Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Apologies for the slight delay to the start of this call. I'm delighted to welcome you all to our Q2 2020 Analyst Call. With me on the line in Oslo, I have Lars Christian Bacher, the CFO, and Svein Skeie, who's the Head of Performance Manager. Also joining the call is Ørjan Kvelvane, who is Head of Accounting. He's calling in from Stavanger, and I'm here in London. With that, I'm delighted to pass straight over to Lars Christian to start the call. We will have, after this, questions for the rest of the hour that we have on this call. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Peter. Good morning, everybody. We really appreciate you joining us today. I hope that you, your families, and your colleagues are all doing well. Let me start by saying that this has been a Q2 and a H1 year like no other. Our most experienced traders call it the most dramatic quarter in oil market history. In April, Dated Brent, the reference price for most of our liquid product sales, reached a low point of $13.20 per barrel, and at one point, the WTI plunged into negative territory for the first time in history. In addition, European gas prices were at their lowest in more than a decade. Prices have since partly recovered, especially for oil, but Equinor remains well prepared for continued volatility going forward.
Many countries are now gradually opening up, but the path toward recovery from the global pandemic remains tentative and uncertain. At all our locations, offices, fields, and facilities, the safety and well-being of our people are top priorities. This year, we have really seen the value of having solid contingency plans for low-price scenarios. We took rapid and forceful actions to protect our financial position in an extraordinary situation, and we now see the effects. Costs and CapEx are down, and through suspension of share buybacks, cut in dividend, and bond issuance at attractive rates, we secured our liquidity and financial flexibility. Thanks to quick and effective action, we have had less than 1,000 barrels per day in production loss due to COVID-19. Our results are, as expected, impacted by the prices in the quarter.
However, Equinor was able to not only capture significant value, but also provide the flow assurance needed for stable and reliable operations. We delivered record-high results from our MMP segment, with very strong trading results within crude and liquids. As CFO, I'm happy to see the organization continue to deliver cost reductions and solid operations. We are also progressing our quality portfolio projects under development within oil, gas, and renewables, despite delays on a small number of projects due to COVID-19. The very low prices increased our net debt ratio to 29.3% from 25.8% at the end of Q1. Going forward, we will work diligently and systematically to continue to strengthen our competitiveness. Let me spend a few minutes on the temporary tax changes in Norway.
In June, the temporary tax changes in the petroleum taxes were decided by a broad coalition in the Norwegian Parliament with the purpose of maintaining investments, activity, and value creation in the oil and gas industry. To operators and suppliers in Norway, including Equinor, this secures frame conditions, which makes it possible to continue progressing with planned profitable development projects. For 2020 and 2021, we can now fully expense all NCS investments against the 56% special petroleum tax rate in the year they are incurred rather than over six years. For 2020 and 2021, the uplifts have been increased from 24% from 20.8%, and we are also allowed to expense the uplift towards the special tax the year we invest rather than previously over four years. These changes will also apply to new projects sanctioned by the end of 2022, with impact on tax and cash flow in subsequent years.
Over time, the temporary changes are close to neutral cash-wise and in nominal terms since the taxes saved due to direct expense will be paid back in later years. To the effect of the changes for Equinor as a company, these temporary tax changes provide liquidity and enhance project economics. Under these terms, cash tax charges from H2 will be materially lower. Indeed, we expect the next settlement due in August to be a cash receipt of around NOK 1.5 billion. The changes in fiscal terms increase the profitability of our projects on the NCS sanctioned by 2022 and improve break-even prices by around $10. Such improvements will influence the ranking and phasing of projects. Now I move on from tax. As we have tackled the demanding market situation, our strategy remains firm.
We are developing as a broad energy company and aim to create long-term value through the energy transition and in a low-carbon future. In the quarter, we have achieved milestones on the climate ambition we communicated earlier this year. Approval of the PDO for our floating offshore wind project, Hywind Tampen, the investment decision on partial electrification of Sleipner, investment decision on Northern Lights project for transportation and storage of CO2. In line with our dividend policy, our board of directors have considered expected cash flow, capital expenditure plans, financing requirements, and appropriate financial flexibility. Against such a difficult quarter in terms of prices, the board has decided on a dividend of NOK 0.09 per share for the Q2 of 2020, at the same level as for Q1 2020.
Let me turn to the quarterly results, as usual, I start with our safety performance in the quarter. We have a systematic and proactive approach on safety and security. This quarter, the efforts have been particularly focused on preventing the spread and impact of COVID-19. We report a serious incident frequency of 0.6 and an overall injury frequency rate of 2.3 per million working hours the last 12 months. Compared to 2019, this is an improvement in overall injury rate, while the frequency of serious incidents is at the same level. Let me go into more detail on the quarterly financial results. Our realized liquids price in the quarter was $22.9 per barrel, down 61% from the same quarter last year. This is below the average Dated Brent for the quarter at $29.2, mainly explained by differentials for the light and qualities.
Our average European inward gas price in the quarter ended at $2.24 per million BTU, down 59% from the same quarter last year. In the U.S., our average realized gas price was down 37% to $1.47 per million BTU. The IFRS net operating income in the quarter was negative $472 million, down from $3.5 billion in Q2 last year. Adjusted earnings were at $354 million positive, down from $3.2 billion. We are happy to report that we are on track to deliver the $700 million cost reductions announced in the Q1. The temporary changes in the tax regime have some special effects on our after-tax results this quarter. As a consequence of increased uplift applicable from January, we also recognize the benefit for the Q1 and Q2, which contributes to a negative tax rate of 82.3%.
After tax, we delivered a negative IFRS result of $251 million, down from $1.5 billion last year, while adjusted earnings after tax were positive $646 million, down from $1.1 billion. To the segments. From this quarter, E&P USA is a separate reporting segment, and we provide increased visibility of renewables within the other segment. E&P Norway delivers negative adjusted earnings of $85 million caused by very low prices for both oil and gas. We have chosen to defer significant gas volumes to periods with higher expected prices, and we have adhered to government-imposed oil production cuts in June. E&P Norway delivered strong operations in the quarter with underlying operations cost down 8% per barrel. E&P International delivers negative adjusted earnings of $379 million. This result is due to the low prices combined with lower production and higher depreciation per barrel.
At the same time, we also see a clear cost reduction in this segment. E&P USA is also affected by the very low prices. The segment delivers negative adjusted earnings of $341 million. In the U.S., we see the biggest cost reductions with a 30% reduction in the underlying operating cost per barrel and a 22% reduction in adjusted operating and administration costs. We have substantially reduced drilling and completion activity onshore to adapt to the market situation compared to the same quarter last year. The marketing, midstream, and processing segment delivered record high-adjusted earnings of nearly $1.2 billion this quarter. The record result is mainly due to strong contributions from oil trading, capturing value in volatile markets, benefiting strongly from taking positions backed by solid assets. Renegotiations of gas sales contracts also contributed to the adjusted results with a one-off effect of around $150 million.
In our other segment, we get solid contributions from our renewable plants in operations of NOK 38 million in net income. After adjusting for costs such as progressing and maturing our next milestone projects, Dogger Bank and Empire Wind, the total reported result for NEAS was around zero. Equinor's equity production in the Q2 was 2,011,000 barrels per day, on par with the Q2 last year. In the quarter, we delivered a high production efficiency with increased capacity from new fields and wells and had no turnaround activity offshore. Against this background, a good operational efficiency, volumes on the NCS in June were affected by the curtailments announced by the Norwegian government. Our international business was impacted from OPEC+ actions. Adjusted for divestments of assets and government-imposed production curtailments, we still delivered an underlying production growth of more than 4%.
We put value over volume and moved significant gas volumes out in time to periods with higher expected prices, mainly on the NCS. On the NCS, it is notably positive that the liquid production growth is 33%. The startup of Johan Sverdrup with very low operating cost is the main driver. Let me also mention that we made three commercial discoveries in the quarter, while two wells are still under consideration. So far this year, we have made six commercial discoveries in Norway internationally, which bodes well for future value. The production from our renewable business was 305 gigawatt hours after conducting maintenance at the Dudgeon. Adjusted for the sale of half our ownership interest in Arkona, production is at about the same level as last year. The cash flow slide represents H1 of the year.
Note that the cash flow from operations is affected by the prices in H1 2020, while the taxes and dividend paid are related to 2019. We paid taxes of NOK 2.6 billion so far, with NOK 1.5 billion related to NCS in the Q2. Dividend payments in the H1 total NOK 1.75 billion. Organic investments are at $4.1 billion, while we sold our shares in Lundin Energy for NOK 332 million at a good return. The net debt ratio at the end of the quarter increased to 29.3%. Before I move to outlook, I would like to mention that we maintain our strong credit ratings, and we have also received ratings for our affiliates, Equinor New Energy and Danske Commodities. Both achieved BBB+ equivalent ratings and are strategically important to Equinor in creating value through the energy transition. Let me end with our guiding.
We will continue to put value over volume and make active decisions to create value in demanding markets. This makes it difficult to commit to a guiding on production growth in 2020, but we still expect average annual production growth of about 3% from 2019 to 2026. Exploration activity is expected to come in at around NOK 1.1 billion. This is slightly up from Q1, partially due to the drilling of appraisal wells around new discoveries. Our guiding for organic investment remains unchanged in US dollars at around $8.5 billion and around $10 billion in 2021. Note that we have used an exchange rate on NOK 9.5 per U.S. dollar, down from NOK 11 per dollar last quarter in our guiding for exploration and organic investments. With that, I am pleased to open up for questions, and I hand it back to you, Peter.
Thank you, Lars Christian. We do open up the questions, and I'll pass it back to the operator to remind you of the polling.
Thank you. If you do wish to ask a question, please press zero one on your telephone keypad. If you wish to withdraw your question, you may do so by pressing zero two to cancel. That is zero one if you would like to ask a question. Our first question is from Oswald Clint from Sanford Bernstein. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Thank you. Good morning, Lars Christian, thanks. Just on some of the sanctions in the quarter, specifically Northern Lights. I mean, obviously, still questions around, I guess, economic viability of CCS projects. I just wanted to see if you could shed any light on how profitable you see this project or really how we should think about profitability of this project, especially if it does become a big 2.5, $3 billion CapEx project. That's the first question. Secondly, related to the report, it's a risk that I saw popped up last quarter, and it's still present this quarter, and you're calling out risk around force majeure clauses around both suppliers and customers. I know you can't quantify any impact yet, but can you say how those conversations are going through the last couple of months into July? Has this risk diminished, or is it still unchanged today? Thank you.
Thank you. It's the ambition of the Northern Lights partners to achieve by 2030 cost levels for transport and storage in range. It's derived in the IOGP report, the potential for CCS and CCU in Europe for this type of project of around 30 to 55 EUR per ton of CO2. How to put it? A supply chain in many ways that needs to be put in place. For us, our part of this is more from transportation and storage, and then other companies need to look at the possibility for them to capture it for the totality of this to be realized. Could you then please repeat the second part of your question?
Yes. It's just around one of the risks that you put in your quarterly reports. It appeared last quarter. It's here again today. It's around some of your suppliers and customers seeking to potentially enact force majeure clauses within contracts as a consequence of what's happened. You say you can't quantify the impact, but I want to know, are those gas contracts we're speaking about, and has the risk diminished, or it's impossible to say here?
I can hand it also over to Örjan to comment on this in more detail. I think that it's still a huge uncertainty as to how the whole supplier market is going to develop and relationship between buyers and sellers of product too. All in all, I think it is somewhat of a better position at the end of this quarter than the previous quarter. Everybody looked into a steep fall and inactivity and crisis, and at least now we have some more visibility, even still with a huge uncertainty how this is going to be panned out. Örjan, any comments?
Just to support your comment, Lars Christian. This is related to what we write in note number eight, and we point to the uncertainty out of what has happened the recent period. We assess this every month and every quarter, and there is no significant kind of development in this statement, but we need to keep it in due to the situation.
Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Our next question is from Biraj Borkhataria from RBC. Please go ahead.
Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. Two, please. The first one is on cash taxes. You mentioned the rebate in the Q3. I was wondering if you could say anything about the rest of the year. You have your accountant on the call, so I guess just want to try and get a rough sense of the cash tax potentially based on the prevailing commodity prices for the rest of the year. The second question, I appreciate you breaking out the renewables segment. I guess the NOK 38 million in earnings was better than definitely I expected.
I was wondering if you could just clarify whether that is purely the generation side or whether the Danske Commodities electricity trading goes into that number as well. Whether that goes into MMP. As you did break out the US business today, could you just comment on what you need to see from the renewables segment to start breaking that out as a separate business as well? Thank you.
On your last part of the two questions, Danske Commodities is reported as part of the MMP segment. This is purely from the renewables assets in operations, the numbers that we refer to under the other segment. We have said that one day renewables will be reported as a separate segment. It has to do with materiality, and it is then a question of time before we get to it. If you look at production numbers or returns earnings, it will take a very long time for renewables to be materially compared towards the oil and gas segments. This for us, it has more to do with material on its own sort of merits. With the portfolio that we are having, I would argue that as that progresses, one day we will be having a material position to start reporting it as a separate segment.
Until that day, we are going to gradually, as we started out with at the Capital Markets Day in February, to give you more visibility and granularity. We give you somewhat more this quarter in the notes. On the cash tax, there will be sort of a NOK 1.5 billion effect in August, positive for us, to put it with those wording. We are going to do the tax calculations in September for the total H2 of this year. Until we've done that, we are not in a position to guide you on the tax or the cash tax for H2 .
Okay. Understood.
Our next question is from Thomas Adolff from Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.
Good morning. The first question is on the dividend, and obviously you've read up the Q2 saw quite well and the H2 should see strong free cash generation. Obviously gearing is at the upper end of where you want it to be and there may be some impairments with the Q3 results. Maybe perhaps you can share some updated thoughts here, if any, and there's been some changes to the tax regime in the Norwegian Continental Shelf, maybe that will mitigate some of the potential impairments.
If you kind of combine the free cash generation potential and where gearing may be at the end of the year, how should one think about the dividend, at which point you're happy to, again, raise it. Then, I guess the second question is just on the conversation you're having with your relationship banks. Investors are looking more closely where the money's invested, and banks are looking harder where the money's lent to. Do you see any changes in the conversation you're having with your relationship banks being a fossil fuel company? Thank you.
On the discussion with the banks. Let me start by even more of a helicopter view. The discussions that we're having with banks, investors, analysts, and the like, I think the ESG topic has risen on the agenda. It is especially in Europe, in many places. I will also argue strongly that it is on the table for the most executive committees and boards in the most of the U.S. companies and Canadian companies, too. A lot of the discussion is actually about maturing our understanding and one's own understanding of what this is and what it's not all about. In many ways, who are the good companies in this on a current status basis, but also on a forward-looking basis.
We get a lot of good comments from bankers when it comes to our strategy, but even more so our position, the current portfolio, and that we have not only an active strategy and active ambitions when it comes to climate, but also that we can actually back it with a quality oil and gas portfolio, but also quality renewables portfolio. No questions of sort of a negative nature when we have this year borrowed money both in the EUR market and in the U.S. market. On the dividend side of it. We have said that when we one day will start looking at increasing the dividend again, the NOK 0.27 per share is a good sort of reference point.
For us to start increasing the dividend again, we need to see more visibility, both when it comes to our own position in this, but also the market outlook going forward. We both live and see a huge uncertainty or volatility. That remains somewhat to be seen for us to make that or such a decision. On the gearing, it's just out of 30%. We have said that we are fine by having a bow for periods of time. We have a very strong balance sheet. We have a very strong project portfolio. We have a growth story towards 2026. Despite all, in many ways, all the measures that we have taken to secure liquidity. On impairments and if we get any when we revise prices, that remains to be seen.
You said Q3, I can't sit here and comment that we're going to adjust the prices in Q3 and by that having impairments. If that were the case, then I should have done it yesterday in many ways. We believe in the prices that we are having, and then we are looking at the development of different factors and we do so on an ongoing basis, and we will do a revision of the prices when we believe that there is a solid ground for doing so. There are good reasons for believing it should be taken down, but it's also good reasons for believing it should stay high or it could be taken up also. Perhaps a little long answer, but I guess I could get some questions about the prices too.
A lot of people are focusing on the demand side and how COVID-19 affects the demand side. Definitely been affected by it in the short term since February, March. One could argue that perhaps the demand medium term has been softened based on this. You shouldn't forget either the supply side. Huge uncertainty on the supply side too. That has to do with the capacity in the industry, with consolidation in the supplier industry, the capacity will be taken down, and that will have the limiting factor of the total capacity that the industry then can have to deliver new volumes.
We see that the risk appetite have been taken down by many companies. Projects have been postponed and canceled. The willingness to sanction project is also softened. This is about balancing then those two to make a view. What we did this quarter is that we stick to the $77 in 2025 and to $80 in 2030.
Okay. Thank you.
Our next question is from Alastair Syme from Citi. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Thank you. Just one question really just on CapEx and Norwegian tax. The CapEx change is obviously zero in USD terms, but there is a double-digit move in NOK terms. Can you just explain the moving parts there? I thought the principle of a tax change was meant to preserve investment. Then, as a follow-up, I wonder if you could elaborate on the point that you made in your remarks about Norwegian tax changes will influence the phasing and ranking of projects. What are you specifically referring to there? Is there any difference between the way you think of greenfield or brownfield or oil or gas? What do you mean by the ranking?
Well, I'll leave the first question to Svein, the CapEx and tax side of it, but I can start by answering your second question. Our unsanctioned project portfolio is a moving target from the point of view that there is intense competition among the projects has to be among the best ones, so that they can make sure that their project is sanctioned. Of course, a big improvement in the economics and reduction of NOK 10 per barrel break-even wise for many projects now over the next couple of years, 2020 to 2022. Of course, that reshuffles somewhat the ranking of the projects in that portfolio. There's more to do with higher activity than on the NCS compared to oil and gas activity internationally. That is more what I allude to. Svein?
On the CapEx and the Norwegian tax, Lars also explained in his ECA. About the changes, importantly, that we are now able to expense towards special petroleum tax. The CapEx that happens in the year that it occurs for 2020 and 2021, also then for projects that reach a final investment decision within 2022. Those will have the benefits in the future period. In the quarter, since it's given effect back to 1st of January this year, we will get the benefits for the new tax system, including the increased uplift in this quarter.
That is impacting the cash tax which we will pay for the remaining part of the year. As Lars Christian said, a negative 1.5 billion NOK than in August. We do a recapitalization when we are in September, then to see what will be the remaining. The remaining part of it will come in the three installments in 2021. Also remember, in 2021, we will have the direct expenses of all CapEx on the Norwegian Continental Shelf, which will impact the taxes both in 2021 and in 2022.
Sorry, I'm still slightly confused because effectively there's been a big reduction in the NOK CapEx, as converted the rates that you've given, and yet you're implying with the tax change, you're going to put more money into Norway versus International come December.
What we had as the guiding and outlook as we had in Q1, we based it on the NOK to US dollar of 11. We're basing it on 9.5. We keep the amount in dollars. Of course, affected by the higher Norwegian kroner cost towards the dollars. We also are working on the Norwegian assets and maturing those. Of course, also the new tax system in Norway will cover objects, and those are the things that we are going to sanction in months to come up until 2022.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Our next question is from Michele Della Vigna from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Thank you. Lars Christian, congratulations on a very resilient quarter in an incredibly difficult environment. It's very exciting to see Equinor leading the first large-scale blue hydrogen project in the U.K. I was wondering if you could elaborate on the regulatory framework you would want to go ahead, particularly, what kind of incentives you believe would be best placed for the project, whether it's something similar to what, for instance, you have in the offshore wind contracts with a contract for difference. What cost of hydrogen you believe you will need to have a profitable blue hydrogen development there. Thank you.
For the world to decarbonize, I think we need to pull a lot of different springs for that to happen, and hydrogen being one of them. The terms and all that kind of stuff, I think the best way would be if Peter can come back to you on this one and follow up, because this is very much into the details. If others would like to have the insight in the same answer, please contact Peter. I think that would be the best of me to do, actually.
We believe that pursuing different opportunities is a way to broaden our understanding, and to have optionality to figure out where we really want to put our bets going forward. Blue hydrogen is cheaper than green hydrogen. For also the green hydrogen to actually work, it is very dependent on our over capacity in renewables. I think our current thinking as of today, perhaps, is blue hydrogen is somewhat more of an alley to pursue.
Thank you.
I'll be happy to take those.
Our next question is from, Sorry.
I'll be happy to take those separately, Michele, so we can get through more questions this morning in limited time.
Okay, our next question is from Mehdi Tabbabi from Bank of America.
Hi. Good afternoon, and thanks for taking my question. One question, please, regarding your priorities. If the oil price remains as it is, and even if the natural gas price remains under pressure, it is likely that you will start benefiting from, let's say, a positive organic free cash flow post-dividend payment, and then a decrease in your net debt in the coming quarter until maybe end of 2021. How would you rank your priorities? Would it be to reinstate the dividend around NOK 0.27 per share, or would you rather first significantly try to increase the CapEx in that way given the return on the project is boosted by the temporary tax change? Would you take this potential extra money to, let's say, accelerate your shift towards renewable energy? Just wanted to understand your priority here.
Second question on the CapEx of full year 2020. Your CapEx went down significantly in the Q2 versus the Q1. That makes sense. However, to reach your $8.5 billion guidance, you need to increase your CapEx in the H2 of this year versus the H1. Do you intend to increase your activity in the H2 of this year, really? Or have you been able to lower your CapEx in the Q2 more than what you were initially expecting? Just for us to see if there is a room to a downward revision of your CapEx guidance for 2020. Thank you.
I'll try to answer both of your questions, and I say try because you brought quite frequently during your speech, but I think I got it, and if not, please correct me or ask me again. On the CapEx, regarding $8.5 billion for this year and $10 billion for 2021. Your question was more, are we expecting to spend more CapEx H2 compared to the H1, which is true. This is a phasing and a timing issue. We have seen lower activity in some yards given the COVID situation. We are seeing those yards are picking up again. It's just sort of straightforward in many ways. Good development in many of our projects. Delays in a few projects. On the totality of it, we have good control over the spending, which is still good to see, and always will be something that we pursue.
On the prioritization. We want to safeguard the balance sheet. This, for us, has more to do what kind of company we would like to be coming out of this downturn. This is not about Q1, this is not about Q2 or Q3. This is about when the world is a better place to be, and there is a more balance between supply, demand, and the prices coming up again. What kind of company do you want to be at that point of time? We want to be among the strong companies, so that we can take advantage of the opportunities that we see going along, but also so that we can represent competitive capital distribution to shareholders. We haven't taken down the dividend to fund other projects.
We took the measures we did on postponing temporarily the share buyback and the cut in the dividend and taking on more debt and the NOK 3 billion action plan and so on. We all did that to safeguard the balance sheet and to have flexibility so that we can maneuver in very challenging terrain. I think the weather has been somewhat of a nicer nature in the back end of this quarter compared to the back end of Q1. It is a difficult times still ahead.
Svein?
Yes. Just a comment to the 8.5 guiding. As you pointed to, we have spent $4.1 billion so far. We are giving them the guiding based on around 8.5. What we are now seeing is that we have got the clarity on the Norwegian tax system there. We are also then being able then to work on the project there. There were more impact in the beginning of the quarter upon the COVID, now we are seeing that people are gradually coming back to yards and those things. That means that our best estimates for this year is around $8.5 billion.
Right. Thank you very much.
You also talked about the dividend. I think I heard that you said, coming back to NOK 0.20. We had NOK 0.27 before at year-end dividend per share per quarter, and we have taken it down to NOK 0.09. The reference point for us coming back up again one day will be the NOK 0.27. Just to be clear on that.
Yeah, sure. Understood. Thank you.
Our next question is from John Olaisen from ABG. Please go ahead.
Yeah, good afternoon, gentlemen. In your annual report, you wrote that you are considering entering the onshore wind market. I wonder if you have had any progress in this so far. Also, if you're entering the onshore wind market, where would it be, and would it be likely to do an acquisition or organic? Please.
In many ways, a very easy question to answer, and at the same time, very difficult question to answer. The easy answer is, if you're entering into a business onshore, offshore, oil, gas, deep water, shallow water, renewables or not, it has to be among the good assets. In my mind, people too often are having a vertical line between assets that you should invest in one category or the other. For me, it's a horizontal line. Everything above a certain good return, I'm very eager to look at and see if we can get it if it's among the best ones. That goes also for onshore positions. Whether we will enter and when and where, that remains to be seen.
May I have a follow-up on that? I just wonder where do you see as your rationale? What's your competitive advantage in onshore wind? I could see that you have some obvious advantages offshore, but what would you say would be your competitive advantage where you could add value by going onshore wind, please?
We have had and we still are having a competitive advantage, we believe, in the offshore wind, to your point. We also find out that when we'll start to learn the offshore business to know and master it and operate it, then it's not that difficult to operate onshore. I think it's more difficult to go the other way around, actually. The only purpose for us to enter into any onshore wind project would be if it makes good returns for us. If not, we will shy away from it.
If I can just intervene.
Yeah.
For remaining questions. I get that we started five minutes late, we do have a hard stop after the hour, around 12:00 Norwegian time. We will just keep it one question each, and we'll need to move through quite quickly in the remaining 10 minutes or so. Thank you.
Yes. I'm done. Thank you.
Our next question is from Lydia Rainforth from Barclays. Please go ahead.
Thank you. I will keep this quick. Last question. Does that view on long run pricing that you outlined earlier in terms of the impairment testing, does that impact how you allocate capital? Effectively, if you are looking at $80 oil price in 2030, does that mean that you would naturally allocate more capital to oil and gas versus something like renewables, or does that not play a role at all? I hope I know the answer to that one. I just wanted to double check.
The oil price and gas price assumptions is key for us to have a firm view on, a balanced view, and we use it for accounting purposes. When we make business decisions, there are totally other criteria that we factor into this, and that is, I think, what you see reflected in our prioritization on projects between oil and gas and renewables, yes.
Great. Thanks for confirming.
Our next question is from Jon Rigby from UBS.
Yeah. Hi. Thanks for taking the question. Can I talk about the trading result? I guess you won't talk about exactly how you made the money, but can you talk about something around the framework of it? Did you take greater risk in the quarter? Is there a way that we can see between quarters how you're positioning yourself? Because I look at volumes traded, I look at the working capital movements, et cetera, and it's not clear where this is coming from. Perhaps if you were to disclose, let's say, a VaR number or inventory sales for trading, would we be able to see a change in the sort of operating dynamic in Q2 versus other quarters that you've been operating this model? Thanks.
Yeah. We're very happy with the quarterly results from MMP, of course. The results are from the crude trading business of it. Perhaps, Svein, you can give some meat to the bone.
Thank you. I can give some further details on it. It's what we talked about. As you might have remembered over the last years, it's about an asset by trading. It's about utilizing positions that we have, that we are optimizing around. That means that, for example, having shipping capacity available, utilizing storages and those things. What we did here during last quarter into this quarter was that we took positions for selling in March for delivering into the physical market later on. There was strong contango in the market, we were able then to utilize that one, but actively taking positions around it.
Contango contributed, but also on top of that, the active position-taking, utilizing our positions and taking positions where they key contributor then to deliver the results. We are following the VaR mandates very closely to make sure that those are in good control. Not going out with what the VaR mandates and those things are, but we have a very strict control on the VaR mandates and then how we are running the business. It's a part of optimizing around assets and then also taking positions based on what we have available.
Okay. Thank you. Thanks.
Our next question is from Christyan Malek from JPMorgan.
Hi, good morning. Congrats on a great quarter given the circumstances. The question I have is around the E&P US position. I know that it's been sort of mixed through the last few years. With the sale of Eagle Ford, and you've obviously acquired Caesar back end of last year. The question I have for you is, now that you've reported it separately, which is very useful, what are your thoughts of how U.S. sits within the portfolio? More broadly speaking from a strategic standpoint, should we expect you to allocate more CapEx towards the U.S. or continue to divest out and potentially wholesale? I would love to hear your thoughts on that, please. Thank you.
Well, what we're going to do on the M&A side, whether it is to add assets or sell out our assets, you will read about it when we have done it. I can't give you any indication of that. U.S. is important for us. It is a huge resource base with a lot of good opportunities. For oil and gas companies like ours, with the position and the strength, I think it will be strange if we are not continuing to look at opportunities in U.S. as we do elsewhere.
We look at opportunities in Norway, in Brazil, and many other places. The good thing is that we have a CAGR of 3% from 2019 to 2026. We are not distressed. We don't have to sell assets. We don't have to buy assets. That means that we can work the market and look for the good opportunities, whether that is from an acquisition point of view or a divestment point of view.
Okay, perfect. Thank you.
Our next question is from Tom Mathias from BNP Paribas Exane.
Hi, Lars. Thanks for taking the questions. I'll keep it quick. Just looking at production guidance. Obviously, you kept that flat to 2026. You've seen a reasonable number of operational impacts during the last few months. We've seen Castberg delayed, the impact at Peregrino as well. I was wondering to think about that production guidance now. Is it more back-end loaded? Perhaps you can give a little bit of color on some of the issues you've experienced and the timings you now expect from some of those projects. Perhaps within that, whether you're able to just discuss what you expect for Norwegian gas volumes to be sold through the rest of the year. Thank you.
On the last one, that is very difficult to answer because we are focusing on value over volume and how much we are going to push out in time remains to be seen. Those decisions are made more or less on a daily running basis, dependent on the prices. If, for example, the gas prices one day would spike, of course we would like to take advantage of that and produce fully. This can go all ways. On the production guiding, I think I heard you said it is flat. I interpret it as we are keeping the one that we had at this CMU, and that is around 3% CAGR from 2019 to 2026, and that remains. At this CMU, that it would be somewhat of a front-end loaded given the startup of Johan Sverdrup and many other projects coming.
With all the small delays and the reprices that you have seen, that front-end loading will be somewhat disturbed, but still a healthy, good production growth in the short term.
Okay, thanks.
Okay, there are no further questions. I will hand it back to Peter for any finishing comments. Anything, finishing comments from the speakers?
Just thank you for calling in and for being so engaged, and I wish you a wonderful continued day. Please remember to stay safe. This coronavirus is definitely challenging for each one of us, but it's also very serious business. Take care of yourself and your dear ones. Bye.
This now concludes the conference call. Thank you all for attending. You may now disconnect your lines.