had this objective of less than 40 million tons in absolute value on Scope 1 and 2 by 2025, which is already a challenge because it's not only a question of diminishing the historic perimeter of 46 million tons by 2015.
In the meantime, we grow between 2015 and 2025, so we have 10 million tons or more to integrate from our acquisition and startups. There is a lot of effort, I would say, on the historic base of emissions. As you can see, this effort is going on, and Arnaud Breuillac will come back on it and will explain to you how we intend to reach less than 40 million tons by 2025, and going beyond in net emissions. That means that from 2030, we will integrate in the Scope 1 and 2, the, I would say, negative emissions coming from the carbon sinks that we will develop from, in particular, our Nature Based Solutions business unit, and Adrien Henry will explain to you how.
It's another additional target aligning for the next decade, 30% of less of Scope 3 or European emissions for our European users, and 40% Scope 1 and 2 from operated oil and gas facilities. All that will lead us to the carbon neutrality by 2050. If I summarize, by the way, where we are on the global roadmap that we announced in May 2020, when we announced that we were sharing the ambition to get to net zero by 2050 together with World Economic Forum. We put three major steps to get Total to net zero. The first one was Scope 1 and 2. Again, the results today in 2020 is -15%. In the official document, well, you will see -22%, but in fact, if we correct the COVID-19 impact, it's -15%.
On Scope 1 and 2 and 3 in Europe, I just mentioned it's -12%, even if you read -25%. COVID helped us too much there, and demand will come back. On Scope 1 and 2 and 3 of the carbon intensity reduction, we will have achieved 8%, which is, again, the best performance in terms of shifting the portfolio among our peers. Sustainability is not only a matter of climate for Total and for TotalEnergies tomorrow. We want sustainability to be at the heart of all of Total's transformation journey. It's a matter when we speak about environment, also biodiversity. We took this year some new commitments. On the S of ESG, of course, is to find a way to deliver a just transition, in particular, as a responsible employer.
You've probably noticed that we are the only one who did not announce any layoff despite the crisis, and maintaining all the workforce competencies, even if we were strong on managing our costs, and Jean-Pierre will come back on it. It's also in the journey of transformation, putting the right place to the diversity. We strongly believe that diversity is enhancing our collective intelligence. We have decided that we reach our target to get to have 20% of women in all our management bodies by 2020. Together with the board, we enhance this objective to 30% of women in all management bodies by 2025 within Total.
It's also a matter in the governance, of course, to put sustainability and to take consideration of all environmental and social challenges when we took decisions for new projects and capital allocations, as the board recently did it when it approved the Uganda project. It's also a matter to be consistent between this sustainability objective and the way we incentivize all the executives of the company, including the CEO, as ESG factors will represent 25% of variable parts and of LTI criteria and of our remuneration. For this journey in sustainability, we have one principle, which is transparency. Transparency to explain what we do and to report on it. I know it's a lot of work for our teams and that there is more and more requests coming from shareholders about understanding how we perform in ESG.
I see that very important to deliver to you all the elements to evaluate properly our efforts. So that's why in 2020, we have, for the first time, published our SASB reporting, and we will add in 2021, the World Economic Forum KPI ESG-linked reporting and also the WDI reporting. As you can see on the right side, there are many agencies evaluating our ESG commitment and performance, and I am proud to say that for all of them, which are there, Total has the best score within the oil and gas sector, even if we are still journey to be done so that we are the best score among all the corporations of the world, which is the real ambition that we should have as a multi-energy company.
Last but not least, the consistency is also to integrate this sustainability and our climate ambition, not only in, I would say, cap carbon emissions, but also in a global approach and into a financing policy. At the board level, we have decided that from now on, all the new bond issues will be climate KPI-linked, which means that Jean-Pierre and his teams will propose you to issue bonds, which will be systematically linked one way or the other to a climate KPI. We have the KPIs, measurable KPIs, the Scope 1 and 2 operated emissions, 2025, 2030s, the Scope 3 2030, 2040, 2050. Even with long maturities, we can link them. I think we are the first company in the world to propose that to embed, I would say, our transition within our financing policy.
I know that there are a lot of debates around taxonomy, but that is our answer. If you will buy bonds of Total, somewhere you will go together with our transformation, and if we don't reach or target, we will be punished by a higher cost of debts, and you will be rewarded. It's worth continuing to finance these investments of Total. There, that was the first part about sustainability, and I think this introduction, I want to leave the floor to Helle and to Jean-Pierre to come back on Earth, on the market and our results and our resilience before to speak again about the outlook.
Thank you, Patrick. Now just a few words on the macroeconomic environment. As you're all aware, 2020 was a year of a global economic recession, except in China, due to the shock of the pandemic. 2020 was a year of rollercoaster energy demand due to repeated periods of more or less severe lockdowns. 2020 was a year of extreme volatility in commodity prices due to supply and demand imbalances. Against that backdrop, the chart here shows you the contrasted evolution of various energy markets, as Patrick just mentioned earlier. Global energy demand was down by 5%, more or less in line with GDP. Oil markets, on the other hand, were down 9% because mobility is a key contributor to oil demand. What's striking on the chart is that LNG demand and wind and solar power generation did remarkably well, growing respectively 3% and 13%.
This confirms the role of these two markets in the ongoing transformation of our energy systems and as key growth pillars for Total. I also think that this market picture underscores the benefit of being a broad-based energy company, TotalEnergies. Regarding oil markets, Asian demand in the end proved very resilient last year. The key question right now is, of course, how fast global demand will rebound and to what levels. The jury is out on that. We need the vaccines, obviously, and we need the implementation of the massive economic recovery packages that have been decided around the world. What's clear, on the other hand, is that there is a risk of supply crunch in the midterm, and that's the message of this chart. We've seen in 2020 how OPEC managed to bring back market discipline.
We've seen the cracks in the U.S. shale model, and we've seen a continued underinvestment in the oil industry as a whole. Given that the natural declines in existing oil fields that are shown here, the message is simple. We need new oil projects, and that's true even if you take a very cautious view on short-term demand recovery and on future demand levels. What's shown here is a cautious outlook out to 2025. A 10-million-barrel-per-day gap in supply between now and 2025, that's a massive shortfall of supply to cover in just a very few number of years. On LNG, once again, demand was very dynamic in 2020, considering the economic downturn. Worldwide LNG demand was up by some 3%, while global gas demand was down by around 2%.
This big disconnect is due to the fact that the LNG market is much smaller than the global gas market, but also to the fact that it's much more flexible, more reactive, and actually tailored to the needs of the customers. With the lower prices that characterized the first quarters of 2020, the first three quarters, demand elasticity proved remarkably high. Imports were up by 11%, 12% in China and by 15%, 16% in India. Those are the latest numbers. On the supply side, there were only two FIDs, and Total was part of those actually, as other less competitive projects were either canceled altogether or pushed out. There were several outages in existing liquefaction trains, which contributed to the tensions in the LNG supply chain, especially in the second half of the year.
With the cold winter in Asia, prices soared to record levels at the very end of 2020. Going forward, we continue to see strong support for LNG. It's been a high-growth market every year since 2015, and as Patrick said, this trend is now being amplified by a number of announcements and net zero climate goals by key customers such as, for instance, China, Japan, and Korea. With that, I now hand the floor over to Jean-Pierre.
Thank you, Helle. Total has been following a strategy to strengthen the group since the collapse of oil prices in 2015. We started the year 2020 with a gearing below 20%, with a cash break-even at around $25 per barrel. To some extent, we were prepared when the crisis began. As COVID virus spread and markets began to collapse, we reacted quickly. We adapted by implementing an immediate action plan, and you will see we delivered. The group demonstrated in 2020 its resilience during storm, which allow us to continue investing in profitable projects, support the dividend, and maintaining a strong balance sheet. We were disciplined, we were flexible, and we have not overextended. In 2020, we generated $15.7 billion of cash flow from operations. Relative to the plan we announced in 2019, the most significant change for 2020 was flexing the level of investments, including M&A.
2020 CapEx was $13 billion versus an initial guidance around $18 billion. I will come back later on this saving. At the same time, we maintain our commitment to grow renewable energies to support the transformation strategy of the group. We did not overreact to the crisis, and instead, we chose to support the dividend through the cycle, as Patrick mentioned already. Return to shareholders of $7.2 billion includes the cash-saving decision to propose the final 2019 dividend in shares, as well as the $550 million of buyback in the first quarter. Gearing, excluding leases, increased to 21.7% at the end of 2020. On the right-hand side of the slide, we show that Total has the strongest financial position amongst the majors with the lowest gearing. That means that we were able, despite the crisis, to preserve our balance sheet strength. We reacted quickly to the crisis.
Immediate action plan was taken first in March when the oil price crisis started. It was reinforced in May when the COVID-19 demand crisis came. The objective was very clear. It was to cut outlays by about $5 billion. The cost culture is part of the group DNA. The foundation to deliver on the action plan was already there. The action plan was implemented effectively and rapidly while maintaining continuity of operation throughout the crisis. We deliver more than we promised as the year went on. The reduction of CapEx targeted at least at $5 billion, ultimately came in at a saving of $5 billion. The reduction in CapEx by more than 25% demonstrated the group's strong discipline on investment as well as its ability to flex the level on spend, particularly short-cycle projects, but also it reflects the decision we made not to pursue some acquisition.
For example, the Ghanaian and Algerian parts of the Oxy and Anadarko deal. Despite the need to conserve cash, we maintain investment of $2 billion for renewable electricity as it is the foundation of our future profitable growth. On the OpEx side, we began the year with a plan to cut costs by $0.3 billion, and we increased that objective in May to $1 billion. We over-delivered with a $1.1 billion of cost reduction by year-end. I will come back with more details on the next slide. Over the past several years, we have high-graded and actively managed portfolio to reduce the organic breakeven, which was $26 per barrel for 2020. This low breakeven, high-quality portfolio of assets is the cornerstone of our resilience. Managing cost is a continuous group-wide effort that is built into our culture.
In 2020, we cut more than $1 billion of cost across the group compared to 2019, while the initial budget set was $0.3 billion. The crisis has forced us to adopt new ways of working, most of which are sustainable and contribute to accelerate digitalization in many areas, new operating philosophy in many of our sites. In 2021, our target is to cut an additional $0.5 billion through the generalization of efficient cost-cutting initiative across affiliates and further optimization that our cost culture will continue to foster through, for example, best practice sharing. Overall, 70% of OpEx saving in 2020 are sustainable. They came from logistics, in particular means optimization.
They came from supply chain and procurement with centralized and global procurement, delivering more competitive purchasing across the group with leveraging use of digital. They came from structural change with staff redeployment, reorganization, new practice, and more digital usage to reduce our business travel and meeting costs. They came also from operations and maintenance. We are increasingly able to monitor operations from plant platform remotely with lower cost and increased effectiveness. We are already in the next phase of efficiency improvement and cost reduction, and our digital factory is starting to deliver. Because of the strong culture in terms of cost-cutting, Total is already the lowest-cost producer among our peers in terms of OPEX per barrel. This is a competitive advantage that we are always working on to improve. We have cut our OPEX roughly in half since 2014 to $5.1 per barrel in 2020.
Best in class, once again, among the majors. We are targeting a further reduction to $5 per barrel in 2021. Digitalization and the new best practices we're adopting will allow us to continue to capture sustainable cost reductions. In 2020, our original budget was at $18 billion for CapEx. The action plan led to a $5 billion CapEx saving versus this original budget, with the CapEx at $13 billion in 2020. On the right, we show you where the $5 billion of 2020 CapEx saving came from. It will give you an idea of how we can flex spending. Most of the cuts were made in upstream, including net acquisition. In particular, we exercised our flexibility to delay around $1.5 billion of short-cycle E&P spending, essentially choosing to save some projects for better times.
We see the 2021 environment as uncertain. We prefer to approach it prudently and with flexibility. The 2021 CapEx plan was developed using $40 per barrel Brent, maintaining what we control, maintaining discipline on CapEx with a budget of $12 billion. Continuing to invest in profitable projects to implement the group's transformation with a strong signal of commitment with more than 20% of CapEx devoted to renewables and electricity. That means, in 2020, that we preserve the flexibility to mobilize short-cycle CapEx should the oil and gas environment strengthen. There is more differentiation among the majors that we have seen for many years, and dividend policies have become contrasted as well. The group fundamentals are strong. High-quality, low break-even assets that we put together over the last five years with more than 30% rotation of the portfolio. Cash break even around $25 per barrel. Strong balance sheet.
2020 was a tough year. The board, confident in the group's fundamentals, confirmed its policy of supporting the dividend through economic cycles. The three interim dividends for the first three quarters of 2020 has been maintained at EUR 0.66 per share. A distribution of a final dividend equal to the previous three quarters will be proposed to the next annual general meeting of shareholders in May. We respect the relationship we have developed with our shareholders over the years. Paying the dividend is central to our disciplined cash flow allocation to create shareholder value. We believe our shareholder trusts us as a major oil company to weather crisis and cycles of volatility. You can see on the right-hand side of the slide our performance in terms of total shareholder returns in comparison with our peers.
This is for us the demonstration that our shareholder supports our strategy in terms of dividend policy. Finally, a recurrent slide to benchmark the 2020 year performance against our peers. The 2020 environment was one of the most challenging years the industry has ever faced. Thanks to our resilience, we posted a $4.1 billion of adjusted net income and a $15.7 billion of cash flow from operation in 2020. Once again, in absolute term, we are among the best performers of the group, despite the fact that we are competing against some much larger peers relative to the size of the production. Consistent with our climate ambitions, we recorded impairments of around $10 billion, mostly taken at midyear in June, and concentrated mainly on our Canadian oil sands investments, which are high-cost assets and have reserves extending beyond 30 years.
Despite the magnitude of the number, it is the lowest level of impairment among our peers. It demonstrates the high quality of our assets and reflects a history of using prudent price assumptions. On return on equity, although too low in such context, this return on equity was best in class. Total has performed well compared to its peers for many years, and as the peer group continues to become more differentiated in strategy and assets, I believe, as Patrick said, we are on the right track. We are well-positioned for this positive momentum to continue. I will leave the floor to Patrick.
Thank you. Thank you, Jean-Pierre and Helle for this presentation of our results and our resilience. I think as you said, we have the foundation. Now I would like to, again, repeat the pillars of the foundation, which is this motto, HSE, delivery, cost, and cash, that are very well. Again, our teams have demonstrated in 2020 that when we ask them to act, they deliver, which is, of course, a great comfort to engage on the transformation journey in which we have decided to go. We will always keep in mind that we need to deliver and that it's because we are good and even excellent on our short-term results, that we have the right to have this bold strategy of transformation and investing part of the cash flows we could get from oil and gas business into these new energies.
I know that you are all expecting more information about renewables, so you will not be disappointed, I hope so. We have taken today what we will do, and I will do, and you will have more to come, by the way, because you will have in the annex to the presentation, many details and geographies of our assets. Not everything, because we need to keep some few information for us, but a lot of them. The idea being that we want to help all of you to better evaluate the portfolio that we are putting together in our renewable business. As you know, all the fundamental idea to create a broad energy company is to raise the company from low multiple from oil and gas, and to get part of what the market is giving to these green new energies.
I don't dream to have a 25x multiple, but if we can get from six or five, five to six, or 5 to 7 to 10, we'll be more than happy. This idea today is to have deep dives in these assets. First, about immediate delivery. As you can see, we have a growth in total capacity which of 7 GW by end of 2020, which will grow to 10 GW by 2021. This represent, by the way, and we speak about growth capacity because this represent a growth CapEx of $5 billion in 2021. I will come back on it, but you know that we financed by equity only 30% of it, so $1.5 billion. You will make the math with me after that. The most important is that all the projects that we sanction have an objective of more than 10% of equity IRR.
The other part of the slide is very important. In September, we told you that we were targeting 35 GW by 2025. By that time, the renewable teams were not so a little unhappy because they had only 25 GW in their hands. We are trusting them. In fact, the last six months, we worked, continue to work, and now we have these 35 GW in our portfolio, and I will describe that to you. First, why did we get them? We really, and from this perspective, 2020 was really, for me, a very important and accelerating year or even pivoting year in terms of renewable, because we have demonstrated to ourselves that we were able to really capture early-stage opportunities at a low entry cost. There is no way to acquire existing assets because of the multiples I just mentioned.
There is another way to grow, which is, of course, organically from our teams, but also to capture and to find agreements with some other development teams which are early stage, which means they have the lands, they have the connections, but they don't have necessarily the financial capacity. They don't have necessarily all the commercial agreements. We can work with them to accelerate their developments and to put all these projects, I would say, to reality. In 2020, we worked and we put together 10 GW of new projects, mainly in Spain, in India, a first step in U.K. offshore wind and Qatar. Since the end of the year, beginning of the year, we have accelerated another 10 GW in 2021. We will not do that every month, be sure. We have maybe already reached the objective of the year.
We'll continue to work, but with four new steps. A big new step in the U.S., solar in the U.S., at a utility-scale project with two deals for 4 GW . That's important because it was one of the utility market, scale market for renewables, out of which we are not there. We have these projects that we need to deliver. 1 GW , by the way, will be used in order to green the electricity of all our downstream plants, refineries, and all our petrochemical plants. We have also done a bold move by acquiring 20% of Adani Green Energy. You know that in January, for $2 billion, you know that we have established two, three years ago, a partnership with the Adani Group in gas, LNG, city gas. We have made a beginning of 2020, a first JV with them in solar of 3 GW capacity.
We share some assets which are now into production. We have also decided that Adani Green Energy has accelerated a lot in 2020. They have now a portfolio of almost 20 GW of contracted capacity. They even increased it, I think, this week by acquiring rights to another 4 GW . They have great ambitions. It's a great partner. We embark there. India is a very large market. Several hundreds of gigawatts of solar and wind capacities are promoted by the government for their own climate journey. We are very proud to embark with this number one solar developer in the world, and I think we are entering into the same story that we've done in Russia 10 years ago with Novatek and the LNG development of Yamal. It's an investment.
You know as well that we paid $2 billion, but the shares today have a value of $4, so I think we will be able to deliver good profitability out of these investments. Last but not least, U.K., where we took U.K. offshore wind. We made a first step in 2020 with SSE Renewables with Seagreen project, and last week, together with our partner Macquarie, we obtained the seabed rights of our 1.5 GW projects on the eastern side of U.K. We have been active, so we had to finance all these acquisitions, and Jean-Pierre Sbraire and his team, finance team, have done well. We issue a hybrid bond to finance renewables.
Some people are asking me, "But how can you be competitive renewables if you finance with renewable with a capital which is remunerated at 7%?" We have demonstrated with this hybrid bond that we can finance our renewable for a coupon of 1.9%, which is a very highly competitive cost of capital. The renewable business of Total has different feet. I would say, reaffirm today that the priority, of course, is to develop utility scale portfolio. You hear different names, Total Solar International, Total Quadran, Total Eren, Adani Green now, offshore wind, Total Offshore Wind. In fact, all that at the end of the day, you have a photo there of what are the competence of each of these companies as subsidiaries. I would say Total Solar International, it's our solar developer in Europe, the U.S., and the Middle East.
We're working also with Adani Green in India, which owns, at the end of 2020, 3.3 GW. Total Quadran is a subsidiary in France, solar and onshore wind, 1 GW end of 2020. Total Eren is a company we put together with some founders of EREN. We have 30% of this company, which has 1.9 GW of gross capacity, and we have the option to acquire it 100% in 2023 or to go to IPO. Adani Green, I just mentioned it, is the acquisition of the 20% as a shareholder. Offshore wind, we develop it ourself in JVs mainly because of the magnitude of these projects. We have the several JVs, either with SSE, with Macquarie, or with local developers on floating offshore in the U.K. and in France. We have another part of the business which is dedicated to the distributed generation.
There is a subsidiary called Total Solar Distributed Generation, dealing mainly with corporate, making corporate PPAs more once, in order to put in place or to offer to corporations some solar, I would say, renewable capacities on their roof or small plants in order to go with them in their own climate neutrality journey. We have a JV with Envision in China, and of course, we own 52% on SunPower. SunPower, who has been reconcentrated in 2020, mainly on the residential DG business. It seems that the stock market appreciate a lot this, I would say, refocusing of SunPower on this market. That's the different vehicles we have. When we look to the portfolio more in details, and you have plenty of informations on these slides, we can look at them by maturity of assets. You can see that we have 7 GW in operation, gross capacity.
The net is 3.1. I will come back on this notion just after. 99% of these operations are covered by PPA, so almost all of it, 99.8%, in fact. We have PPA duration of 18 years and an average PPA price on these operational assets of more than $110 per megawatt. In construction, it's 5 GW, three of net capacity, 90% covered by PPA. The remaining part is a 30% share of the Seagreen project that we have in U.K. offshore that we intend to go for a CFD on next round. 20 year of PPA duration there again, an average price for these assets in construction of $55 per megawatt. In development, we have 23 GW, so the one on which we are working.
21 net because we kept most of our assets within the development phase, as you know, and 40% are already covered by PPA, which means only almost 9 GW or 10 GW. Average duration, 20 years. There it's mixed between 60% offtakers are state PPA or corporate PPAs because we begin to work on this part, and the average PPA price for these new assets coming in stream in the next three, four years is $45 per megawatt. Beyond it, we have already some projects, in particular the offshore wind projects that we mentioned, in Korea, in U.K., like the one we were awarded this week, of the round four, which are not yet covered by PPA, but I would say it's a question of maturing all these assets.
The important point is that already 60% of all the portfolio we mentioned, the 35 GW or more than 20 GW, are already covered by PPA, which allow this portfolio to deliver predictable long-term cash flow. If I'm going to this delivering of cash flows and profitable growth and the business model, I just want to take a point there because people are asking us, how do you manage to make your 10% return? We have done an exercise taking and modeling, in fact, the 10 GW of projects which were acquired in 2020. By modeling them, that means that normalizing as if all the COD of these projects were on the same date, which is not exactly true because some of them will come quickly, some like offshore wind, are little later.
We try to understand if we have 10 GW of projects which will start, how much of it will be the payback of this 10 GW, having a mix of solar, offshore wind, solar in Spain, solar in India, geographies. As you know, we invest 30% in equity. That means that we'll put 30%, and we have 70% of non-recourse debt. Non-recourse being very important. It's not on the balance sheet, obviously. When we said that this year we'll finance the equivalent of this 5 GW, $5 billion of gross CapEx, in fact, equity will be $1.5 billion and non-recourse debt will be, let's say, $3.5 billion. The $1.5 billion are going into our investments, $3.5 billion are on the assets themselves. We will clearly develop by ourselves the projects.
This is why this growth capacity is important, because this is the effort that Total support during the development phase. When the project is developed at the production startup, at COD, like Betty said, our policy is to farm down 50% of it. There are two reasons to farm down it. The first one is a matter of risk management or risk of the portfolio. Renewables is a local business. We take the local risk of production, but also the local risk of delivery, of sales. PPAs for 20 years are nice contracts, but you have also a risk of counterpart. Even with states. We observe it in Spain. In the future, we see that France has sometimes some strange ideas as well. For us, it's a matter of, I would say, de-risking part of the portfolio by selling 50% of the assets.
That's an important point of view for me as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the company. The other beauty of it is that you accelerate cash flows, we increase returns. We gave you the figures of the five farm-downs we have executed in our French and Japanese portfolio in the last three years, until the month of January. We sold 550 MW for $1.51 billion of EV, which is these 550 MW, if you take a cost of, let's say, $500 million, you see that the multiplication effect is times two. Obviously, this is important. It's accelerating cash flows. It's increasing returns. You can see on the chart that after five years of production, the remaining 50% we kept, we have more or less the payback of the equity investments.
This is a global cash flow model, which we call a capital-light model that we are developing. It's a question of de-risking the portfolio, getting the most by bearing, again, the investment until the production startups, and then the PPA will continue for 15-20 years, like I said before. Beyond it, production will continue because these type of assets have a long life. This is a way that we are creating cash flow for the long term for shareholders in this renewable business, and this is a way to reach this 10% of return target on equity. Finally, on this power business, the growth is globally on the electricity production, because at the end, what we add is the net production.
Remember, the growth, we finance, the net, we get it as a production, and will feed our future results and cash flows. The net production was last year at 14 TWh , which increased by 40% to 20 TW h from renewables as well from gas-fired power plants, as we have acquired some in Spain. The future to 2030 is clearly that the renewables will have the lion's share of our electricity production, as we explained you in last September. We introduce today another metric, a new metric about this electricity business. You complain that you cannot understand where exactly is the result.
You will report, we will report, in fact, regularly, quarterly on this metric, which is what we call a proportional EBITDA of this electricity business, which includes, in fact, the proportional share of equity affiliates that we have, as we have this divestment policy. It's important because this is a cash flows which will, in fact, finance the cost of the debts and also the return to dividends to TotalEnergies. You can see that it's growing, and it will grow in 2021 from, let's say, around $500 million to something like $800 million. The most of the growth coming from renewable business. We are only at 10 GW of installed capacity, 7 GW today, 10 GW at the end of the year, 20 TWh.
I remind you that the target for Total is to reach more than 100 TWh by 2030, so it's five times more. When we speak about generation of cash flow, that's a reality. This is exactly why we want to embark in this renewable business at scale. Just a last word before I move to LNG. Sales, we have now eight million customers in France, in Spain and Belgium. We deliver last year 50 TWh of electricity to our customers. I think we have also some few B2B customers in U.K. The intent being to concentrate our efforts on these countries for the coming years. The second pillar of the strategy is LNG. LNG, there you know that it's a strong fruit of our cash flow generation. By the way, 2020 demonstrated as well a resilience.
We have seen, of course, the Brent lost something like 30%, the Henry Hub lost itself 16%, Asian price were at the bottom. Despite that, the cash flow generation from LNG, $3.2 billion, was quite almost the same than last year. Why? In particular, because we continue to grow. We create value from scale and arbitrage, 10% growth, 38 million tons of sale last year, and we expect 10% more for 2021. We benefited, of course, from the start-up of Cameron in particular, which will deliver at full scale in 2021, and so that's why we have this growth.
As you know, this story is not over because, and we did not stop it despite the crisis, we have the two flagship projects in Russia, Arctic LNG 2, which is 45% progress on Train 1 by the end of 2020, and Mozambique LNG, which is 21% progress on end 2020. We face clearly some security issues. As you know, it's public, we are working with the Mozambique government. It does not have, at this stage, impact on the planning of the projects which will deliver by 2024 because we are still mainly in the engineering phase, the logistical phase, and the offshore works have been maintained.
Obviously, the situation on the grounds will need to be controlled, and we have a clear plan securing an area of at least 25 kilometer around the project itself in order to be able to resume the work, which is our intent with whoever your contractors. My highest priority is the security, not only of my staff, but fundamentally of the staff of all partners on the ground in Mozambique. In 2020, we have also maintained our commitment to LNG by sanctioning, like Helle said, the two only project we were sanctioned worldwide. One is Train 7 in Nigeria, and the other one, and we are happy to participate to that, is the Costa Azul project that Sempra is leading on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. It's a very well-located project, closer to Asia market than the Gulf Coast. You avoid the bottleneck of the Panama Canal.
It's a low-cost project because it's fundamentally the reversal of a regas plant where we benefit from all the infrastructures, jetties have already been invested, and it will be sourced from low-cost permanent gas. That's interesting. You can notice that on this slide, systematically, we put the indication of the carbon intensity, and it's linked to the climate ambition that we delivered in May. We said that we want that the allocation of capital should be consistent. You don't have in mind probably, but let's say that the historic LNG plants have a carbon intensity generally around 40 kilo per CO2 per barrel or more, 40-50. You can see that the last plants on which we invest, like Mozambique, on which the Total teams have done some amendments to the plants which we inherited from Anadarko.
We are at 25. We are making effort to minimize in all our projects these carbon emissions systematically. I speak about gas. A word about renewable gas. Maybe in September it was a little aspirational what I said when I mentioned figure. Now, we can speak about it more because we have some assets. We have made some interesting moves. We acquired a company in France which has a production of 500 GWh per year of renewable gas. The market in France is 40 TWh per year. It's 12%. It can double. It has projects to double its capacity in the coming years. It's, for me, a platform of continuing to grow, not only in France but in Europe, and we are happy to welcome Fonroche Biogaz in the group. We have done also another move in the U.S. together with Clean Energy.
We acquired 25% of Clean Energy in 2017 or 2018. Clean Energy is a company which is dedicated to promote gas mobility in the U.S. with a very large network of gas retail station, I would say, natural gas station. They have decided that because the move in mobility we see clearly not only in the U.S. but also in Europe, we think that gas mobility will become more biogas mobility because everybody is engaged on both sides of the Atlantic towards the carbon neutrality. Clean Energy wants to integrate the upstream, and we propose them to put in place a JV between Total, we have more financial capacities, and 50/50 with Clean Energy in order to develop a renewable gas production in the U.S. together with bio-CNG, bio-LNG distribution capacities. The last part of our renewable gas roadmap is hydrogen, where again, a first project, pragmatic one.
It's not big. It's 40 MW electrolyzer, but it's an integrated project with a solar farm of 100 MW. More importantly, this project will have to deliver firm green hydrogen to La Mède biorefinery. Either we store the hydrogen or we deliver the firm. It's a project which is worth around EUR 200 million, on which of course will need support from governments in order to move forward, but there is a lot of enthusiasm in Europe from European governments to develop this hydrogen economy. It's a first step. We'll come back later, coming years, about the ambition in hydrogen. I should not forget oil, of course, because oil is at the core of all our businesses, and nobody should forget it.
Today we, by the way, just to illustrate it, we deliver to you a figure which you don't see normally, which is the oil E&P cash flow. I want to pay tribute to all our colleagues who are continuing to maintain operations on oil fields around the world. $7.6 billion is half of the group CFFO. If you are adding to that the downstream CFFO, which represent almost $5 billion. Clearly, today it's true that most of the cash flows of Total come from oil. When we invest more than 20% of our new investments in renewables and power, clearly we take part of this cash flow. Without this cash flow, there is no way to make the transition in which we are engaged.
It's why we have a strategy where we want to continue to maintain, no more growing oil business, but to maintain all this activity and to be good at it. Even excellent. The excellent is illustrated. The excellence is illustrated on the right side. Again, when we took the upstream adjusted net operating income. Upstream means for us E&P and LNG because it's a way that we can compare to our peers. You can see that the results of the company this year was fundamentally delivered by this upstream with $4 billion and is larger, much larger I can say than our peers, despite the fact that among these peers we have the smallest production, which we should remember.
Frankly, if I'm proud of what we do, when I see that the global cash flow delivery by Total is the size of some of the largest peer of the peer group, I'm very proud that we are able to deliver. Again, like I know that Jean-Pierre insisted a lot on it's back to the fundamental quality of the portfolio which has been driven by choices which are low breakeven, because there is no other way to make, to weather, to deliver value in this business. The last five years have been, if there's one lesson, is the volatility of oil price. It's fundamental that when we make choices for the future, low technical cost, low breakeven is at the heart of what we select. This is exactly what we will do. I will show you in the new projects.
A word about our production, to tell you that yes, this year we lost 100,000 bbl per day, more or less, because of the quota policy. As a CEO of Total, I'm supporting the CEOs of quota policy. Let's be clear. Without any quota, it would have been, of course, a nightmare. We've seen the discipline of OPEC and OPEC+ , I would say not only OPEC countries, OPEC+ and of course, Saudi Arabia in particular, I think is praised by everybody in the industry. Yes, we lost production, but the positive impact on the oil price, even today at $55, above $60 I understand this morning. Despite the fact that the market remains fragile, inventories are still high, more than 70 days on the OECD. OECD inventory is much higher than the 60 days that we had last year. That's a nice policy.
We lost barrels, but at the end we gained some cash flows. 2021, we have a stable production because we think that the quota are being relaxed smoothly and Libya has came back to a more normal production level. You know that we have invested in some fields in Libya like Waha, so it will compensate the decline. There is no surprise there. We know that we knew that 2021 and 2022 we don't have many projects coming on stream. The growth will come from 2023. I confirm today, because we didn't impair any in the flexibility that Jean-Pierre explained to you, we did not impair any of the big projects which were planned in September during the year 2020, 3.3, 3.4 MMbbl oil per day. It's back to this 2% per year as an average that we mentioned from 2019 to 2025.
We told you in September it's not on a linear basis. It's in fact at the end of the period. I confirm that to you. A word about our reserves. We have 12 years of proved reserves at the end of 2020, 18 years of proved and probable reserves. By the way, I have 20-year of average of PPA duration. I have 18 years of reserves, which means that all these assets have more or less a 20-year visibility and not five years or zero year. It's quite a long. Both type of assets have a clear visibility. We have 60% of reserve are gas, consistent with the strategy I would say. A word about the renewal of reserve this year. You have there on the slides 127% of renewable reserve replacement rates on the three-year average, which makes a lot of sense.
This year we have to follow the SEC rules. The SEC rules, we use a price of $41 I think, something like that as an average. Which means that exactly like we've done in 2016, we are obliged to debook 300 MMbbl more or less of oil sands, Fort Hills this year. Of the proved reserves, which means that the yearly reserve replacement rates will be lower than 100%, around 70%. Again, this is more regulatory debooking because these proved reserves of Fort Hills will come back as proved reserves if the average price of the next year is higher than $45 per barrel. It's just, I would say a regulatory move like we've done in '16. What is more fundamental of proved and probable reserves, which is important, it's a figure we look because it makes sense.
Our global portfolio last year was at 19. We reduced from 19 to 18. Why? Because there, that's true, but we have debooked voluntary in line with our climate ambitions. The oil sands go beyond 2050 as we announced in July. The impairments was done fundamentally $6 billion or $7 billion. We are down out of the 10 on these assets, which were the only stranded assets that when we made the review at the board level, we identified within our portfolio. This has one year, we lost one year. Again, it's to be fully consistent in our accountings with the climate ambition to carbon neutrality by 2050. The projects, we take FIDs, I told you. The consistency with the climate ambition for us is driven by two fundamental elements that we look at the board level.
Low technical cost, low break-even, less than $20 per barrel. This is the case for Brazil, this is the case for the Uganda project. Of course, minimize carbon intensity. We want all the projects to be lower than the average of the portfolio. The average of the portfolio is 20 kg per CO2 per barrel, which is quite low compared to the average of industry. It's even a little lower than that. The average of industry is higher, more than 25 kg. We have a good portfolio. These two projects you can see will be at 15 in Brazil and 13 in Uganda. From this perspective, in terms of carbon emissions, they are not additive. They're even contributing to lower our carbon intensity because it's back to this parameter of carbon intensity. We have also, of course, Uganda.
Brazil, I would say, it's a continuation of the success story of the Mero 1, 2, 3. This famous Libra field in which we entered. It's a very profitable projects. On Uganda, which is onshore, we have other challenges, in particular, to manage the social and environmental impact, biodiversity, and relocation of people. We have spent a lot of time, the board reviewed all the file and taking into consideration these elements to approve the project, the commitment of Total to the project. We have taken one decision. In line with policy of transparency, we will publish very soon all the third-party audits which have taken place around these projects, which have been ordered by us, but done by third party on biodiversity and on the resettlement of the indigenous population. There is a lot of debate in social media about it.
The best answer we can give is to be very transparent and to demonstrate. All these reports are important part of the investment because we took also some lessons. We put some action plans. We have to improve. We are not perfect. We will, by the way, as well, together with the report, to publish the reports, explain the action plans which are being implemented in order to put in action the various recommendation. Again, it's part of the sustainability commitment that I mentioned at the beginning. We must demonstrate that we are able to develop an onshore project, together with respecting all the sustainability commitment that we want the company to respect. This project, I know that we have questions. I think Arnaud is coming soon to award the EPC contract.
It's this quarter, end of the quarter, let's say, to put all paper play, because then we need to go to the approval by the partner of the authorities. Everybody's working hard to finalize this project. Just last negotiation, of course, with some contractors to put a little pressure. A word about exploration because it's true that in line as well with our climate ambition, we have restricted our exploration budget to $800 million. It's lower than before. Because fundamentally, we have, and very consistent, decided to focus our exploration spendings on what we call the low-cost development projects. When we look to offshore, deep offshore, in particular giant fields. I don't know if we are lucky or our teams are good, but I will say it in that way.
Our exploration team, you know, last year we entered into a Suriname license, and since we entered, we made four major discoveries in the Block 58 together with Apache. We became operator of this block since January. We will concentrate a lot of efforts in our budget, exploration appraisal budget to this basin of Suriname and Guyana. We are together. We are just currently drilling a well together with Exxon on the Canje license in Guyana. Nine wells, including some important appraisal wells. The objective being for us to be able to define before year-end 2021, first development, oil development, in order to produce oil by 2025 on the Block 58. A lot of activities in that part of the world. Growing people from Total discovering these parts, these regions, and a lot of commitment.
Obviously, we have potentially in our hands, a new jewel in terms of oil for the group. Moving to oil, the downstream. We know we had the tradition since 2015 that the downstream was delivering more than $6 billion per year. This year, it's not the case. It's not the case, and fundamentally, because of the crisis, because in particular of the collapse of the demand. The refining margin, as you can see, had an impact of almost $1.2 billion on the cash flow, which is very consistent with all the metrics. You've seen that instead of $30 per ton, I think last year we were even a little more, we went down to $11 per ton, which I never seen that. We'll show you a graph just after. Refining margin are compressed. They are compressed because, of course, lack of demand.
I would say the crude is supported by OPEC policy, good price of crude. No demand, at the end of the day, the margins is very minimum, sometimes negative. In particular, as well as there is no more jet fuel. All the jet fuel products are being pooled within the distillates, which crash the distillates margin as well. Situation is not very s- group. I think it can only improve with a better economic return and before better demand. There is no OPEC of refining, of course, we also suffered from this aspect. The others business in the downstream petrochemicals have done well, very resilient. Trading as over before, we mentioned in Q2 an over-performance of $500 million, which has been maintained for the year. Maybe not being repeatable every year. Marketing and Services has a solid contribution.
For 2021, I would say we've a comeback of better demand. We could expect more than $ 5 billion. Maybe we are prudent, but it's also very important to plan prudently with these uncertainties. Just a word about refining business. You can see on the left how low have been the margins. It's the red line you compare it to what we experience in the last four years, 2016 to 2019. You can see that it has been a disaster since April, clearly linked to the COVID. Of course, our teams have been, like the title says, dynamic adaptation on the short term, with a COVID Action Plan, reducing their cash spends $500 million. Reducing runs, which is not very good for results because, of course, you have the fixed cost to cover, but there was no choice.
Even we have done a voluntary shutdown of Donges end of 2020, 200,000 barrel per day of refining capacity out of the European market. We intend to restart this refinery, as soon as we can, but when we will be able to make money by running it and delivering oil products. We have also acted in 2020, a lot of work to begin to adapt our European footprint to the structural demand decline. We are selling the Lindsey refinery, the closing of the sale should happen by this quarter, by end of this month. I think green lights are there, if Bernard does not contradict me, I hope.
Then we have also engaged the conversion of the Grandpuits in zero crude platform, which means renewable fuels and bioplastics, in particular to answer renewable fuels for the aviation, I would say, lowering carbon footprint of the aviation as a liquid. Marketing & Services, last business, but not the least. I would say good performance. You have some indications of the way the evolution of the sales of the Marketing & Services during the year. You can see the incredible drop of the jet sales, which went down by almost 70%, which have affected our B2B sales because it's part of the cash flow, which is missing this year. The rest of the business has been affected, I would say an average of less than 10%-15% of lower sales.
At the same time, as the refining margins were low, the marketing business was benefiting from better margins. All in all, you can see that the retail business has done very well, almost same cash flow from operations than last year. It's also supported by the fact that in our retail business, we have also some non-fuel sales, which are more stable. A resilient foot and we appreciate it doesn't have the same volatility, obviously, but the rest of the portfolio. If I just want to conclude, to give you some outlook. I want to confirm today what we said to you in September, I would say fundamentally, maybe being prudent, speaking about $40, $50.
At 2025, we put also $60 because Helle explained to you why we believe strongly that with less investments in all these oil business at the end, a certain point, I'm convinced that we will have suddenly. The demand is not diminishing, except the COVID impact so quickly that we will face a supply crunch, which could push the price high. It's a matter when the market will begin to anticipate, by the way, this supply crunch, and it's a strong belief. At $50 per barrel, if we normalize all that, you can see that we'll have an additional $6 billion of cash flows coming from all the segments. Coming from E&P, $ 1 billion, in particular projects like Brazil, Uganda, I mentioned. Coming from the downstream because it will come back, will not remain at these levels and M&S as well as a growth plan.
Coming as well from LNG and from renewables as we gave the figures. The sensitivity for this year, $10 per barrel give us $3.2 billion per barrel. Cash flow allocation, no surprise as well. This slide, you know it. We just modified, I would say, the allocation of capital investment this year for 2021. Jean-Pierre explained to you that we have decided to plan it prudently at $ 12 billion, if we could have one flexibility, but it because the flexibility might be $ 1 billion, not more. To be in line with the $13 billion-$ 16 billion we mentioned to you in September as a guideline. Renewables and power will represent more than 20%, and I would say, consider it's a new normal for future capital investments. The dividend, clearly, the board has demonstrated its strong commitment to support the dividend through the cycle.
I would say in this environment, we maintain the EUR 0.66 per quarter, and you can expect that it should be the same for the coming year. Through the cycle mean also when the price is going up, not overreacting both ways. The balance, because the priority for us is flexibility on capital investment and balance sheet. We have managed to limit the increase of the gearing to 21.7%, which is above the 20% we have as a target. Even we'd like to have 15%. If we have cash flows, extra cash flows, priority will be to allocate that to deliver the company again. Again, the big lessons for the last five years is huge volatility. Share buyback, we will discuss it when we have higher oil price and some flexibility, which is not the case, again, at that time.
To conclude this presentation, I began by TotalEnergies. Of course, this is, for me, it's an important decision. It's not every day that you change the name of a company, that you propose to your shareholder to change the name of the company. It was done, I think, very long time ago when CFP became Total, when it was done because of the merger in 2000, just in interim way, TotalFinaElf, TotalFina, TotalFinaTotal. We have decided that because we really think at the board level that we want to anchor this transformation in our identity. I think it's a very strong message. It's not that we are more than serious. We want to establish TotalEnergies in a new category. No more an oil and gas company, but a broad energy company, an energy company.
We want to do it because we strongly believe that is the best way to reestablish the long-term valuation of the portfolio, including the 18 years I mentioned of reserves of oil and gas. We want to say to the markets, there is a long future for our companies. Today's valuation does not recognize this long future. By growing energy from renewables and LNG, by upgrading our climate roadmap, by embedding our climate ambition into the financial policy, by supporting the dividend for the cycles. These are the four key messages, which is, I think, at the core of this TotalEnergies that we will build together. Thank you.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We'll 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 sources while asking a question. If you wish to cancel your request, please press the pound or the hash key. Once again, it's star one if you wish to ask a question. We have the first questions coming from the line of Oswald Clint from Bernstein. Please ask your question.
Oh, hi. Thank you very much for all the additional details today. I had two questions, perhaps on the iGRP division. The cash flow, you mentioned it in the results. They had a positive offset from renewables against the weaker LNG prices, which was good to see. You've given us your new proportional EBITDA metric today as well, which is great. It's likely small, I wanted to boil it back down to the cash flow. Last year in September, you told us $0.1 billion of cash flow in 2019, how that might get up to $1.5 billion, I think, by 2025. The question is, given everything you're saying here and the business development you've done in January, is it fair to say that that's a de-risked number at this stage or an easily achievable cash flow number for kind of electricity by 2025, please? Thank you.
Sorry, the second one. You've made, Patrick, some very interesting comments here around the valuation of renewable companies and how you'd like to tap into that. The disclosures, I guess, of your new EBITDA will help, and that will certainly help. I guess the question is, what happens if it doesn't happen quickly enough? I'm just asking you, have you considered or will you consider, would you consider other examples of showing that to the market? I just can't help be struck by companies like EDP, who spin out another little part of their business at 17%, and suddenly they're both EUR 20 billion market cap. The sum of the parts has clearly worked in some of these names. I just wanted to get your thoughts on that, please.
Yeah. Okay. First question. I'm not sure it's easy to do 1.5. I will not change the figure because now we have the portfolio we need to execute, we are entering into a new phase of development of our renewables and power business. I don't know if it's the reason why I decided to change the president of this division. By the way, it give me the opportunity to mention, because I should have done it, or I could do it at the end, Philippe Sauquet will retire in one month. I see in front of me, he's not around the table, he will be next time. Stéphane Michel. No, it's nothing to see. He will retire just because he has the age, Philippe. Philippe has led the capacity to, I would say, develop all this portfolio.
Now Stéphane will have to execute it, deliver the $1.5 billion. Maybe Philippe has done the easy part. It is not true. No, I will not change this figure. I think in 2020, I think we are at $250 million. If I was looking to give you an update, it was not in the presentation in terms of cash flow direct to Total. The $ 100 million became $ 250 million. Again, portfolio is there. We will come back to you on these matters in September. I think it is better not to. No way to change. No, honestly, on the second part, you cannot compare Total, which has a market cap of EUR 100 billion and EDP. I think it is a mistake from my view.
Let's be clear, if we transform Total in TotalEnergies, it is not suddenly to spin off the energies and to come back again, Total.
Otherwise, I would be a strange man or a strange chairman and CEO. I think we know that we need to be patient. We know that we need to deliver. Even if today all these renewable company are more valorized on their potential of growth rather than the cash flow they deliver, probably people will ask us more. I think, and the fundamental idea is that we want to give the same clarity and a lot of that these companies are giving you in order to make this valorization. It could take time, but the business model of Total, yes, 15% is only a share of 100%, it is true. I think, again, there are cycles in the market, and I am optimistic. Don't expect from us any move like the one you suggest.
We are really committed to develop this business within TotalEnergies as a strong foot of TotalEnergies. It will take the time, what I observed last round of U.K. offshore wind, for me, it gives me comfort. When you see who were awarded during the last week, these 1.5 GW contracts, almost 8 GW, these are big players. I strongly believe because of the capital intensity of all this electricity and renewable business. There has been a time which is good to have people. We were quicker than others. We invented it, and which have a reward. Now the time to scale up all this business. To scale up, you need a lot of capital. The big players will have a big share, including in terms of returns and profits. This is exactly the strategy we want to develop within TotalEnergies.
Thank you.
We have the next questions coming from the line of Biraj Borkhataria from RBC. Please ask your question.
Hi, thanks for taking my questions. A couple, please. Looking at kind of the announcements over the last few months, it looks like almost every week you won an auction on the renewable side or done a deal. Could you just talk about what proportion of the renewable bids or deals you tried to secure in 2020 you won? It looks like you've just been more successful than many of your peers over the last 12 months. The second question is on SunPower. You've owned that stake for a few years now, and obviously, the value of that investment has gone up 10 times in the last year. Can you just talk about the strategic rationale for holding that asset now, given your growing renewables portfolio elsewhere in different geographies? Thank you.
In fact, we did not win a lot of auction, to be honest. Last year, we win in Qatar. This year in the U.K. It's not us, but Adani Green has won auctions in India, but it was not Total. Why? Because we lost. We lost in Abu Dhabi, we lost in Saudi Arabia. In fact, I think we lost more than we win. Why? Because auctions, as always, are not the best way to create value. You know when you have a target of 10% IRR post farm down on equity to be competitive on auctions, it's tough. You've seen that the last tender in U.K. pricing were quite high, but we consider we have the capacity together with Macquarie to deliver what we want. In fact, what we've done are more, I would say, direct negotiation deals.
All what we mentioned, Hanwha JV in the U.S., it's a direct discussion with them because we have a partnership. The SunChase portfolio, it was a direct approach by our teams and not a tender organized by a banker like we've done in Spain last week. It's more having people on the ground to identifying some potential partnerships, bringing our value proposal, which means financial capacities, commercial capacity, attractiveness. When you offer some PPAs, corporate PPAs, you can convince people. The Adani deal is not an auction. Honestly, if we paid $2 billion to get the 20%, it's because we have developed a fundamental, strong partnership with Adani Group. I think it's making business, and that's the way you create value. By the way, Biraj, don't expect us to make an announcement every week.
To be honest, I didn't plan beginning end of the year that we'll announce once as many deals as we've done. I think now after, but I will not say that to Stéphane Michel will take the job because he will believe he has to rest. It's up to him to go on the same momentum. No. Doing deals, again, auctions is not the best way because it's very competitive. Like in upstream, by the way, like in oil and gas. We all know that. If you want to create value, you have to be smart. I think what I observed positively, and if we have this momentum, is because Total became serious. It's considered as a very serious partner around the world. The ambition we have announced. It all started, by the way, by winning the auction in Qatar last January.
We became immediately, with this 800 MW, a credible partner, including, by the way, attracting contractors. Chinese contractors knocking to our door because they want, and they give us better costs in order to be competitive. It's a virtuous circle. Now with the ambition we have announced, again, when you compare the amount of capital intensity we have, capital CapEx in this field, we are among the largest players. I think it attracts and people come to us with proposing projects and we can select. The U.S. journey has not been an easy one. I think we have at least two or three opportunities that we have decided not to follow because they were too expensive before we went on the ones we have selected. That's one advantage. This is a very large market, a very growing market.
There is enough room not to rush and to compete to lower the price to get the business, which is not exactly true on offshore wind, but that's the capacity to leverage our global footprint. SunPower, honestly, I think it was a long journey to make, and a lot of efforts of everybody, SunPower, shareholders, Total, in order to make this spin-off of the manufacturing business, which has been a success. We created Maxeon, which has, by the way, we still own 30% of this manufacturing business, which has an acceptable, by the way, journey on the stock market since the spin-off occurred. SunPower is clearly benefiting for a better, more understandable business model, which is mainly concentrated, as I said, on residential DG. Value has gone up, but very high. That's true. Probably part of this new wave, like the GameStop story in the U.S.
At this stage, we are majority shareholder, and what we want is to consolidate SunPower, and then, as I mentioned to you, the priority of TotalEnergies is to develop our utility-scale business. DG is part of the portfolio, but it's much too early to speak about any future. By the way, it's a listed company, so I will not make any comment on SunPower. I think globally speaking, of course, we are in a much better position today than we were during several years. SunPower is in a much better position. I would like to pay a tribute to Tom Werner and his team, who have done a very good job during the last years.
Thank you.
We have the next question coming from the line of Michele Della Vigna from Goldman Sachs. Please ask your question.
Patrick, it's Michele. Congratulations on the very strong and consistent delivery through this year. Two questions, if I may. The first one is about cash return to shareholders. We're just exiting a deep recession. You're prioritizing financial de-gearing, which makes perfect sense. As we look to the longer term, given the health of your business, what do you think is the right long-term cash return to shareholders? I believe in the past, you mentioned 40% as a level you could aim for the long term. I believe on your cash generation, the current dividend gives you about a 30% return. How would you put in that context the importance of buybacks? My second question really is about decarbonization.
Gas has, without doubt, a key role to play in the transition in the next 20 years to decarbonize industry, transport, heating, power, especially in a lot of emerging markets. There is a rising wariness about potential stranded assets in the long term. I'm wondering, what is the ability today of actually building this gas infrastructure in a way that it can be easily retrofitted with clean hydrogen in the longer term, effectively avoiding any kind of stranded assets and accelerating the hydrogen transition in the long term? Thank you.
As always, two interesting question with Michele. The first one. By the way, this year, I'm afraid that the cash out is more 47%, 48% than 30% with the dividend. We have been above the 40%. I think this idea of 40% was, I think for me, is not a bad metrics. It depends, of course, of the level of the crude oil price that we get. My conviction is that as we want to support the dividend for the cycle, if we have more cash, buyback is obviously a better way to keep flexibility rather than increasing dividends. It's always the same debate. You have some shareholders prefer dividends, some others prefer buyback. Honestly, Michele, if I have that difficult question to answer, I will be happy. For the time being, I'm more prudent than you because, for me, we are not yet exiting the full depression.
I know I read your papers. I know Goldman is quite positive, and I'm happy that you are. Vaccines are being spread, but not all over the world, so it could take time. Maybe we are too prudent within Total. I would say that you can keep in mind what we told you, and then when it will be the time, I will answer more precisely to the question. Obviously, my view is that to supporting the dividend full cycle is fundamental to keep trust. We need to manage prudently as well the increase of dividend. We'll see. If we have more cash, it's normal that we have to return more to shareholders who have to be, of course, rewarded for their patience. Decarbonization gas is a key role. Yes, that's true. It's interesting what you said.
There is hydrogen, and you speak about blue hydrogen. It's clear that when we think to hydrogen at a big scale, there are two way to do it. Either you do very big solar farms in the middle of Saudi Arabia or Qatar or Morocco or very big. You have a very low cost of electricity because obviously, green hydrogen fundamental is not only to lower the cost of electrolyzer, it's fundamentally to be able to produce a very low cost of electricity. Large scale will be of essence in that story. It's one way to do it. The other way is to find large gas fields like the one you have in Qatar, in Yamal, maybe in the U.S., by the way.
You need also to find a very large carbon storage if you want to be able to produce blue hydrogen and decarbonated hydrogen, which is the thing that you have to combine both. I'm not sure that we have that in all the locations, but it's obvious that when I'm thinking to the future of hydrogen for Total, I'm thinking both green or blue. I'm color blind, I would say. The best location for blue hydrogen are the ones where you can produce gas at a very low cost and where you can find this large CO2. I think that Novatek is looking to that, obviously. I'm sure that Qatar, big, large producing countries should look to that, and then it could make the transition, as you said. By the way, the way we should develop hydrogen in the future is probably like this one.
Remember the story in LNG 30, 40 years ago. We were a pioneer within Total by developing LNG in Qatar or Indonesia. We find to do that some Japanese customers. We were the customers ready to pay a certain level in order to develop this LNG technology, which was nowhere. We've done it, and it was a success in a large way. I think hydrogen is there today. It's a matter now of finding the scale, projects with scale, but also finding the customers ready to make this emerging. Governments can do things like in Europe, but also it will be a mix.
We are at the beginning of a journey, but I see that for me, and your question is a good question in terms of hydrogen could become a relay of our position where we are today, a strong position developing LNG because we have large gas resource at a low cost like in Russia. It might be the future for Total on the blue one, providing we identify the carbon storage. The other fit being green with renewables.
Thank you.
You have the next question coming from the line of Lydia Rainforth from Barclays. Please ask your question.
Thanks, good afternoon. Two, if I could, Patrick. First of all, what happens to the CapEx budget at higher prices in terms of the oil price? Obviously, it gives you a little bit more flexibility. Does extra spend go into the renewable space, or does it go into the upstream to capture some of that potential uplift in prices? Secondly, just in terms of the cost of decarbonization and the work that you're doing in terms of bringing forward some of the emissions reduction and that, are you finding that the cost of reducing emissions is coming down as you do more work on it? Thanks.
The second question, I think I will leave it to Arnaud during his presentation because he will show you the whole exercise we have done internally, how we can lower our emissions, and you will see that we find a lot of tons with a very low cost, in fact, which were not just a question of concentration. You will have to be patient on the second one, Arnaud will answer in half an hour with presentation. On the first one, let me be clear. I think that, again, the $12 billion is a good level. We could go to $13 billion maybe. There are two ideas. One, of course, we have some flexibility.
We have some flexible short cycle CapEx, which have been stopped last this year in 2020 in E&P, which are mainly infill wells on which will take a little time, we cannot reactivate that immediately because we need to remobilize, I would say, rigs and things like that. It might be done. That's an idea because this providing and short cycle means payback for two years. If we have a vision that the crude price could remain at a good level, then it's an opportunity. At this stage, I'm not yet there. It's not because I've seen yesterday evening $60, but I consider $60 is the river. When you see that Saudi Arabia has decided by itself to cut 1 MMbbl , it means that I think they see some fragility in the market. Don't become too short-sighted, too short-term.
Too short-termism should not dominate our decision. Renewables, it's possible, but you need to have opportunities to do that. Again, it's a matter of maturing opportunities. It's not because I decide to spend $1 billion that I will spend $1 billion. It doesn't work like that. Opportunities need to be profitable to reach the target. There is a maturity of the portfolio. Again, consider that in 2021 might be $12 billion, might be $13 billion, but we'll see. Let's stay on the $12 billion, which is, again, my priority is first to come back to strengthen the balance sheet.
Right. Thank you.
We have the next question coming from the line of Thomas Adolff from Credit Suisse. Please ask your question.
Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my question. I guess my first question is on LNG. Perhaps you can share your latest thoughts on Qatar and your potential participation of fiscal terms. They're more acceptable and entry costs more digestible. Secondly, just in terms of the pre-FID production contribution in 2025, can you remind me whether a large part of it is going to be driven by Suriname and Uganda? A simple yes or no is fine. Thirdly, I do apologize, just a quick one on how to decarbonize heavy-duty transport. Obviously, you can use hydrogen, you can use renewable diesel, and you can use biomethane, and you're involved in all three different technologies. As it relates to heavy-duty transport, which technology are you the most excited about? Thank you.
I will let Helle answering of the excitation on technology for transport, maybe. Suriname, the equation is easy. By 2025, I think it's quite minimum, it's something like potentially 20,000 bbl, 30,000 bbl per day. It's not important. Uganda is more important. It's 100,000 barrel per day. We have a large stake in the project and by the way, it's why we are working hard on to launch Uganda, and we are very near with FID now. Before I let this time to Helle to think, and maybe, by the way, Alexis can complement if you want, Helle. LNG, Qatar. It's Qatar, yeah. I don't know. You know better than me what are the entry, because I don't know. I'm waiting to see the terms. I think Qatar is moving forward. They have announced that they have awarded the EPC.
Which, by the way, is good, because part of the first approach they've done one year and a half ago, there was a big uncertainty on CapEx. Of course, it was difficult to manipulate some fiscal terms and entry cost without having the CapEx. I think that will be clarified. I understand from Saad Al-Kaabi, that I met recently, that he intends to bring partners. I think fundamentally what Qatar will ask is some offtake. Because now in LNG, with what happened, we also know that. We'll see what level of commitment on offtake different players will take.
For me, at the end, it's a matter of risk and reward. We know what they are expecting, and then we'll see the rewards. If there is a good balance, we'll move forward. Obviously, we have a strong history in Qatar. Again, it's not a matter of emotion. It's a matter of, I think, by the way, Saad Al-Kaabi thinks exactly like me. It's a question of risk and rewards, and there are plenty of good advantage in Qatar, which in particular the cost of production and the cost of LNG efficiency. Then, we are waiting. I think it will come soon, and then we'll take some decisions about our commitment on Qatar. Helle, Alexis?
Yes, Thomas. I think the answer is, we're excited about everything. We have to keep, I would say, an eye on both the cost and the benefits. Renewable gas, biodiesel, great technologies. No big deal in terms of engines. I'm not sure that there is enough opportunity worldwide to switch the whole heavy-duty transport to those two decarbonizing technologies. You have to consider hydrogen, which is less mature, but over time, probably has a higher potential source of supply. You didn't mention it, but we will all be seeing electrical trucks going forward. Not immediately. It's also a question of maturity and timeline. Of course, you can combine a little bit of everything by doing e-fuels.
I would say at this stage, as you pointed out, we are involved in the three major technologies for the next 10 years, and then we'll see what happens after that.
Yeah. Alexis, you want to add something?
No.
No? No, I think that, honestly, the biogas story for heavy-duty, I think the volume of biogas might not be sufficient.
That's it.
That's the point. Let's see. There is a lot of policies behind it, and let's see as well what the truck manufacturers will decide.
Yeah.
They might decide for ourselves. We are there fundamentally to be able to provide energy products at the lowest possible cost and to adapt ourselves. If we can help them in their choice, it will be good, but we will see that. I think Helle is right. At this point, we have to be ready and to understand for which of this fuel, the one we can produce in the best efficient way, and where we can produce them in the best efficient way. This is what we can bring to our customers and to the policymakers. Okay?
The next question has come from the line of Irene Himona from Société Générale . Please ask your question.
Thank you. Good afternoon. I actually have three questions, if I may. Firstly, a results question. In the fourth quarter, the E&P tax rate was very low, I presume due to pricing. With Brent back to a more normal $50, $55 this year, what can we expect the upstream tax might be this year? Secondly, Patrick, you target 30% of all the management bodies at Total to be women by 2025. What was that proportion in 2020, please? My third question, you raised today the portion of capital expenditure on renewables to over 10%, and you show how by 2030, oil product sales will be down quite materially. Today, oil is a huge part of cash flows, even in the very low price environment of last year.
Is it totally premature to ask whether by 2030 we might expect the renewables business to turn perhaps cash neutral or even cash positive. It doesn't seem to matter today for the valuation of renewable utilities. They have no free cash flow, but obviously it does matter to your investors. Thank you.
Okay. Jean-Pierre will take the second one. I will answer the first one. We have more or less at 20%, in fact, today in all the management committees. I ask all my colleagues to have at least two women out of 10, we say, and we intend to go from two to three, fundamentally. I think it's an important move. Remind you that five years ago, there was no women at the executive committee. Today, I'm happy and lucky to be surrounded by Helle and Namita. Surrounding is the right word. I wait for somebody else coming. I think it's important, again, for me, because diversity brings some collective intelligence. We are better groups when we are, in particular in this time where we have some decisions which are not so easy to take, to listen to various point of view.
That's something on which we are really embarked. You have to know, fundamentally, among what we call, I would say, the managers in Total, I mean.
Managers. We have, today, around 33% of women. The idea is fundamentally, and we continue to increase it, but it's difficult. We think we should go to 35% because it's a matter of recruitment. We have a lot of technical positions where we find less women. The idea is by 2025 to have, in fact, at the management bodies, the same proportion of women that we have among all the managers of the company. That's the idea. To come to a certain level of normality, I would say, maybe when we go from 30% to 35%, it's a matter of few figures. It's 1%. That's the idea. I want to do that at different levels. It's very supported by the board. That's a strong policy, which is also contributing to the ESG commitment of the company. Jean-Pierre, tax rate?
Yes, E&P tax rates. Yes, for the fourth quarter, the E&P tax rate was at 20%, so benefiting from some particular tax elements. When you look at the full year, so on average, over 2020, with a Brent around $40 a barrel, you have a tax rate at 29%. It's fully in line with the guidance we gave, 30% at $40 a barrel. If you remind the 2019 figures, so in an environment around $60 per barrel, you have an E&P tax rate around 40%.
You can think 35 at 50.
Exactly.
If it works. That's more or less the guideline. Again, you could have some quarterly effects because of tax deferred and with the COVID, all the systems are not perfect. At the end of the day, when I look to the average on the year, we are always the same type of guidelines, it works.
In line with the guidelines we gave.
There is a link. You have a precise answer for your model, Irene. It's because maybe you will not have a precise answer on the last one because I observe that you want to have more clarity. I would love that you ask the same questions to all my energy colleagues, of I'm sure that you are asking the same question to all our big energy new competitors in the renewable fields. For the time being, I'm not sure it's really a question that the market are asking. To tell you the truth, yes, I think by, I hope it will be cash neutral by 2030 because, again, that's true that the more we invest, the more the gap increase. We said $ 1.5 billion by 2025. By that time, let's say we spend something like $3 billion or I don't know the figure.
By 2030, yes, you can take this assumption, but the cash neutrality should be an objective for the company. To be clear, for me, it's nothing surprising then. When I am entering into Russia in 2011, you know the cash neutrality of the investments of Novatek will be reached this year, 10, 11, 12 years after? We have to invest. In energy, it's always long cycles. It's true as well when I remember having made a lot of works on Angola. Before we obtained the cash neutrality in Angola, which is today one, I would say, of the cash cow of the company, it took more than 10 years. It cost 15, 20 years before we really obtained. Energy requires a lot of investment because you continue to are willing to grow. Growing means investment.
There is a point where you can get the fruits out of that, and that's part of the model that you need to put in place. I can tell you, by the way, that is interesting discussion I had with Gautam Adani about the future of AGEL, because obviously I was ready to take 20%, but I want my money back, like a U.K. Prime Minister said one day to Europe. I use the same way to work. Okay. Let's say it's a good horizon, a good objective that you just put us. I adopt it.
Thank you very much.
Thank you. Your next question is from Christyan Malek from JP Morgan. Please go ahead.
Thank you, thank you for a very comprehensive presentation. Two questions if I may. First, really appreciate the detail on the path to sort of scaling up returns in the low carbon business. As it further matures, would you, the board, consider an IPO as part of unlocking a lower cost of capital? What would the key triggers be? The second question is about disclosure.
It's not fair because I could ask this of your peers, but you clearly seem to be leading the way here, Patrick. Given there seems to be this dislocation valuation relative to pure plays in the low-carbon business and the renewables business, can we expect greater disclosure to demonstrate progress towards this 10% equity IRR target? Would you consider disclosing carbon intensity levels by asset or region, given it seems investors want greater transparency for everything, whether it's financials, carbon intensity in the portfolio, not just a holistic target? Probably more than two questions there. Apologies.
The first question, I think I answered to one of your colleague. I think, again, no. It's not on the table today at all. As I said just before, we changed our name to TotalEnergies, not to suddenly IPO the energies. I want to keep the energies within the company. I think it's a strong move by the board, which means that really we think that it's a question of patience, as you just said. The larger this stake will be in our portfolio, the better it will be understood, and it will be valorized. That's clear that we are willing to invent a new category of energy company. I don't see why today there is a debate about the legitimacy of oil and gas to produce electricity.
Probably we afraid some electricity companies, by the way, by coming into the picture after what happened in round four in U.K., maybe they are right to be afraid. It's a matter for me of delivery. It's not there, not on the short term. We'll see. Again, I think the signal we send you today by changing the name of the company to TotalEnergies is a very strong signal that really we embark in this strategy of transformation and that renewable is fully part of this business model. Renewable and electricity is full part of this business model. I don't intend to change the business model every morning because I wake up and I'm afraid about the valuation of the company. Low-carbon disclosure. Okay. We'll give you a lot of disclosure today. If you don't have enough, you will tell me.
We'll give you capacity by geography, by technology. By the way, we intend to give you that every quarter. If we need to give more, I'm not sure. There was a debate. I've seen that one competitor is giving even the PPA by contract. I'm not sure I'm willing to say to my competitors all my figures. I never gave that for oil and gas. I never disclose all the fiscal terms of the oil and gas contracts. I'm a little sensitive. Let's see. Our interest, to be clear, Christyan, where we are aligned is that, we will give you by region, we will give you by technology, the figures. You will see that wind represents around 20, 25%. We will give you the net capacity.
I think with what we will deliver to you today, you have a lot to work on, and I will be happy to listen to what you want. Again, our willingness by disclosing more is clearly that everybody could better valorize and give the right valuation on this portfolio, and 35 GW, 20 GW of PPA. Just these figures and the price we gave you, if you compare that on some renewable company, I think you can find some good valuation. I take the point, and I will be happy to welcome your suggestion in the coming weeks.
Thank you.
Our next question is from the line of Jason Kenney from Santander. Please go ahead.
Hi there. Truly impressive level of disclosure from TotalEnergies. It's a critical culture shift, I think, and I really do hope it appears in the share price given the obvious value in the business lines. I'm really enjoying the solar coaster that Total is on as well. Material portfolio additions over recent months. I know that in comments you've mentioned that renewables could be 40% of sales or revenues by 2050. I know it's not going to be a linear process, but do you think you could give us a percentage of revenue by 2030, 2035 from renewables? That's my first question, really. The second maybe to Helle.
Could you envisage a macro scenario where we have 80 MMbbl a day of demand for oil only in 2025, so no more than 80 MMbbl a day of demand? What kind of oil price do you think that would entail if we were to see that demand? Obviously, there's two sides to the equation here. Then one more, if I may, and it's on a technology question, really. Because of the amount of solar that you do have and the shift to hydrogen over time, I'm wondering if there's an investment in photoelectrocatalysis that you could maybe combine with those solar panels and just create hydrogen directly without using electrolyzers.
The first answer is 15%-20% by 2030-2035, I would say, fundamentally. 15%-20%, I think it's already at this horizon. The second question, I will ask Helle. I'm sure she has that scenario. If she has that scenario, I think she will be fired, in fact.
Well.
Tomorrow morning. I'm just letting Helle answer.
Jason, hi. I'm not allowed, of course, to say that this is a credible scenario, but honestly, I don't think it's a credible scenario.
I think there will be tons of other issues. If oil demand drops to that level, I think the world will be on the wake of disappearing. No, I think that is science fiction, honestly. We told you back in September that we see oil demand beginning to peak at the end of this decade. We have no reason to believe that it will be declining rapidly from here on until 2025. I don't think that exists.
By the way, just to comment on it, the only scenario you can think is that it's not one, but two, three pandemics in a row, that we think that we are all locked down.
Yeah.
That nobody's moving anymore, which I hope not for all of us, but we've seen something incredible in 2020.
Sure.
I hope it will not happen. By the way, let me be clear, the oil price is not only given by demand and supply. I don't know if you noticed today, honestly, at $55, the demand is not yet very high. The inventories are high because you have some players in the market which have been quite efficient.
Disciplined.
Disciplined, I would say, in terms of which who are clearly willing, and there is probably a debate, is it $45, is it $50, is it $60? We are targeting to get $50, I would say. It's back to what is a competition between oil in Russia, oil in Saudi Arabia, and oil in the shale oil in the U.S. My vision is that today, because these economies of these countries are not able to transition in five years, so they absolutely need a certain level of oil price, and they will prefer to diminish their production by letting the oil price crashing to I don't know which level. For me, and again, the oil demand, The word transition means something.
It means that the world today, let's be clear, our world is working because we have oil, and we should not forget it, 80% of the world economy is carbonized. We will not shift it just because we are willing it somewhere. It will take time. My view is that the oil price at this level, I would answer to you, it's $45 or $50 a barrel. Because of the supplier discipline, not because of supply and demand.
I was probably thinking more about efficiency gains and substitution effects where other fuels switch in to take out some of the oil demand. The oil supply.
We talked about that back in September, Jason, and we absolutely look at that, of course, but it's impossible to do as quickly as 2025.
Fair enough. Okay.
I think we showed you some very aggressive assumptions in the Total Energy Outlook. Very aggressive assumptions, we can't reach that level that you just suggested in five years, even by being super aggressive. I didn't catch your last question. Please, can you repeat?
Yeah. It was basically cutting out the middleman of the electrolyzer and just going straight from photoelectrocatalysis on solar panels directly producing hydrogen.
That's still very early stage, I think.
Philippe, you are the expert in solar panels and in hydrogen. If we have an expert.
Yeah.
Helle is the R&D in charge of innovation.
Yeah.
That's true.
It's being looked upon, as far as I'm aware, Philippe. I'll leave you.
Give the floor to Philippe.
Very early stage at this point in time.
Yeah. Well, Helle is perfectly right. To produce the hydrogen, there are two molecules that are embedded on earth. Methane on one side, and you have to separate hydrogen from carbon. It's easy, but it goes with CO₂, or we always separate in water, hydrogen from oxygen. You need a lot of energy because it's a very stable molecule. To get from solar directly the level of intense energy that you need to separate those two molecules is a real challenge. I don't think that we'll see the photocatalysis. High temperature electrolysis is much more promising to me. Sorry to be boring with this audience.
No, no, I think Jason is willing to see if he wants to invest in which company. High temperature technology. As the hydrogen company are just becoming crazy in terms of valuation. Everybody is just looking for the next.
Absolutely, yeah.
The next golden mine. Where is the next golden mine? Clear. Next question.
The next question comes from the line of Paul Cheng from Scotiabank . Please ask your question.
On carbon sequestration, you haven't mentioned anything on that. That seems to be a big difference in approach between the European and the U.S. companies. If we're looking at the low carbon wind and solar power, the technology is quite established and well-defined. Carbon sequestration seems like it's early stage. Trying to understand that, is that a business that you think sometime in the future will be a major business for you and could be as big of a focus and emphasis as your solar and wind power? If not, why not? That's the first question. The second question is that you have been talking about net investment, $12 billion for this year, $ 13 billion-$16 billion for the next several years. Is there an organic CapEx estimate that you can share? Out of that net investment, what's the organic CapEx may look like? Thank you.
The first question, I didn't mention it because, in fact, you will have just to wait for Arnaud, because when Arnaud will speak about Scope 1 and 2 and net emissions, obviously we will not speak only about NBS, nature-based solution, but Arnaud will cover the carbon sequestration. Honestly, I will tell you, I've just revealed something today to you, is that I asked Arnaud, the E&P President, to speak about carbon sequestration because I have the feeling that he's best positioned to speak about it rather than Philippe in charge of renewables. I don't know why, Carbon sequestration is obviously, for me, something in particular. I've been public. Total has invested in Northern Lights, I consider that having some positions in the North Sea with depleted fields, it might be a future for us. Is it a business? That's more a question.
It's a necessity for sure to offset, I would say, or to store some carbon. It's back to the hydrogen. Hydrogen, where do we store the CO2 if we want to develop blue hydrogen? Arnaud will come back on it, and he will give you a flow. I don't have the feeling, to be honest, it will be a major business. It's absolutely necessity that we manage that. Again, it will of course be highly dependent on CO2 pricing to make that technology to become a business. Arnaud will develop it in his presentation just after. The organic CapEx, I don't know if I have the right to disclose it. I think it depends. No, I don't disclose it. No. It's a flexibility we keep around. I can just tell you that the organic CapEx in 2020 was $10 billion.
That you will see it in our accounts. I can reveal something, it is in the accounts. Again, the way we speak, when we look to net investments, of course, one difficulty we faced in 2020, let's be clear, is when the oil price is low, the capacity to divest some assets is not so strong or you have to lose some value. We are not ready to lose value. There is acquisition, but with divestment. For me, it's more that equation that I'm looking carefully, which is if I can sell more, I can buy more. Organic CapEx, the range of 2020, around $10 billion is a good figure.
Thank you.
It's back to my answer also to short cycle CapEx, which is a way to have some flexible organic CapEx, I would say.
The next question comes from the line of Martijn Rats from Morgan Stanley. Please ask your question.
Yeah. Hi, good afternoon. I've got two, if I may. First of all, the ESG bonds, so the bonds linked to climate KPIs, that seems a rather big deal. I was wondering if you could talk about it perhaps a little bit more specifically. I was interested in the magnitude of the cost of capital advantage you think you could get relative to more traditional bonds by using this approach. Secondly, yeah, not something that gets an awful lot of attention these days. I was wondering what your outlook is for your European refining portfolio. What levels of restructuring we might expect there in coming years. I was a little surprised that you, for example, mentioned that you would still restart a refinery that is currently closed, for example. If you could talk about that a bit, that would be great.
The second question, no, I did not mention I will restart a refinery closed. Donges has been just temporarily shut down to face the low margins. We never announced that we are closing Donges. No way. Maybe I was not clear. The one we announced that we are really closing in terms of the refinery is Grandpuits. Like La Mède, these ones will never come back as refining capacity and oil product capacity. When we did took that, I would say, conjunctural decision to shut down Donges, it was clearly announced as a temporary shutdowns because to wait for better margins. I think Total has done a lot in its portfolio in terms of restructuring since the last 10 years. Other players around Europe should also take their responsibilities.
Jean-Pierre will tell you everything about these ESG bonds.
Yes. The idea is to use climate KPI bonds in the future for our bonds issuance. It is not directly linked to a cost advantage. I know that on the market at present time, there is what we call the greenium. I do not know exactly, perhaps 5 basis points. The main driver is to align our financing policy with our climate ambitions. It is a matter of sustainability, a matter of acceptability, rather than a way of reducing the costs of our bond issuance.
The bond issuance by Total today are at which level as an average? We issue bonds at which level?
At present time, we issue bonds less than 2%. In 2020, during the second quarter, we issue $9 billion of new bonds with very long maturity, and we are able to capture 40 years maturity as less than 3%. On average, I would say around 2%.
Yeah. I think it is an important, for me, decision of the board, this one. As you said, it is quite a big deal, Martijn. You are right. All that is back to, for me, all these debates, in particular in Europe, around taxonomy and the fact that there is even people pushing the ECB to decide that they should know. Today, ECB as a monetary body has to be neutral. When they buy some bonds, they have to be neutral bonds, neutral buyer, and to buy all fair share of all the bonds. There are people pushing the ECB to align the way they will purchase bonds on the taxonomy. Taxonomy is quite, I would say, a stringent approach, maybe too stringent, by the way.
I think what we propose today is a way to say, okay, look, you have some corporations, some companies like Total who are in transition. We need to finance the transition. At the same time, by the way, Total is very useful because, again, the economy today is a carbon economy. If we cannot finance our future, there is a real problem. It could create a problem. Linking all our bonds tomorrow to become ESG bonds, like you said, I like your idea. ESG bonds, we'll call them, not sustainability bonds, by the way. ESG bonds is clearer. To climate KPI for me is making this link of transition in a strong way. If we could have an advantage, I hope it will be the case. At least what I don't want to see is to have a disadvantage of the financial policy.
Again, we are obliged to take to preempt, and I think it's a strong message to all these monetary policy bodies that we have players like, Total, TotalEnergies who are ready to be very serious about their transition, and you must take that into account in the way you will allocate your bond purchasing policy. I think, and this is what I'm advocating at the European level, the taxonomy has one default for me. It's an absolute rule. You are green or you are not green. In fact, there is something wrong there because this economy is in transition. We should find a way to reward the best-in-class ESG players.
If we are among the best ESG players, we should find a way to find this access to this good financing, because again, the transition will not be only done by smaller players who are not delivering cash flows and who have a limited access to capital. I think this is, for me, something very important, and I hope that this ESG bonds policy will be well received and even can be, if we make some profits, would be good. At least for TotalEnergies. I take the point, Martijn. I will ask, there is a new KPI for Jean-Pierre, which is to lower his cost of the debt, thanks to my idea to make ESG bonds. That's good. Okay.
Wonderful. Thank you.
Okay.
We have the next question coming from the line of Alastair Syme from Citi. Please ask your question.
Hi. Thank you. I just have one question really on that slide 28, where you sort of talk about the renewables financing model. I was just intrigued around the farm down strategy, whether you're seeing any signs that that strategy is changing over the years. Is it getting more competitive? Are you finding the terms more difficult? I guess just to reflect, the strategy works until there's a lack of buyers that are interested in taking on that risk. We're helping you de-risk. Thank you.
Of course. Of course, you are right, today the market is huge. When we make some farm downs, I can tell you the price we obtain are always better. It's clear that it's linked also to the very low interest rate. You have many, many financial institutions, you know that perfectly, who themselves want to decarbonize their own portfolio. Where everybody is the same transition. You have more demand for this type of assets than supply.
It's clear. It might change in the future, but with the maturity, all that is a question of market maturity. We'll see. Honestly, I think for the next five years, I'm comfortable that we'll be able to execute this approach. That's something. There is a lot of appetite for that. Okay. It's 4:30 P.M., Ladislas. Maybe we should move to the next presentation because I'm afraid we could go too long for our auditors. I think we have something like 30, 35 minutes of presentation coming on. Maybe we should keep the questions for the last session, if you're all right, and introduce Arnaud and Adrien now.
All right. Yes. After the presentation of Arnaud and Adrien, anyway, we'll have also a Q&A session. You will have time to ask your questions. Now comes the second part of the day with the climate roadmap in action. There will be Arnaud, and then Adrien Henry, as I mentioned earlier on. I switch directly to Arnaud Breuillac.
Merci, Ladislas. Good afternoon, good morning, or good evening, wherever you are. I think Patrick gave you a good reason why I'm making this presentation. Another one is that you will have noted our capacity to relentlessly reduce costs over the last five years. You will see through this presentation how we have engaged in a similar journey to reduce emissions from our operations. We are committed to reduce by 40% the Scope 1 and 2 emissions from our operated oil and gas facilities between 2015 and 2030, with an ambition to get to net zero by 2050. Our main levers are to reduce, avoid, capture, and offset. Reduce our emissions by optimizing the energy used to produce or refine oil and gas. This can be achieved by electrification of the process and by increasing the energy efficiency.
Avoid by ensuring zero flaring or venting and keeping methane emissions near to zero. Capture with CCS projects, and I will come back on that and also on methane emission later in my presentation. Of course, portfolio management will impact emissions, but we scrutinize all new projects to ensure that their marginal impact to our Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions is positive. Finally, in parallel to optimizing the energy used and minimizing the energy lost, we are developing carbon sinks, notably with Nature Based Solutions, and my colleague, Adrien Henry, will come back at the end of this presentation to cover these projects. Altogether, we are developing a strong low-carbon culture in the company, and this is illustrated by the next slide. In 2020, our CO2 fighting squad has launched a company-wide systematic review of all opportunities to reduce Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions.
The first phase allowed us to identify more than 500 projects in upstream and downstream operated assets, out of which more than 400 projects have been qualified with the potential to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 7 million of ton of CO2 equivalent per year. To answer Lydia's questions, most of these project would cost less than $40 per ton of CO2 reduced, and since January 2020, the economic value of all new investments are computed with a CO2 price of $40 per ton of CO2, with a sensitivity at $100 per ton of CO2 from 2030. Let's zoom now on our upstream projects. We have identified 160 projects or initiatives that will contribute to reducing the Scope 1 and 2 emissions of our upstream operations by 2.5 million ton of CO2 per year by 2025.
To illustrate these actions, here are a few examples as shown on this slide. We will reduce venting in Gabon by reducing cold vents to the flare. Routine flaring will be reduced in Nigeria OML 100 by rerouting gas to the export system and in Congo and Gabon by adding LP compressions. Of course, routine flaring will be stopped by 2030 on all of our operated assets. In Angola, revised operating philosophy on our FPSOs will contribute to significant savings on fuel gas consumptions. For example, by further optimizing the number of turbo generators running with minimum impact on power reliability and by upgrading the air filtration on turbine intakes. Several digital projects will contribute to reducing power requirement from compressions or pumping stations.
Finally, we are studying electrification of offshore platforms on Culzean or on Tyra fields in the North Sea with connection to wind power turbine and solarization of onshore site like Tempa Rossa in Italy. For each new upstream project, we are systematically reviewing cost-effective solutions to minimize emissions. On Mozambique LNG, to come back on the point made by Patrick earlier on, we've managed to reduce the emission intensity of the project down to 25 kg of CO2 per barrel, per barrel equivalent, of course, significantly below the average emissions intensity of LNG projects. That is shown on this slide at 38 kg of CO2 per barrel of oil equivalent. This is achieved by optimizing the power generation, by choosing low emissions gas turbines, by adding waste heat recovery units on each of the turbine exhaust systems, and by installing high-efficiency boil-off gas compressors.
In addition, as part of the energy generation will be generated by a dedicated solar farm installed near the project site. On Mero 3 FPSO in deep offshore Brazil, the emission intensity will be approximately 15 kg of CO2 per barrel at plateau level, thanks to the extraction of CO2 from the fuel gas and reinjection into the reservoir. On this project, vapor recovery compressors are used and also waste heat recovery units. With this modification, in two years, Mero 3 FPSO intensity will be reduced by 25% compared to Mero 1 FPSO design. Last, on our Lake Albert project in Uganda and Tanzania, the emission intensity is estimated at 13 kg of CO2 per barrel, well below the average intensity of our oil and gas-operated assets at around 20 kg, as mentioned.
For example, we've decided to add an LPG extraction unit on the Tilenga upstream production facilities to optimize the fuel gas consumption. We are also supplying the local market with those LPGs, thus substituting charcoal being used for cooking. On the EACOP project, the pipeline project to export the oil from Tilenga, the pumping stations will be solarized in Tanzania. All new upstream projects are scrutinized during the conceptual and design phase to ensure that no opportunity is lost to reduce our emissions. Let’s look at the downstream emissions. Altogether, by 2025, 4.5 million ton of CO2 of Scope 1 and 2 emissions will be avoided each year thanks to 280 projects.
2.3 million ton of CO2 per year will come from avoiding emissions through electrification of the processes by producing green hydrogen in La Mède biorefinery from a 100 MW operated solar farm, or by supplying our European refineries with green electricity. This is our GoGreen projects. I will come back to this. 1.4 million ton of CO2 per year will come from reducing emissions by improving energy efficiency in all of our refineries, by switching from fuel oil to natural gas for electricity or steam generations. We have a major project in our Leuna refinery in Germany, and by using digital solution as in E&P to optimize energy consumption. Last, 0.8 million ton of CO2 per year will be captured from the SMR unit in our Zeeland refinery.
In addition, for beyond 2025, we have another CO2 capture project studied for our refinery in Antwerp. A few words on our GoGreen project, which will be a significant contribution to the reduction of our emission in Europe, as 2 million tons will be avoided by supplying our downstream operations with green electricity produced from our solar farms in Spain. The production will be amounting to 10 TWh by 2025, and our power trading entity will do the interfacing between the solar farms, the local power markets, and the group entities. This green electricity will be used in our operated industrial sites, especially our refineries, but also our commercial sites and offices across Europe, with an estimated power consumption of 6 TWh in 2025. Of course, excess power will be sold to third party.
In summary, we have identified 400 projects in upstream and downstream operations that will avoid 7 million tons of CO2 equivalent per year by 2025. Let’s focus on methane emissions. 2020 global methane emissions from the oil and gas sector are estimated by the IEA at around 72 million tons. Most of these emissions are coming from the upstream sector, around 75%, and the remaining 25% from the gas distribution activities. The upstream emissions sources are associated with unburnt gas at the flare tips, cool vents associated to production, process venting, and unburnt fuel gas in the combustion engines or furnace. Finally, fugitive methane emissions can be found in flanges, fittings, and passing valves.
Methane emissions from Total operations in 2020 are estimated to be 64,000 ton, which is equivalent to 1.6 million ton of CO2, as methane has a warming factor that is at least 25x greater than CO2. Measurements of group methane emissions are a combination of continuous measurements by flow meters on flare and cool vents and calculations with typical emissions factor per equipment. Spot surveys are also used with gas detectors and infrared cameras. The pie chart on the left part of the slide illustrate that half of our methane emissions are associated with venting and 25% with flaring. Therefore, all actions launched to reduce venting and flaring, as illustrated before, will contribute to reducing significantly our methane emissions. The current intensity of our methane emissions from our operated oil and gas asset is less than 0.2% of our production of commercial gas.
The methane intensity of our gas asset alone is less than 0.1% of our production of commercial gas, which is already very low compared to the average of the industry, as published by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA or the IEA. Even though our methane emissions are already very low, this slide illustrates our relentless efforts to continue to reduce these emissions. From 2010 to 2025, we will have reduced our methane emissions by more than 50%. Our operational levers on new projects are to design facilities with closed flare systems, to replace gas instruments with air or inert gas, and to systematically exclude continuous cold venting. On all of our operated assets, we are increasing the frequency of leak detections and repair, and we are also reducing the number of gas pneumatic devices. Here are some examples of venting reduction on three projects.
On Tyra redevelopment project in Denmark, a new project. All cold vents have been removed, leading to a methane reduction of 1.2 kiloton per year, which is equivalent to 30,000 ton of CO2 per year. On Anguille platform in Gabon, the rerouting of cold vent between two platforms and installation of an electrical compressor, will contribute to reduction of 7,400 ton per year of methane, which is equivalent to 180,000 ton of CO2. Last, on Elgin platform in the U.K., the rerouting of the strip gas used by the glycol unit will be rerouted to the LP flare and has reduced the methane emission by 3,800 ton per year, which is equivalent to 90,000 ton of CO2. Finally, we are participating in R&D programs to improve methane detections and quantification.
Since 2018, we have a dedicated testing platform near Pau in France to test and qualify new technologies for greenhouse gas emissions, detection, and measurements. We have developed a proprietary technology mounted to a drone to detect and measure CO2 and methane, and this tool has already been used on some of our onshore and offshore operated sites. Satellite data acquisition is booming. We are partnering with new companies like Kayrros or GHGSat, which have specialized in satellite detection of greenhouse gas emission. We are also developing fixed camera and micro sensors for continuous local monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions. We believe that the combination of drone and satellite measurements, together with on-site cameras and sensors, will provide reliable data on CO2 and methane emissions.
In conclusion of this presentation on methane, I want to confirm Total's strong commitment to maintaining our emissions to the lowest level, to develop technologies to provide reliable monitoring of methane emissions, and to be at the forefront of the industry reduction initiatives to get methane intensity below 0.2% on oil and gas assets. The third part of my presentation will focus on our project in carbon capture and storage, and I hope it will answer Paul's questions earlier on. Carbon capture and storage project are essential for the industry to meet the climate challenge. All two degree C scenario include an important contribution of CCS to sequestrate and keep CO2 concentration in the atmosphere below 450 ppm. The latest IEA SDS scenario includes 850 million ton of CO2 sequestration by 2030 and more than 5,000 million ton by 2050.
Just for comparison, the global CCS capacity last year in 2020 was 40 million tons and identified projects by 2030 are adding up to 170 million tons. Today, there is a need for acceleration of development of CCS projects that currently require tax incentives and carbon pricing to fly. The number of projects planned to be launched in the next 10 years will drive costs down through economies of scale and technology improvements. Europe, with its net zero ambition by 2050, has clear targets to develop CCS and several countries have set up fiscal incentives on CCS projects. We should see strong growth in CCS and particularly in the North Sea, that provides a favorable environment with a concentration of large industrial complexes connected to infrastructure, pipelines, and harbors and depleted fields.
Since 1996, Total has built transverse competencies on CCS by mobilizing expertise across the company on each segment of these projects. This is illustrated on this slide where we have a track record of being involved in pioneer projects and industry initiatives. Currently, Total is involved in several CCS projects from across Northern Europe at different maturity levels, which are totaling a potential of 15 million tons of CO2 storage. The Northern Lights project in Norway being the most advanced with other projects in the U.K. and in the Netherlands, and we've also managed to engage the Danish government to look at CCS. CCS business framework is still in the making and will combine the three following pillars. First, project management, HSE, operational excellence, and cost optimization expertise. This is our primary responsibility. Second, state support. Third, CO2 value obtained through regulation.
It could be CO2 tax, fuel directives, or ETS. We intend to develop CO2 capture and storage projects to capture emissions from our operated sites and therefore reduce their Scope 1 and 2 footprint. We are targeting 3 million-5 million tons of CO2 storage capacity per year by 2030 for the group. Let's have a more detailed look at our main projects. Thanks to our historic presence in Norway, we are partners with Equinor and Shell on Northern Lights, the most advanced CCS project in the North Sea. FID of phase I was taken in May of last year, and this project has received strong support from the Norwegian government, both with the announcement of a target price for CO2 of $220 per ton by 2030, but also with an 80% state subsidy on the $800 million capex for phase I.
This phase I will include the transportation, injection, and storage of up to 1.5 million tons of CO2 per year. The unit cost of this phase is approximately $150 per ton of CO2. Phase II will consist of an extension to reach 5 million tons of CO2 per year to fulfill the need of European emitters and should have a unit cost around $70 per ton of CO2, thanks to economies of scale, mainly on transport. In the Netherlands, the Climate Agreement has set the pace for a decarbonized economy with a target price of $150 per ton of CO2 by 2030. With attractive subsidies for CCS and EU funding, Total is planning to produce clean hydrogen from its SMR unit, capturing 0.8 million tons of CO2 per year by 2025 and shipping it to North Sea storage site. This is on our Zeeland refinery.
CapEx are estimated at $300 million, and therefore the unit cost for capture and conditioning should be around $70 per ton of CO2. A similar project is under study at our Antwerp refinery and would be connected to a CO2 transportation infrastructure with a gathering pipeline and export terminal at the port of Antwerp. Also in the Netherlands, the Aramis project aims at giving a new life to depleted gas fields. We have identified the potential to store more than 4 million tons of CO2 per year, and we intend to build an onshore terminal to receive CO2 by pipelines, barges, and ships, and to connect this terminal to an offshore sequestration network, reusing existing infrastructure, offshore pipelines, platforms, and wells. The development concept will be modular and based on customer needs.
This project is targeting around $50 per ton of CO2 for transportation and storage for 2 million-4 million tons of CO2 per year. To conclude this part on CCS, Total is investing $50 million per year in R&D to lower CCS costs. As illustrated on the previous slide, we are accelerating R&D results by implementing new ideas into industrial projects through partnerships. On CO2 capture, we are working on new materials and processes to improve the efficiency mechanism. On transportation, for example, we are developing solutions to avoid hydrate formation in pipelines and wells during injection. On storage, we are working on reservoir modeling and monitoring to ensure safe containment of CO2 over time. This concludes my presentation on Total's actions and projects to reduce our carbon emissions by leveraging our expertise across the different branches of the group.
We are relentlessly reducing our Scope 1 and 2 emissions and maintaining our methane emissions at a very low level, and we're working with government and partners to find cost-effective solutions to develop CCS project. As a reminder, our target is to reduce our net emissions by 40% in 2030 compared to 2015. Now, I will hand over to my colleague, Adrien Henry, who will present our nature-based solution to sink carbon in nature, as this will be required to get to zero net emissions by 2050.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. As introduced earlier, the purpose of the Nature Based Solutions activities is to build carbon sequestration capacities and to provide for volumes of high standard carbon credits for the group. The plan is to build these capacities and volumes from now to 2030 as a first milestone, these activities shall contribute to get to the net zero emissions balance from 2030 onwards, as said by Arnaud earlier. This is a final and necessary piece of effort and achievements coming after reductions as detailed before. To this end, in 2020, we assembled a team. We defined and built a model for our operations around a few pillars I will detail, we started originating, designing, and achieving some operations.
Of course, there are multiple ways to sink carbon in nature, but the very first pillar of our model is to focus on the quality of the underlying operations that will come, because ultimately, the quality of this operation that sequester carbon through living nature are the guarantee for the robustness in time, the sustainability of the sequestration, and also ultimately, the guarantee for the environmental integrity of the verified emission reductions that can come from these operations. As a consequence, we decide to focus on some of the ways that nature offers to sequester carbon, and mostly photosynthesis and soil carbon absorption. This by difference to other possible ways like dissolutions in the oceans or more complex mineralization ways that we consider not fit for such operations today because of uncertainties and progress of operational ways to deploy.
Another important point is that we will, as far the underlying operations are concerned, consider both conservation activities and creation of new carbon sinks. Mostly because we think they're both useful and necessary in terms of volumes of carbon sequestration that will be required to reach a certain carbon concentration in the atmosphere in 2030 and toward 2050. Both conservation and creation of new carbon sequestration ways are necessary. The second reason for considering both is that the conversion way and the creation of carbon sink bring different co-benefits in terms of biodiversity, in terms of water cycle management, in terms of local job creation. These different type of operations create different co-benefits, and it's good to opt for a portfolio approach. Finally, we also obviously anticipate changing environments for this operation and these carbon sinks on the ground.
There will be changes in the climate, there will be changes in the biology, and there will be changes in the regulations applying to all these different types of operations. It seems the right way to go to consider, again, a portfolio approach, and not to go only for either planting trees on bare land or just conserving forest, but to go for various types of operations and to bundle them in a portfolio approach. In fact, and on the grounds, we will have all these types of operations in our portfolio. The second very important pillar for deploying our operations is, of course, the certification and verification environment that applies today and that will apply in time. We set for ourselves the target and the standard that we will only go for the highest standards for verification.
It's now common knowledge that the vast majority of such operations happen in a voluntary carbon market, and that the design, verification, and certification pathways are critical to ensure the final environmental integrity of the verified emission reductions that come from such operations. We set for ourselves the rule that we will go only for the highest standards, and of course, follow the external new rules and standards that could come in time, and that will certainly come in time. Again, to be specific, it means that we have a strong preference for operations that have realistic and reasonable baseline for the calculation of the sequestration of the carbon through nature. In terms of conservation operations, it goes as far as preferring operations under nested approach or jurisdictional approach.
It also means that we will have a preference for proven methodologies that have been proven through past operations all over the world. This is true for a few methodologies in terms of removing carbon through plantation, and it's also true for some methodologies and a lot of methodologies in terms of conservation. Finally, it also means that we will strictly follow the rule of on-the-ground measurements for the performance of the carbon sequestration, be it for, again, the creation of new plantation or new carbon sink, or be it for the conservation. The progress in terms of satellite imageries and all the new technologies coming will offer a good scientific base to follow the actual performance and the measured performance from the conservation.
Finally, and certainly not least, the third pillar of our model for developing our nature-based activities is the very strong belief that there is no long-lasting carbon sink from nature without local inclusive value chain with people. For the simple fact that we will not enter spaces to deploy these carbon sequestration activities where there is nobody or nobody has to live from these same places. As a matter of fact, it's also common knowledge that deforestation and degradation, in a broad sense, the change of use of land is the second cause for emissions to the atmosphere. It's also the result of past decades of developments of such activities that there should be local value chains deployed alongside the carbon sequestration we are expecting from nature. In a very practical way, it means that we will adopt a holistic approach and we will consider carbon sequestration.
We will also consider biodiversity. We will also consider the water cycle, and we will obviously consider the creation of local value chains, meaning local job-producing value and agroforestry production from nature locally, creating jobs, creating also products that will be used locally and internationally. Practically, again, on the ground, it means that we will team up with partners who have a long experience of such operations, learn with them, and take the risk of operations with them. It also means that a portion of the investment we will deploy will go for the creation and/or scaling up of such non-carbon activities that come along with the carbon sequestration we are targeting.
Finally, it also means that we intend to monitor the progress and the results, the performance of our nature-based activities, not only with the number of carbon credits coming from these operations, but also looking after and monitoring the co-benefits that will come from these operations. Based on this model. In the course of the past year, we have started originating, designing, and achieving some operations that I'd like to illustrate now with three examples. These three examples are of different kind and illustrating the different types of operations in a portfolio spirit, as I was explaining before. The first operation I'm picturing here is a partnership we closed with an Australian developer in the second part of 2020.
This company is proven and seasoned in financing and deploying money alongside farmers so that the transition from a non-sustainable pasture management ways to sustainable pasture management ways, what is obviously called regenerative agriculture transition. The model here is that through and with our partner, we will offer the farmers to candidate and then to deploy new ways of managing their pastures. It means different grazing models, it means different amendments to the soils, and this leading to more carbon sequestration in the soil. It's very interesting to develop this activity in Australia for at least two reasons. The first one is in Australia, the carbon market for such operations is advanced, and there is a connection with the compliance market for nature-based activities. It offers a robust framework with proven experiences before.
The second good reason is that in Australia, these soil carbon methodologies have been proven several times already. It's a good move to start with the first phase on this operation. You could consider that maybe 1 million tons CO2-equivalent over 25 years is a small move. However, it's a good example of how we see operations. It's a first move, and what we're bringing to the table to the partners and to the farmers is long-term horizon in terms of financing so that they have the time for their transition, and they can focus on the operations rather than caring for the financing of this transition. 10,000 hectares is the goal for this first phase, and it's already a significant surface of land.
Another example in Peru, and it's a flagship example of what we can deploy and do in the conservation part of our activity. At the end of 2020, we settled an agreement with a long-experienced Peruvian NGO for the design and the development of two very significant operations that can lead to the potential of sequestering over 25 million tons of CO2-equivalent over 20 years, plus another set of three to four operations we could develop in the second phase that could go for another 25 million tons of CO2-equivalent and corresponding volumes of carbon credits. Our approach is to partner with seasoned and best operators while bringing to them what they've been lacking for decades, that is long-term development and operational horizon and support, and long-term and patient financing. We are committing for financing operations over decades in such cases.
What is also very important in these two operations is the fact that they add afforestation and reforestation through agroforestry scheme to the conservation part of the activity. Again, we are not opposing creation of new carbon sinks and conservation of existing forest. We are not opposing the development of nature-based activities and important carbon sinks and local use of the same surfaces and same land by local population. We are aiming for the models that combine and gather all these different aspects so that we create the local value chains that will both sequester carbon and create improved livelihoods for population so that we erase the very causes for deforestation and degradation that are the most important causes for emission to the atmosphere from the land use change. Finally, a third example.
This is an operation that we are currently building now and that will happen in Central Africa. This operation has been originated, designed, and developed by the Total Nature-based team. It's a development in-house together with a long-proven partner for the operation, the planting operations in the given country, and also together with the state, because when you are going for planting up to 40,000 hectares of a new planted forest, of course, you have to have such a strong partner, and you have to discuss this development with the state. Here, the idea and the model is to create a planted forest on lands that start with a very low carbon content and that suffer from fires several times a year. There will be two phases in this operation.
The first phase is to create this planted forest, and doing this, create a forest atmosphere locally where there was only very few plants growing. Doing so, we will sequester carbon in the first 20 years of the operations and generate the corresponding amounts of verified emission reductions. That in the second phase, after year 20, we can start selective thinning of that wood and get only the annual growth of the planted forest. Doing this, we will unbalance the age and type of trees that are planted in this forest, and we will create the condition to transition from a planted forest to possibly, after 30, 40, 50 years, the regeneration of a local forest in the very long term. While doing so, we will also create local value chains for timber products that will serve the local big cities undergoing growing population and demographic development.
We will serve these cities with both construction wood and energy wood. First phase, creation of a planted forest, a forest atmosphere, generation of carbon sequestration, and corresponding emission reduction. Second phase, selective thinning so that we recreate the possibility for the emergence of a natural forest in the very long term, while producing locally construction wood and energy wood for growing populations. Last but not least, on this operation, we include the 2,000 hectares agroforestry development for the production of food crops and possibly cash crops for the local people, starting in the first year of the operations and not waiting for 20 years that the value of the timber value chains comes. This was my last example for picturing the type of operations we intend to have in our nature-based solutions portfolio of operations.
As a conclusion, and in a nutshell, I'd like to stress that our purpose with these three pillars in mind is to invest in scale-up and manage or contribute to manage integrated and communities inclusive nature-based value chains that capture carbon, and in this order. All this is working together. This is our strong belief, and this is the model we define for our nature-based operations. Of course, the purpose of all this, in line with the pillars I defined, is that as from 2030, the group will have and will be ready with internal capacity for carbon sequestration and corresponding generation of verified emission reductions, and also starting with as soon as 2030, with 100 million ton CO2 equivalent carbon credits being the fruit of all this development from today until 2030. To achieve such a big ambition, the group has decided for significant means.
On average, $100 million per year over this period. Of course, with this portfolio approach I described, we will target a balanced average price under $20 per ton of CO2. As of today, as a result of the first months of work, we have over 40 million tons of CO2 equivalent already approved for, as I described and pictured, multi-year projects. Again, with this, we will target 5 million-10 million tons CO2 equivalent sequestration capacity by 2030. A reserve of 100 million tons CO2 equivalent carbon credits to be used from 2030 onwards, while maintaining at least 10 years of reserves. Thank you.
Thank you, Adrien, and thank you, Arnaud. I think Adrien, maybe you can stay there in case there are any questions.
Yeah.
We are a little far from our traditional domain, which is good with Adrien, is that at least we learn each time he's speaking. It's executive committee. We continue to learn. I hope you learn. I think it's important because of course, it's part of the climate journey that we have climate roadmap if we want to get carbon neutrality. We think we will open a second round of questions for half an hour, I think, as was planned, so that we can close at 5:30 P.M. I think it's quite already 3:30 P.M., three hours and 30 minutes, quite a good time of listening and answering. Please, if you have any questions, of course, on this second part or on the first part for us. We interrupt at 4:30 P.M.
Thank you. We have first questions coming from the line of Anish Kapadia from Palissy Advisors. Please ask your question.
Hi, thanks very much for the presentation. I just had a question going back to the upstream. Just looking at the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, had a couple of questions around that. With the federal permitting bans potentially coming in, could you talk about how that could potentially affect your U.S. Gulf of Mexico operations and further developments? If you could also say something about the potential FIDs in the Gulf of Mexico. I think you have a few projects that are close to FID, and in particular, if there's been any effects on, or your thoughts on the Ballymore discovery, given the disappointment that Shell's had with Appomattox. Thank you.
Okay. Gulf of Mexico, fundamentally, we have two portfolio has been, is either we are linked to Chevron as an operator, and I trust Chevron as being very well-positioned to be an operator in the Gulf of Mexico. We had Ballymore, we had others, the one last year we sanctioned.
Anchor. We are also with them on other assets.
Tahiti, Jack, yeah.
Tahiti and Jack. We have a good partnership. This year, it is true that we have on our side one project, which is North Platte, as an operated project together with Equinor. I think it's part of the projects on which we were a little suspended, to be honest, in 2020, North Platte, because we had some arbitration to be done in the CapEx, and it's a project which we have to work on in order to lower the cost. The difficulty in the Gulf of Mexico is the size of the reserves, the size of discoveries, contrary to Brazil or to maybe Suriname. We have pools of oils which are not so big, we need to work hard in order to reach our targets in terms of technical cost breakevens.
Beauty of the U.S. is normally that the attractive fiscal terms are lowering the breakeven in terms. There is, of course, an upside as soon as the price of oil is going up. We need to review. I would say my answer to first, I don't have all the details of the permitting, but I don't think it has a direct impact on our developments because we are well in control, I think, of the license on which we want to develop our projects, North Platte in particular, or Ballymore. I don't see, as it could have on other properties, these ones are well controlled. It's more for me a question about how does the Gulf of Mexico fit in our exploration strategy and our global low-cost oil strategy, I would say.
We are reviewing that independently, I would say, of the decisions of the federal government. Beyond Ballymore and beyond North Platte, on which we will restart the work, I'm not so convinced that we will have an aggressive exploration strategy of the Gulf of Mexico. Again, it's not linked to the recent decision of the federal administration. It's more, I said during my presentation that we want to refocus our exploration on these large low-cost developments. Obviously, when we have made a large review of what we've done in the last 20 years, I cannot say that it delivered really these very large developments which are offering low cost. It's more for me a potential mismatch between the type of targets in the Gulf of Mexico and our global oil strategy for the future.
Having said that, these two projects, we are working on them, and if they can reach our threshold, we'll approve them. I don't see any impact, again, specifically on the new federal policy on these two projects.
Thank you.
The next questions come from the line of Alessandro Pozzi from Mediobanca. Please ask your question.
Hi. Thank you for taking my questions. The first one is on macro. You have a nice slide showing how tight the oil market could be within the next five years. When we look at the LNG, I'm not sure if the market is so tight. I was wondering if you can spend a few words on how you see supply and demand evolving over the next few years. Of course, we're coming from a big spike in gas prices, but maybe some of those factors behind that are maybe normalizing this year. Anything you can say about short period time outlook for LNG. My second one is on offshore wind in the U.K. It looks like you left some of your competitors quite upset because they haven't won any acreage in the U.K., also because of the option fee.
That keeps me wondering whether maybe the renewable economics in OECD countries are getting very competitive and compressed, maybe below your 10% equity threshold. The final one on Mozambique. I was wondering whether you have a timeline on when onshore work can restart there. Thank you.
No, situation is not the same between LNG and oil, it's clear. We know that what has been good with the year 2020 is that there was a pause on many of the potential FIDs around the world, in the U.S., but also the other project in Mozambique. We could have feared last year that there are too many projects rushing to FID in 2020. 2020 has put a pause, and I think has also put back to reality a number of projects. In this energy market, there was a sort of cap. In particular, the U.S. projects were developed by transferring a lot of risk on the off-takers. I think with the crash, not only it's linked to the oil price, but the crash on the JKM.
I mean, the low market we've seen, the spot markets, I think people realize that taking off-take risks without being integrated in the project could be quite unbalanced. My view is that what happened this year between, again, the spot marketing crash in Asia plus the less investments in our industry leading to less FIDs is probably good because we will probably have a more normalized LNG market in terms of new projects coming on stream or being sanctioned. That's why probably there was an overheating market. It's putting some cool, and that's better for all of us. Having said that, again, the good news is that you still have a strong demand growth. I mean, for LNG. Strong demand for LNG.
The fact that this year you are still at +3% despite the global economic crash is quite impressive because it is led fundamentally by the shift in Korea, in China, in India now from coal to gas. There is a good demand. I would say some cold water being put on all the people rushing for more projects. Globally speaking, my vision is that by 2025, where we could have feared to have another supply, I think we have a more balanced vision of the 2025 horizon than it was one year ago. Offshore wind, again, I think the option fee is part of the equation, then it will be a matter of how will be the CFD, because it is only part of the equation, the option fee to get the seabed. What I am sure is that we do not have the seabed rights, there is no project.
Because I think that's clear that what we observe is that, as I said before, this market is a clear signal that you have today players with a larger balance sheet able to manage these risks. Again, I can tell you that with the option fee we paid, which is, I think, GBP 83,000 per megawatt per year, which is almost half of what some other competitors paid. We are within the range of what is acceptable to us, and we keep the capacity to get our returns, that's what we are targeting. It's a matter, of course, time is of essence. Time is of essence, which means that the quicker we'll be able to go to the sanction of the project, I think 2025, wh en Pierre mentioned that figure, that date, it's a good target. It's an ambitious one, but it's a good one.
The quicker we go to the target of FID, the quicker we get the production, the better the returns will be. Again, one of the big element today still missing, this was the specificity of this U.K. auction, is that they separate in the U.K., the seabed rights and wind rights, the CFD auction. It's when we'll have the CFD that we'll really know what is the reality of profitability. We have been, I can tell you, very reasonable on our sides as of our CFD expectations in the way we bid. Mozambique timeline onshore work, to be clear, we all agree when we met with the governments that the sooner is the better that we want to remobilize.
If on the ground, again, the armed forces and the police are able to recontrol the area that we agree together, I think end of Q1 should be able to restart the work. That's the objective that we set to ourselves jointly with the government. Because, of course, we know that what is very important to us is we want to be sure that when we remobilize people, we can really engage in a sustainable work there. We don't want to reengage and then to stop again. That would be very detrimental for the trust of all the partners in this project. Let's first work and solve. Again, this is going beyond the situation in that region. It's not only a matter of the area around the project, it's a more global security issue for the Mozambican government.
We'll see if we can recontrol the situation.
Okay. That was very clear. Thank you.
The next question comes from the line of Peter Low from Redburn. Please ask your question.
Hi. Thanks. I just had a question on the ambition to green all the power used in your European operations. Have you structured that as a corporate PPA with your Spanish solar business, and can you give any color on how that contract works? Perhaps as a follow-on, are you seeing demand for similar PPAs from third-party companies who want to reduce their own emissions? Is that an area Total will seek to grow in going forward, kind of moving away from government stock PPAs towards more commercial ones as companies seek to decarbonize? Thanks.
Yes, it's organized clearly as clear contracts. The way we work within Total, even if there are three subsidiaries involved. You have Total Solar Spain, which signs a PPA with Total Trading Power, I would say, which is based on the 15-year PPA with a price which is within the market. It was a negotiation which will allow, on one side, Total Solar Spain to develop the projects, having secured a PPA, which is part of the renewable business. Then you have another contract between Total Trading Power and Total Refining & Chemicals division, which is again selling some power. Of course, they don't have exactly the same pricing, because in between somebody is supposed to make some money.
The beauty is that when we compared today, in fact, Total Refining & Chemicals is buying some power from, I would say, on the market with some more or less medium and long-term contracts. At the end of the day, the question was that it makes sense for Total Refining & Chemicals to buy some power from another source. Why the trading is interfacing? Obviously once the solar plants are in Spain and the other plants are not in Spain. You need to manage all that. We structure it in a way, and this is the second question, but this model could be offered tomorrow to other corporations.
We really wanted to structurally within the market, so with market rules, what we have done within Total, and it's done in Europe, it will be done tomorrow in the U.S., in the same way in Texas, where we have with the acquisition. It could be done exactly with the same way for corporations. The entity which takes more risk there in the middle is Total Trading Power. The beauty, of course, is that it's one element within a large portfolio. This is why in all this business, we need to have trading businesses, trading entities, because at the end, they aggregate some sources coming from Spain and some sources coming from other places, and some more customers so they can make their own optimization of the business. This is what we can offer to other corporations.
We can offer not only our capacity of producing renewable power somewhere, but also the capacity to aggregate, to deliver to them. We have engaged with some other corporations which are looking for that. Versus states, I'm not sure to have captured what is versus states. Again, my vision is that like we've seen in the U.S., the U.S. today is a merchant market, except for corporate PPAs. I suspect that in Europe, there will be a point where states will no more come with PPAs, but will say, let's say corporate PPAs are coming. It depends, of course, on the technologies. It's not true for offshore wind, even if probably Netherlands have begun to make some corporate PPAs. They are not willing to subsidize any more offshore wind, even if they might subsidize them for hydrogen developments.
It's a project that we are looking linking in the Netherlands, an offshore wind farm to a hydrogen development. That might be also a way. I think there is an evolution. Let's be clear. For me, with renewable business at the infant stage, we need some subsidies from states. Then you see a market growing with corporations, and one day in 15 years, all that will be a merchant market where like we've seen, for example, LNG is a perfect parallel. At beginning, we developed the LNG industry with long-term contracts with Asian customers, 15 years long-term contracts. Then it moved to more spot development market. I think you will see, and all that is linked, of course, to the evolution of the technology, lowering the cost of the technology and the capacity to be profitable in a merchant market.
Thank you.
The next question comes from the line of Christopher Kuplent from Bank of America. Please ask your question.
Hello. Thank you very much. I'll keep it to just one question, Patrick. Look, 2020 has been a very challenging year. When you look back, you obviously highlighted to us you've come out with one of the few dividends intact, and yet your dividend yield is 7.5%. The oil price is knocking on 60. What is your answer? What else do you have to do to show to the equity market that your cost of equity is not 7.5%? I wonder what possible explanations you would have. Is it perhaps linked to the fact that a lot of your growth, whether it's Adani, whether it's SunPower, is sort of a little hidden in listed subsidiaries? Do you have other, more important explanations?
My only explanations I have is that the yield of Total is lower than some of our peers and that it takes time. Okay. I was clear in my introduction. You have a fact that the equity market is no more in love with oil and gas companies, despite the fact that they are able to deliver some cash flows. You have a question about their future and the sustainability of the model. I think Total is working hard to show that there is a sustainable model. Again, if we are willing to establish this strategy is to show or to demonstrate to the market, we install TotalEnergies in the long term. I'm not think it's a question of hidden in equity affiliates. All that is technicalities. It's not the case. It's more fundamental.
I think that the fact that today we want to disclose, I think we need to convince the market that you can be somewhere black and green. That's clarity. We have part of a business model. Again, I'm proud to be black and green. I'm proud to be able, because if I don't have the black part, which is delivering cash flows, I cannot grow the green part. It's part of what we do. Again, I think, fundamentally where I'm convinced as well is that keeping the dividend intact is at the core of the investment thesis. Of course, from this perspective, I see that today the challenge is there. It's a question of sustainability of the model. Not in terms of cash flows. It's more about climate, CO2 impact, et cetera.
Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much.
The next question comes from the line of Dan Boyd from Mizuho Securities. Please ask your question.
Hi. Thanks. I have two questions. The first one is just when I look at your DCF guidance out to 2025 at $60 a barrel, it looks to be a bit lower, sort of 5%, 6% lower than what you presented in September. You commented on most of your major projects being on track. I'm just wondering if there was some conservatism based in that new update, or if you can go through what the moving parts were, that would be helpful. My second question is related to divestments and where that incremental capital would likely go. You correctly pointed out that the asset market hasn't been that great, and you've held off on upstream divestments. As we go forward, if commodity prices hold, presumably you would go back to the market to sell assets. In that scenario, where would we expect the incremental capital to go?
Would that primarily accelerate the low carbon ambition? Thanks.
On the first one, I think the increase of $6 billion was more or less what we said in September. Maybe it's a question of some millimeter on the slide. Having said that, I'm not sure. No, I think for me it was more or less the same guidance. The team will check, and we'll come back to you. I think the increase of $6 billion was what I had in mind. No, Jean-Pierre?
We gave the guidance by sectors between LNG, between downstream and E&P on the slides. You have all the details. You will see that it's more or less in line with.
I'll follow up.
Okay. Maybe, only if it's a matter of a few %, but I think from the fundamental, we did not rerun all the figures, to be honest. The second one, as I told you, let's be clear. For the time being, proceeds for asset sales, we need to look at them. What I told you is that, I think I answered the question. In fact, it will be either, both are possible, to look to some short cycle flexible CapEx on the upstream, which have a quick delivery payback. That's possible. The other part is accelerate renewables. Again, it's a matter of having the opportunity. People are working. I'll be clear. What we have done recently does not mobilize a lot of CapEx.
Acquisition cost is quite low because what we've done in Spain, what we've done again in the U.S., these are stage payments, which we pay, in fact, according to the progress of the projects. That's not changing a lot. That's not requiring a lot of capital expenditures. The rest of the projects, we cannot accelerate the portfolio because we decide. It's a matter of putting all that together. Do we have more M&A in mind in renewables? No. Honestly, I think that what we've done this year with Adani was a big chunk, $2 billion. We don't work on things today. Today we don't have something else in mind. I would tell you that if we have, again, I answered several times the question, consider that the $12 billion is a good guideline, but maybe we could have $1 billion more, but it will depend.
If we have more cash flows, we will allocate that to deliver it to company.
Okay. Perfect. Thank you.
We have the next questions coming from the line of Ryan Todd.
How many questions do you have? Yeah. I think we'll stop at 5:45 P.M. I take the questions quickly and, let's go, Ryan. Let's go. Four questions, but no more after that. Okay, Ryan.
Great. Thank you. Maybe a couple quick ones. One on the PPA, on the renewables business. Your disclosure shows a steady decline in the PPA price from $110 per megawatt-hour to $55 to $45 on the projects under development to 2025. Can you talk a little bit about what's driving that, where you see the price going in the future, and what does it mean for project returns going forward? In that bucket of projects to 2025, where 40% of the takeaway is currently covered by PPAs, do you expect that to eventually reach the 90%+, as in the other buckets?
Yes, of course. The idea is that we launch projects if we have PPA. We don't like too much to launch projects based on merchant markets, to be honest. The business model of Total is fundamentally to link. We need to work to continue to find the PPAs, but I know that there are different ways. Either some projects will be, like I said, for example, in U.K., there will be some CFD auction rounds which will allow us to have access to some state PPAs, or we'll have to develop more corporate PPAs. The second question is quite clear too for me. At a certain point, maybe in the future, we'll see if we accept a certain level of merchant risks. I would say it's not the business model, and it's not that we are developing with the renewable team.
On the first one, no, it's logic. I think I inherited from the portfolio we had from which is already operated. We inherited from, in particular, Total Quadran when we acquired Direct Énergie, some very old PPAs with high prices. That's logic. You see, we have seen in that industry, the PPA cost decrease with the cost, in fact. The PPA price decrease, the cost decrease. We are very transparent, and I see that, I think, yes, but there is a limit to that at a certain point because you need to make money. It depends as well on the region where you deploy your projects, you will have to, I think, part of the disclosure that we will find in the deep dive will be also the geographies. You will be able to reconcile.
My view is that I'm not surprised, and I can think that it will continue to decline to a certain point, because at a certain point, there will be no more profitability. It's also linked to the technology, because there I gave you a figure, and I think it was a question from Christyan, because he was right, Christyan, to say that The average for a wind project, an offshore wind project, and a solar project should not be the same. We'll find ways to disclose these type of technologies. The global trend is that I think the PPA prices are following, in fact, the decline of the technological costs, which is very logical. My view is that in the solar industry, we are not far from, I would say, reaching the asymptotic part. The wind onshore as well.
Where we are not at yet is when we combine solar and batteries. Storage is not yet, I would say at, we still can decrease the cost of storage. Offshore wind, still clearly we are not yet, I would say, at the optimum cost of all that. There is still some improvement. Even we speak about floating offshore, it's even more wide. No, I'm not surprised. It's part of I think the other companies working on this business. Does it has implication on IRR? Again, it's a matter of we decrease the PPA price if we can decrease the cost. The IRR is a mix of, at the end, the returns is a mix of costs and revenue. There is a link for me between both.
Perfect. Thank you.
Yes. You have another question?
Okay, we have another question coming from the line of Lucas Herrmann from Exane. Please ask your question.
Thanks very much, and thanks for the opportunity. Patrick, thanks for the many hours of comments. Two, if I might. The first one is, I guess there's an English saying, which is, there are two ways to skin a cat. In terms of shifting your business, clearly one way is to accelerate capital going into green, but the other is possibly to think about doing something different with black. I don't mean just limiting the rate of investment, but perhaps spinning out. Could you see a point where, or would it make sense at any point for Refining & Chemicals to be a separate business? Is the tie between electrons, et cetera, and some of the options within Refining & Chemicals too tight? Second question, if I might.
Just on the Nature Based Solutions business, I'm getting slightly confused as to whether this is just an offset business for you or whether actually it's a business that you think you can also drive value from through selling offsets to industry. Again, maybe associated with electrons, maybe associated with what they're doing. Is it a profit center in its own right or is it just an offset center?
It's very.
Thanks, Patrick.
Very clear. The second question is very clear. It's strictly for us. We clearly consider that. It's a question for me even. No, we consider that as clearly linked to our capacity to go to carbon neutrality. We develop all these business fundamentally to be able to offset our emissions because we'll need them. As long as we want to be carbon neutral, we know that we need all this carbon credit. The second question is very clear and that's where we are. The first one, no, honestly, the business model we want to develop is clearly a multi-energy company. We have an oil business linked to which integration along the value chain for each of them. We are developing oil integrated upstream, downstream. Adapting, of course, the footprint of our business to the demand.
If there is less demand, we need to adapt our own capacities. Same for the gas, same for electricity. You speak about chemicals, but what we have with Total is not a lot of chemicals. We have petrochemicals, which are in fact, we don't have chemical business. In fact, we have petrochemicals, which means that we have a cracker, which is like a refining, and we make just the polymers, polyethylene or polypropylene, which is just the cracker plus one. In fact, we do not develop any. The few businesses that we have, which are downstream because we spin off a lot or we sold a lot in the last years. Remember, we sold Bostik to Arkema. We divested Atotech. All these, what we were calling specialty chemicals, have been divested. For me, there is no way.
I don't envisage because I see again, look, this year, petrochemicals were more resilient than the others. It's a question for me of integration of the oil value chain, and we keep that in the model and don't need to divest R&C to make more in renewables. It's not true. I mean,
That's not really the question, Patrick. The question is much more about the way the market thinks about capital employed and the value that it's willing to put on your equity. The faster you shift towards low emission, the more rapidly you're likely to see an appreciation in your price. That's the rationale behind the question rather than the questions which have simply been spin out renewables, attract a multiple that way.
Okay. Understood. Understood. The question is for Bernard. Arnaud was the voice, the speaking voice for E&P and R&C, as you've seen. Bernard has to work hard to lower its emissions quickly. That's the point.
Okay.
At this stage, I don't think I see that globally as a group. Yes, it's true that refining and chemicals are part of the Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. Today, when you look to our global emissions, it's only part of the issue, but we are not there.
Thank you.
We have the next questions coming from the line of Jason Gabelman from Cowen. Please ask your question.
Thanks for taking my question. I had two quickly. First, on the downstream growth, which I think is stable with what it was previously guided to at $2 billion cash flow growth from 2019 to 2025. It seems like now there's some component in there for higher margins. I'm just wondering if you could split out that downstream growth from 2020 to 2025 between refining margin improvement, marketing growth, and chemicals growth. My second question, just on back to the farm downs of the power business. You mentioned the market is currently valuing these assets pretty attractively. Is there a situation where you could accelerate the farm downs and maybe bring some of that cash forward, given you've already hit your gross portfolio target in terms of what's in the backlog? Thanks.
Okay. First one, the $2 billion. No, there is no margin growth within the $2 billion. It was explained before. It's $1 billion coming fundamentally from the various chemical projects which we have, the cracker in the U.S. I am speaking about the control of Alexis and Bernard. Bernard, you can elaborate on the component of the $1 billion. Alexis, same. He has some growth in some retail market, can elaborate on the $1 billion. It was $1 billion from the refining, $1 billion from marketing, and maybe you could explain. It's not linked to an assumption on It's $2 billion as an absolute. Yeah. Bernard, Alexis?
Yes. There are two components. There is on the petrochemical side, of course, all the big projects that you mentioned, Patrick. Starting now in the U.S. Gulf Coast with a new cracker, and next year with the PE line, our joint venture with Borealis, Baystar. We have also, let's say by 2025, a startup of our larger petrochemical projects in Middle East. The second dimension is on the renewable diesel. As we will grow our production, we will generate more cash flows. We released last year that one ton of renewable diesel generate $ 350. You multiply that by the million tons we will do, and you come up to the $1 billion additional cash flow.
Petrochemicals and renewable fuels. Alexis, your billion-dollar extra that you will bring to the group?
Not 1 billion, but our five-year plan was to add $100 million per year of cash flow. It comes from the existing business, which are our stronghold, which is Europe and Africa, where we can manage our growth of cash flow, especially from non-fuel revenues in Europe and developing our strong market share in Africa. We have launched some new developments in new markets, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and we will also get some growth from there.
Okay. It's $500 from growth, and it's $300 million coming from the recovery of the COVID that we lost this year as we rebase it, considering that the demand will come back. That's $800 million. You have the thing. The accelerating farm down, unfortunately, we don't receive the same amount of money if you farm down with a certainty. It's a matter of maturity of the project because financial institution, these guys, they love projects with no risk. If you have more risk because you accelerate, because you farm down your interest earlier in the development process, they will give you. The same way that today we acquire this pipeline with a low cost of entry.
I want to keep this low cost of entry for Total because we have the balance sheet to support the development rather than divesting that to people that I prefer to de-risk. For me, the only point that we could ask ourselves is once we have all the elements in our hand, including the PPAs, is there a possibility at development stage to farm down quicker than waiting the COD? Clearly our strategy is to get access to pipeline with a low cost of entry, to mature the pipeline, and then we are ready to peer the risk. If we'd farm down, we want the people to pay with no risk. If they accept the execution risk, the project execution, maybe we look at it.
Generally, our experience is that you obtain the better valuation if you wait for having put your asset into production and then it's just a matter of It's like a pipeline. They love pipeline because it's an infrastructure at the end. If you want to, as well as the infrastructure fund, it's better not to ask them to be a part of the risk of construction of infrastructure. That's simply the logic. Last question. Who has the honor of the last question? The best one? No?
We have a last question coming from the line of Paul Cheng from Scotiabank. Please ask your question.
Thank you. Two quick one. First, in your production guidance for this year that's flat to 2020, seems a bit low, given last year that we had the government curtailment. What's the underlying assumption in the government curtailment in this year? Is it similar to last year, or that you actually have a higher number? The second one is on the gas and the low carbon business. In the fourth quarter, at least comparing to what we see, seems like the earning is low. Just curious, is that any one-off item that have negatively impact, such as in trading or in derivative that we should be aware? Thank you.
The first question, no, it's clear. You have a natural decline of portfolio, let's say, 3%. 3% of 3 MMbbl per day, or 2.9 MMbbl, it's let's say 90,000 bbl per day. We think that when it's It's difficult, but it's not no. We think that between the quota, Libya will offer something like 30,000 or 40,000, 50,000 barrel per day. Then we make an assumption about at which rate quota could be relaxed, and it's difficult to guess. Again, I'm not sure we are very prudent. Honestly, I think we are reasonable. Curtailments, no, I think we stopped curtailment. Curtailments were mainly in Canada, and I think we don't have any more assumptions of curtailments in this figure. The question mark, again, is at which rate quotas might be relaxed, and it's difficult to anticipate. I don't think we are.
The reality is that, but it's not new, is that we don't have startups in 2021. We have experienced a lot of startups in previous years, but we don't have new projects coming onstream 2021. Except, I may say, the Libya coming back on stream is a sort of restart up for us, as we didn't experience much production in 2020. The contribution of iGRP, I will give that as a final question to our CFO. No, I will give it to Philippe, as Philippe is the last answer to this type of exercise. Philippe, it's a good question for you. It's a tricky one, but you will explain this as it will be your last answer to this group of people.
I must confess that, yes, the performance of trading gas and power in Q4 was disappointing, as it was the case for most of our competitors. I could add that we kept some option for the month of January, which was much more interesting than a boring month of December.
I think, in fact, our traders did not anticipate the boom of the gas price. We should hire a meteorologist, I think, in the team. I think they didn't see all this boom coming up. They've seen it in January, so it's good news. I think, in fact, Philippe is very nice to Stéphane, which will lead the President. He should become President for Gas, Renewables & Power, giving him all the good results for the first quarter 2021. That's, I think, the answer. On this note, I would like to tell you, or to all of you, thank you. Thank you for your attendance to this results and outlook session. I think you had the opportunity to dig into all what we are building within Total. In particular, in the new businesses, but also the important ones in E&P, Refining & Chemicals, Marketing & Services.
Again, I wish you the best for this year, including, of course, a good health, and hope to see you soon physically. Next session for us will be end of September. In the meantime, all of you will be vaccinated probably, and we might meet again. Thank you for your attendance, and see you soon. Bye.