TotalEnergies SE
Q1 2018 Earnings Call Transcript

Published: 26 Apr 2018

[Operator:]

Good day, and welcome to Total's First Quarter 2018 Results Conference Call. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Patrick Pouyanné, CEO. Please go ahead.

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

Thank you, and good morning or good afternoon, everybody, wherever you are. I am with Patrick de la Chevardière, our CFO. I'm very pleased to join the call today together with him. We have been quite busy recently since we met most of you last February and so we thought it was worth a short update by the CEO himself. But as it is a tradition, Patrick will first review the first quarter results and then I will comment on the recent strategic activity and then we'll go to the Q& A. Before to leave the floor to Patrick, just and it's important because I would like to make a comment on the shareholder returns policy that we have presented in February. But we have decided, of course, to not only to propose but to implement and we have done what we said, which means that first, when we proposed this policy, we announced that we'd increase the dividend by 10% over the next three years and yesterday's Board of Directors consistently has raised – decided to raise the first 2018 interim dividend to €0.64 per share, an increase of 3.2% exactly on the path to the 10% over three years. So it's an implementation of this first comment (01

[Patrick de la Chevardière:]

Thank you, Patrick. Honestly, we are off to a good start in 2018, and we are on track to achieve our objective. First quarter performance is solid. Adjusted net income was $2.9 billion or $1.09 per share and debt-adjusted cash flow was $5.7 billion and our organic free cash flow was $2.8 billion. Looking at the segment, first quarter 2018 adjusted net operating income for E&P was $2.2 billion, up 58% compared a year ago, and 21% versus the previous quarter. Compared to first quarter last year, Brent increased by 24%, and our average realized hydrocarbon price increased by 25%. Production grew to 2.7 million boe per day in the first quarter, an increase of 5% from a year ago and 3% from the previous quarter, despite the end of the Mahakam license in Indonesia. There is a record level of quarterly production. The previous high was 2.66 million barrel per day in 2003. We benefited from major ramp-ups including Moho Nord, Kashagan, Yamal LNG where the first of three trains is producing 6.4 million ton a year, well above the nameplate capacity of 5.5 million ton a year. In Qatar, we took over operations on the giant Al-Shaheen field last year in July. So this made a strong contribution. First quarter startups include Fort Hills in Canada and Timimoun in Algeria. The Petrobras alliance and Maersk Oil acquisition made only partial contribution in the first quarter. So we are on track to do better than our target of 6% growth for the whole year. Before turning to cash flow, we note that the differential between Brent and our average realized liquid price increased to $6.5 per barrel in the first quarter of 2018 from $4.5 a barrel a year ago and $3.7 a barrel in the previous quarter. This is mainly the impact of growing Canadian volumes at a time when exports are pipeline-bound and netbacks are very weak. This is an exceptional situation not linked to higher oil prices. May I remind you that in terms of our oil price sensitivities, the calculation are made using constant differential, so, in fact, it should be used with the realized liquid prices. E&P cash flow before working capital changes was $4.3 billion in the first quarter, an increase of 28% from the same quarter last year and in line with the previous quarter. The ramp-up in cash flow will accelerate into the second quarter, mainly with a full contribution from Maersk and then gain momentum with the cash-accretive startups. Recall that in February, we told you that for a full year on plateau Kaombo, Ichthys and Egina would add $2.5 billion of cash flow, and Maersk plus Petrobras alliance would add another $2 billion, all that based on a $60 Brent. So the way forward is clear. First, organic free cash flow for E&P was $2.2 billion. E&P organic CapEx was $2.1 billion, and I will remind you that the first quarter is typically a bit light. For the Gas, Renewables & Power segment, adjusted net operating income in the first quarter was $115 million compared to $61 million a year ago and $232 million in the previous quarter, thanks to better result from the solar business. Moving to the Downstream then, Refining & Chemicals contributed $720 million of adjusted net operating income in the first quarter compared to $1 billion a year ago and $886 million in the previous quarter. Refining margin was volatile, averaging $26 per ton in the first quarter, a decrease of 34% compared to the same quarter last year and 28% versus the previous quarter. Seasonal weakness was more pronounce this year than last and essentially it has been the inverse impact of the ramp up in crude prices. Petrochemical margins have remained generally stable at a good level from the past year. So we consider Refining & Chemicals results are short by about $50 million to $100 million in the quarter, mainly due to operational difficulties at Antwerp and (09

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

Okay. Thank you, Patrick, for these good sets of results and a record production and as well as, you said, the implementation of our return to shareholder policy. So just a few comments now about, I would say, the implementation of the strategic framework we described as well in February and we have made some various moves in those directions. According to what we said there, again, we told you that we wanted to take advantage of favorable CapEx (14

[Operator:]

Our first question comes from Jon Rigby of UBS.

[Jon Rigby:]

Thank you. Yes, two questions. Patrick, thank you for running through the strategic initiatives for the first quarter. They seem to have come very thick and fast, it's difficult to keep up with them all. But just to reference your last point about the sort of $2 billion or so of net investment and the more attractive disposal market potentially for E&P, does that mean that we should expect more activity on the sell side across the balance of this year, or when you think about that figure, do you expect it to be sort of an average over the course of a few years in terms of your disposals? The second question I guess is for P2 is, this working capital build has been a – has emerged as a bit of a feature in the last few first quarters. I just wanted to come back to it and ask, is it a function of what you're doing in the fourth quarter, or a function of something unusual in the first quarter? And what of each of those is more representative of the working capital that you need to run the business all things equal? Thanks.

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

Okay, I'll take the first question. Again, the financial framework we gave you, $15 billion, $17 billion of investments organic plus net acquisition. So $2 billion, take it as it is – it's for the next three years, take it as an average of three years, but clearly, yes, we will be active on the sell side. I mean, we have some assets. It's not like we've done in the previous three years, a $10 billion program. It's done step by step but we have some assets which are being marketed today without too much noise neither rumors. So we are active. And of course, the question where I'm prudent and I answer you by the average, but they could be -when you take a year, 360 days, you could have sometimes last year but, for example, we closed the Petrobras deal in January, on January 10 and not on December 20, 25, so sometimes you could move the end of the year, go beyond. But again, this is globally, you can keep our commitments, the $15 billion, $17 billion of net investments as being the right point to model the future spending of Total in terms of capital investments. Patrick?

[Patrick de la Chevardière:]

Okay, Jon, for this very simple question about working cap. Our working cap increased by $3 billion this quarter. And honestly, I'm not very happy with that, even if there is some seasonality in our working cap. The $3 billion can be explained by $2 billion of seasonality. Some people say that we manage it poorly. I don't know if this is correct. But there is obviously some seasonality and if you check in the past year, we face the same difficulty. So $2 billion coming from that and $1 billion coming from the price effect on our inventories and deliverable. Another small comment is that stock build (37

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

So emulating (38

[Jon Rigby:]

Can I just follow up on your first answer on the portfolio? Is it – on the disposal side, is what's evident from some of the acquisitions – they're not just acquisitions of assets, you're in the process of sort of reshaping the portfolio, but will you sort of apply the same logic to the sell side as well is that it's not just a disposal of ready assets, you're trying to reshape the portfolio through disposals as well?

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

The assets that we want to dispose are high-cost asset, it's obvious. I mean, like we've done with Martin Linge I think. So, yes, of course, we are trying to – we will be consistent on the sales towards regarding the strategy and continuing to focus at the end of the day on what is core in the company. And we will select these assets according, so either high breakeven assets or out of the core of the business of the company.

[Jon Rigby:]

Okay. Thanks very much, guys.

[Operator:]

Our next question comes from Michele Della Vigna from Goldman Sachs.

[Michele Della Vigna:]

Thank you for taking my question. Patrick, I wanted to ask two questions if possible. The first one is relating to the deals that you have very thoroughly run through. It feels like they mainly come from two areas, either financially distressed companies or national oil companies where we see a much more collaborative environment in the last couple of years. I was wondering if you think there is more to come in the area, in particular in terms of collaboration with national oil companies, if that could become, in the future, a bigger area of reserve replacement for you. The second, still staying with acquisitions, when you compare the financial metrics of a deal like, for instance, Maersk on one side which is clearly immediately accretive to cash flow and still with assets with long longevity, and on the other side, a deal like Direct Energie which is certainly strategically very important, it adds longevity and high quality assets but which is probably dilutive for quite a long time on valuation. How do you think about doing one deal or the other one and how do you compare the key financial metrics in order to choose where to employ your incremental capital? Thank you.

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

Okay, first the first one. You have a perfect analysis of what we've done. Yes, it's true. The business model of major company like Total because we have a stronger balance sheet, we've got somewhere take benefit of that in order to have access to some assets from companies which were in not so good situation, so either it was some national companies like Petrobras, I would say, or some smaller companies like is the deal with Tullow in Uganda, with Cobalt in the U.S. And basically, there's also deals like Maersk, which was another idea, or Energie (41

[Michele Della Vigna:]

Thank you.

[Operator:]

Our next question comes from Oswald Clint from Bernstein.

[Oswald Clint:]

Thank you very much. I'd like to ask firstly about the production, the upstream volumes kind of hitting that 15-year high. You're looking to grow at 6% this year. I see this morning you're indicating potentially chance to do higher than that. I wonder if you'd venture what that higher number might be. But fundamentally, you talk about it being in the startups coming in better plus integration. So my question is really is this a Maersk phenomena or is it really successful ahead of schedule startups off your very large list of projects? I think you have about 14 or so over 2017, 2018 and if so, maybe half of those have started up already. Does that mean the next half of those through this year into next year should come in ahead of schedule as well? That's my first question. Secondly, just on this topic of kind of some of the deals you've done, I'm specifically interested in Libya and those barrels, the 50,000 barrels coming out of Libya. Perhaps, just remind us of the profitability of those barrels. I do remember them being quite highly taxed in past times, perhaps that's changed. Thank you.

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

First question, I think on the profile, growth profile, we announced more than the 6% this morning because the 5% performance of first quarter is ahead of what we were thinking. So yes, more than 6%, I read some comments that we are too conservative. As you said, we have many startup coming in front of us, Ichthys, Kaombo, Egina, Tempa Rossa in the coming months. Sometimes, it can derive by one month or two. It could be read by one month or two. January is more one month late rather than one month (46

[Patrick de la Chevardière:]

Yes, barrel in Libya are very profitable actually. And profitability is at $60 per barrel between 15% and 20%.

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

Basically, I can say that with the cost of access to this barrel was quite attractive because of political situation, maybe it creates some move, by the way, there in Libya probably when they discovered the value of the deal, part of the difficulty. But I would say that when the concession – the terms of the concession did not change. I think that it was there a question of probably Total can accept to take this type of Libyan risk in our portfolio more than Marathon was willing to give them. So this is why we've done the deal, in fact, and it's also part of the geopolitical move, but we can do because of the very large portfolio we can take this type of risk on board and get the rewards that we win. That's part of it.

[Oswald Clint:]

Super. Thank you. Thank you.

[Operator:]

Our next question comes from Theepan Jothilingam from Exane BNP.

[Theepan Jothilingam:]

Yeah, hi, good afternoon, gentlemen. A couple of questions, please. Firstly, on the synergies that you've mentioned about Maersk Oil and Direct Energie, could you just talk about the timelines on how quickly the synergies can be realized for both transactions? The second question, Patrick, just comes back to GRP strategy and I think you mentioned trying to grow sort of installed capacity on the gas-fired power plants of around 10 gigawatts. So I was just hoping to understand, so the timelines and, again, will that be really done inorganically? And then finally, you mentioned, Ichthys and Kaombo. They are highly cash generative, so I just want to understand where we are in terms of commissioning or delivery of first oil. Thank you. First oil and first LNG.

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

For the synergies of Maersk Oil, I'm taking the papers. Sorry, I don't know what by heart. I know what the cost synergy should be fully on board by three years to capture them. I'm just taking – I'm trying to find. Yes, it is there. I think this year obviously is not so – you can say that you will have 60%, 70% to further rate by 2019 in our cash flows and 100% by 2020. This year, you have a small share, but not major share. I don't have the figure. This is the first one. On Direct Energie, we need to close the deal, but it will be immediate, in fact, because the decision to keep only one brand will be done before the closing part of the synergy. The fact that we will decide to have only one IT platform will take a little more to implement, one year, but I think this type of synergy, the first €5 million I mentioned to you would be done by the end of 2019, very quickly at the latest. Then the second question about growing 10 gigawatts of quickly, it's a five-year objective. Sometimes you go quicker, but let me be clear, one of the source of the 10 gigawatts, part of it is embedded, in fact, in Direct Energie to 2.5 gigawatts because we have essentially 51

[Patrick de la Chevardière:]

The last question was about Ichthys. Yes, we are following impacts guidance given a few weeks ago and with our own view on site, offshore gas and condensate should start Q2 so in the coming weeks, I would say or months, there is two months left in Q2. And we're expecting first LNG by July something like this.

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

Let be clear. There is a slight delay but the impacts already explained it on some issues to be fixed on one of the offshore components. And so it's being done. It's a giant project. There are some safety issues to be solved but there's nothing major. It's being done. It's being repaired on the last platform I think and so production will come quickly. By the way, it's better to start this project at $75 per barrel than at $50. We'll make more revenues even for the first condensate. So sometimes you are a little late but you generate more money with it.

[Theepan Jothilingam:]

Noted. Thank you, Patrick.

[Operator:]

Our next question comes from Lydia Rainforth from Barclays Bank.

[Lydia Rainforth:]

Thank you and good afternoon. Just one question. Are you seeing any impact in terms of the cost base or any upward pressure there at the moment? And in particular, if you could just talk about the recent Google Cloud and JV in terms of the artificial intelligence item, what you're looking to achieve there? Thank you.

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

I like your question on artificial intelligence with Google. The idea there is clearly to try to engage not only to make proof of concept but to engage really some development, so it's about geoscience. A team of 15 people of engineers of Total will move from Peru (54

[Lydia Rainforth:]

Perfect. Thank you very much.

[Operator:]

Our next question comes from Christyan Malek from JPMorgan.

[Christyan F. Malek:]

Hi. Good afternoon gentlemen. Thank you for taking my questions. Just two if I may. First about the acquisitions, when do you think enough is enough and how should we think about an upper end of CapEx or resource for new oil? You mentioned $16 billion plus over the next few years. Should we think about downtrends potentially moving higher every time or is it really a $17 billion cap to 2020? Secondly, you've done a fantastic job high grading fuels, increasing productivity both organically and inorganically. Could you comment on some of the things you're doing at the operational level that surprise to be upside of production? And on the broader, level Patrick, do you think the industry has more to do to lower project breakevens further outside of the U.S. through technology, Big Data and AI? I can see that you're leading the way on that. So would love to hear your thoughts.

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

Thank you, Christyan, for your question. So I reiterate my strong commitment as $15 billion, $17 billion for 2018-2020 for the three years that we announced February. Each carry a commitment so you can take it as a guideline. There is no wrong message in anything I told you. My comment on $16 billion plus were just for 2018. I could have rate you 2018, $15 million, $17 million but you make some math and again, we have been active, more active than anticipated, but it's no regret at all, it's because we had opportunities, so we seize them. So keeping the $15 billion, $17 billion for 2019, 2020 are really the right guidelines for what we want to invest. And we have the capacity, again, to make organic investments and inorganic investments which we think will fit with our strategy. Having said that, if the price remain at $70, $75, I suspect the countercyclical strategy will have to make a pause somewhere. So the answer is in my strategy. The strategy is to acquire countercyclically or to sell on the other side, so this why I can confirm it to you. The second question is on production side, what organic improvement can be done. I'm not sure to – I think we have done a lot already in order to – but what you've probably noticed is that when you look to the decline rate overall, base production, when you – and I think it's commented every quarter, quarter after quarter in our press release, the average decline rate of the total portfolio when you eliminate the project startup is more or less in the range of 2% to 3%, 2.5% I think this quarter again, which is quite low. And why is it so low? It's because I think we – one of the things which has been done during the last period of three years, and which is implemented today in our teams, is that we refocus everybody, because each dollar was very important to lower the breakeven, on some KPIs like availability, utilization rates, including not only in downstream, but in upstream. And so the upstream division is working on it, has shared some good practices. And so this momentum of trying to permanently increase this volatility factor is really embedded today in the company. So it's part of it. The second thing I would tell you is that – you probably notice that when we lowered our organic CapEx, we have a bunch of (01

[Christyan F. Malek:]

And is it fair to say that for the decline rates of 2% to 3%, would it be an exaggeration to say that's sustainable over the medium-term? If you keep surprising yourself on technology and efficiencies and so on, that effectively you can run to stand still (01

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

Yes. You can – it's a fair statement. I think you understand very well our industry and our portfolio, the Total portfolio.

[Christyan F. Malek:]

Brilliant. Thank you very much.

[Operator:]

Our next question comes from Irene Himona from Société Générale. Irene Himona - Société Générale SA (UK) Thank you. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I had firstly two sort of numerical questions on the quarter and then one on Direct Energie. So firstly, your intangibles on the balance sheet, obviously with all the acquisitions you've done, the intangibles have gone up $10 billion, or 70% versus year end. At year end, the goodwill was about 10% of that. Can you say whether the sort of goodwill element is similar or if it has increased? Secondly, corporate and other, since about 2015, 2016, I think you have had a tax credit in that division every quarter and it used to relate to, I think, French downstream taxes. I wonder if you can remind us what is in there in that tax credit and whether we should expect it to continue going forwards? And my third question on Direct Energie, Patrick, you mentioned that with the 6 million or 7 million customers you've got currently and ongoing growth, you will eventually increase the market share towards 15%, and your comment was that 15% is interesting. I wonder if 15% is interesting from a P&L perspective. In other words, is that the level at which you start making profit basically, or whether it relates to something on the power generation side and your ability to perhaps be, I don't know, more flexible there? Thank you.

[Patrick de la Chevardière:]

Irene, just answering your question about goodwill, this is very simple. Maersk acquisition added $2.5 billion of goodwill. Then you have a question on French tax credit in our balance sheet. We haven't booked all of our tax credit in our balance sheet. So it's just an assumption of the use of our previous in-time losses made when the refining was having and facing trouble seven years ago. And those are the tax credit we have in France. Irene Himona - Société Générale SA (UK) Thank you.

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

P2 was able to answer, I would not have been able on both questions. So we are well complementary together. I'm not sure I'm perfect – no, my 15% market share is more, I would say, it's more the experience we have in retail in-market and marketing on national businesses like we had in M&S. We divested, for example, our business in the UK in Marketing & Services because it was at 6%, 7%. And again, the question is when do you reach a size where you can really have a virtuous circle because you amortize your fixed cost, your marketing, your advertising costs, your marketing cost on a large base enough of customers, and so that at a (01

[Operator:]

Our next question comes from Blake Fernandez from Scotia Howard Weil.

[Blake Fernandez:]

Thanks. Good afternoon. I realize we're late in the hour, so just two points of clarity here if I could on production. For one, going back to Libya, if I'm not mistaken, I think with the acquisition you should be around 80,000 barrels a day, which is about 3% of your total production. Obviously, the country has been fairly erratic with regard to volumes. Is that part of your 6% plus guidance for the year? And then the second question is really on the overall kind of longer-term production target. You've expressed potentially increased appetite to sell upstream assets. I'm just wondering, would that potentially put at risk that longer-term number or were you already contemplating some level of divestitures when you kind of put that number out there in the first place? Thank you.

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

First question, yes, it's taken into account the 6% plus and we know it's erratic but that's why by the way some people think we are conservative, maybe we are not so well, but it's taken into account and it's from 6% to 6% plus because part of it is coming from Brazil clearly, so we have to recognize it and to put into a figure. Having said that, we're right – maybe it's erratic, but I see more upside than downside. It's a country today we produce less than 1 million barrel of oil per day with the potential of 2 million barrel per day. So when you think to this concession of Waha, the potential of increase of production is huge, can double the production there. So yes, it's erratic today, but it's erratic in the low tide, I would say. There is a more an upside potential whether I would say downside there. Then the second question, clearly, I already answered that several times. When we told you 5%, average 2017, 2022, it was taking into account the fact that we want to divest some upstream assets we never added. We did not put a figure in terms of billion dollars, but it's part of what we said net acquisitions and so – and we have some margins and you cannot tell us that we are sometimes too conservative on our production figure and that sometimes we are too optimistic. We are dealing with you and what we like to do, P1, P2 and P1, I would say together, we like to deliver what we say. And so you can't take that as a commitment and I have – so it's a matter of translating in fact all the resource we have accumulated into some projects. So now the next challenge to sanction the projects and to execute the project. And then if we do that, we deliver the 5% but we have in our portfolio the resource which are necessary to do that. And we have also enough to sell what we want to sell.

[Blake Fernandez:]

Thank you very much. Thanks.

[Operator:]

Our next question comes from Thomas Adolff from Credit Suisse.

[Thomas Adolff:]

Thank you. I've got three questions as well. Firstly, on Venezuela. I'm assuming you still have some expats in the country and if so, what are the plans there following some worrying news at one of your competitors earlier this week and if you take them out, what does it mean to your operations? Secondly, on refining, I know the focus in Downstream is on pet chem. But I wondered whether you would consider adding more light crude processing capacity at Port Arthur in the U.S.? And finally, just a question on concentration versus diversity of your portfolio. Obviously, if you're too concentrated, you are exposed like Repsol in Argentina. You're too diversified, you create complex organizational structures. And I'm aware when it comes to country risk, definitions can vary from cash flow to value to capital employed. But if stick to cash flow and take your top 10 countries, how much do these represent in terms of percentage of last year's cash flow? And generally speaking, as we consider the portfolio composition, what is the sweet spot or have we hit the sweet spot in terms of risk and value creation for Total? Thank you.

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

Venezuela, the news are not so good. Let's be clear. First priority for me is, of course, to take care of our people. So we have a lot of our expatriates probably are out and we are limiting the number of people. We also take care, by the way, of our Venezuelan employees very carefully because it's part of the value of the company and there is a limit to what can be done. One of the difficulty and I will tell you, production, our production value is declining because there is a lack of machines, there is a lack of tools, there is a lack of everything. So the main concern on our side is to take care of the operator. We have an upgraded operation, which is a very big machine and there will be a limit to be able to operate the operator and we will take no HSE risk and I think together with our colleagues of Statoil, we are very careful about it and if we have to explain that, we'll take the decision on it. So, yes, it's part of probably what could be a downside but let be clear, in terms of cash flow, we don't make that much money today (01

[Thomas Adolff:]

Thank very much, Patrick.

[Operator:]

Our next question comes from Biraj Borkhataria from Royal Bank of Canada.

[Biraj Borkhataria:]

Hi. Thanks for taking my question. Just one question left. There's obviously quite a lot going on in the portfolio inorganically but a few months ago, you laid out a fairly long list of projects in the upstream that you could sanction. So I was wondering if you could just give us an update on some of the upcoming FIDs that we should expect and whether given all the deals you have done, you might slow some of these down in order to digest some of the new assets. Thanks.

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

I think if we take the list, if I try to go through, Zinia 2 in Angola should come in within weeks. We have finalized with the Angolan government in December in the past fiscal terms. We wait for the decree but it's coming. Tenders have been done over there so coming. Uganda is obviously a very big project. It was good news and since we met in February, because now all the partners are aligned. There was a small dispute between CNOOC and the two partners to split the operatorship. It has been done in a smooth way. Total will operate all the north part of (01

[Biraj Borkhataria:]

Thank you, Patrick. It's very thorough.

[Operator:]

Our next question comes from Christopher Kuplent from Bank of America.

[Christopher Kuplent:]

Thank you. Can I just be very brief? One last question, Patrick, you gave us a 2018 number for $16 billion plus, but actually what I'd like to know is where do think 2018 will end up on your organic front where you've given us $13 billion to $15 billion range? I'm guessing not at the upper end.

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

I think at the lower end.

[Christopher Kuplent:]

Okay. That's great. That's already...

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

(01

[Christopher Kuplent:]

We're always keen clues. So thank you.

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

Thank you, Chris.

[Operator:]

Our next question comes from Jean-Luc Romain with CM-CIC Securities.

[Jean-Luc Romain:]

Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my question. My question relates to Direct Energie. Should I infer from your prepared comments that the shareholders at Direct Energie contacted about their interest to sell? Second question is the cost of acquisition – what is the cost of regulation per client at Total Spring so far?

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

For the first question, I cannot give you all the secrets of the deal but probably because you are French, thanks to your accent, you probably know that the shareholder – the main shareholder of Direct Energie and myself we have been – we are quite close together, we have been in our histories, so we have permanent interactions, in fact, both of us. So I will not tell you who call who, but again, when the price of the share were declining, there was some incentive for him to call me. But I was also looking to that, both of us. Your second question was about the cost of access for Total Spring, I don't have the answer, sorry for that. But I suggest that one of my colleague will call you after the call because I don't have – I don't want to – I know I have one (01

[Jean-Luc Romain:]

Thank you very much.

[Operator:]

There are no further questions in the queue. I'd like to turn the conference back to our speakers for additional or closing remarks.

[Patrick Pouyanné:]

Thank you. I would like to all of you thank you for this call. We were a little earlier than anticipated because I think you have another call with one of my colleagues just right now. So thank you for all your questions you asked us. I think it will not become a tradition that the CEO will participant in the quarterly call. It has been – we done it today because we were active which is a message for the people who think we will – we continue to be so active as the case. And so, but I think again the company's moving in the right direction and what we observed is the share price begins to reflect in a better way all the efforts, which have been done by all the teams of Total for the coming years. And so I hope it will continue and you can count on one side of our financial discipline, on the other side of the ambition of the management to continue to develop the company. Thank you.