Logo of jester cap with thought bubble.

Image source: The Motley Fool.

TOTAL SA (NYSE:TOT)
Q4 2020 Earnings Call
Feb 9, 2021, 8:00 a.m. ET

Contents:

  • Prepared Remarks
  • Questions and Answers
  • Call Participants

Prepared Remarks:

Ladislas Paszkiewicz -- Senior Vice President, Investor Relations

Good morning or good afternoon to you all, and thank you for joining us today. Our program today will start with a presentation of 2020 Results and Outlook by Patrick Pouyanne, Helle Kristoffersen and Jean-Pierre Sbraire. And this presentation will be followed by a Q&A session. Then 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. And this session will also be followed by a Q&A session.

So 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.

[Video Presentation]

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Good morning, good afternoon or good evening for who is there in Asia, and welcome to the 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.

So, all of us will remember 2020 as a landmark year that brought unexpected challenges and led to significant changes. We'll look back and think of our lives in terms of before COVID and after COVID. The pandemic has taken a terrible toll on people. The 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, raking businesses and livelihoods to an unimaginable extent. We'll 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 [Phonetic].

So, 2020 was a year full of short-term challenges, but we had to tackle and once again, Total demonstrated its resilience. But 2020 is also pivoting year in terms of global consciousness of the planet's fragilities. We have built over the past 20 -- 30 years a global interconnected world, interconnected for the best innovating 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. The move to digitization, for example, has accelerated and is changing the way we do business, making somewhere everything more efficient. Europe is heading the way on the green deal and -- but now this is becoming a global effort, with over major markets moving in the same direction, including the US, China, Japan, Korea, India. And that's also why we need to think long-term. That's 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 our 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 and cash flow generation. While transforming, we'll maintain strict financial discipline to keep our breakeven low and our balance sheet strong. Diversifying the Company will strengthen the resilience, but 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 for 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 attain [Phonetic] this. However, questions about the long-term future of oil and gas companies has become a weight on the valuations. As an optimist, I believe the transformation in which we engage would 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%, but demand for LNG and renewable power actually grew. And 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're 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 a financing policy; all our bond emissions will be now climate capital-linked; and 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 evermore affordable, reliable and clean. This name is consistent with our social values and ambition to achieve net zero emission by 2050 or sooner, together with 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.

And I love this image, TotalEnergies, in the right, More energy, Less emissions. It's exactly our purpose, it's exactly the challenge we face and that we will solve in TotalEnergies. And so, 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 the 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 the strategy with some few elements.

The sustainability journey, obviously, begins by safety. Safety is a core value. You know it. It's a journey and you can see on this chart, but this journey is progressing in -- 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 the 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 the 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. And we have demonstrated within Total our capacity to face this type of crisis, mobilizing all the teams, delivering masks, millions of masks and gloves, mobilizing some plants to produce hydroalcoholic gel in six countries and, at the same time, maintaining the continuity of operations, as in fact, we lost not so much of millions man-hours worked. So again, safety is the first stone of the journey of sustainability within Total, and we'll maintain and we'll even enhance in future years in the next decade all with the effort safety as a value.

But the journey is also a strategic one to transform Total into a broad energy company, which now has a name TotalEnergies. It's a matter of focusing of producing and delivering different energy products, gases, renewables, electricities, liquids and also to invest in carbon sinks. This slide is the 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's 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's clearly to focus on low-cost oil, but also to develop a renewable fuel business and, at the same time, to adapt or advance downstream capacities to the demand, in particular in Europe. And again, because it's 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's demand, which means that fundamentally as we said in September, growing by one-third in the next decade from the equivalent of 3 million barrels of oil equivalent per day to 4 million, or I should say, more from something like 17 petajoule per day to 23 petajoule per day. That's -- and 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 with the demand. Our strategy is fundamentally laid 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 years 2020, 2030. And thanks to this evolution of our sales, we will -- end of our production, we will reduce emissions while growing. In September, we took a strong commitment, which is that the Scope 3 emissions of our customers by 2030 will be lower at the worldwide basis than what we were in 2015, and that Europe 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 can -- if I may use the word, helped by the COVID impact, less activity, less sales. But even if we -- I mean, if we integrate the COVID impact, the decrease between 2020 and 2015 of the Scope 3 emission of our customers in Europe is 12%. And so, there is still a lot of work to be done to reach the 40% that we ambitioned by 2030 because it means that we'll have to adapt again all of 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 emission should decrease by 40% versus 2015. Until now, we had this objective of less than 40 million tons in absolute value of 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 15 million and 25 million, so we have 10 million tons or more to integrate from our acquisition and the start-ups. So, there is a lot of effort, 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 you how we intend to reach this less than 40 million tons by 2025. And going beyond in net emissions, that means that from 2030, we will integrate 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 you how.

So, it's another additional target, aligning for the next decade 30% or less of Scope 3 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 society for global business, we put three major steps to get Total to net zero. The first one, our Scope 1 and 2. Again, the results today in 2020 is minus 15%. In the official documents, where you will see minus 22%, but in fact, if we correct the COVID impact, it is minus 15%. Our Scope 1 and 2 and 3 in Europe, I just mentioned, it is minus 12%, even if you read minus 25%, but in fact, COVID helped us too much there, and demand will come back. And on Scope 1 and 2 and 3 of the carbon intensity reduction, we have -- we will have achieved 8%, which is again the best performance in terms of shifting the portfolio among other peers.

But sustainability is not only a matter of climate for Total, and this is -- and for TotalEnergies tomorrow. We want sustainability to be at the heart of all of Total's transformation journey. So, it's a matter when we speak about environmental 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. And you've probably noticed that we are the only one who did not announce any layoffs 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. And so, we have decided that we reach our target to get to have 20% of women in all our management bodies by 2020, the Board -- together with the Board, we enhanced 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 synergies when we took decision 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 with 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 a LTI criteria and of this -- of remuneration.

For this journey in sustainability, we have one principle, which is transparency. Transparency to explain what we do and to report on it. So, I know it's a lot of work for our TMs [Phonetic], and -- but there is more and more request 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. And so, that's why in 2020, we have, for the first time, publish of 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 left -- 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 is -- has the best score within the oil and gas sector, even if we have still journey to be done, so that we have the best score among all the corporations there, which is the real ambition which we should have as an energy and 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, carbon emissions, but also in a global approach and into a financing policy. We -- 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, 2030, the Score 3 2030, 2040, 2050. So, even with long maturities we can link them and I think it's -- we are the first company in the world to propose that to embed, I would say, our transition within our financing policy. And I know that there are a lot of debates around taxonomy, but what is our answer? If you will buy bonds of Total, somewhere you will go together with our transformation. And if we don't reach our target, we'll be punished by a higher cost of debt and you will be rewarded, so it's worth continuing to finance these investments of Total.

And 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 the market and our results and our resilience before to speak again about the outlook.

Helle Kristoffersen -- President, Strategy and Innovation

Thank you, Patrick. And so, 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 roller coaster energy demand due to repeated periods of more or less severe lockdowns. And 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. Then, 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 mid-term and that's the message of this chart. We have seen in 2020 how OPEC managed to bring back market discipline. We've seen the cracks in the US shale model, and we've seen a continued underinvestments 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 very cautious view on short-term demand recovery and on future demand levels. What's shown here is a cautious outlook out to 2025, but a 10 million barrels 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. And 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. And 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.

And with that, I now hand the floor over to Jean-Pierre.

Jean-Pierre Sbraire -- Chief Financial Officer

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 breakeven at around $25 per barrel. So, 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 allowed 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. But, 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. But on the right-hand side of the slide, we show that Total has the strongest financial position among 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. And it was reinforced in May when the COVID-19 demand crisis came. The objective was really clear, it was to cut outlays by about $5 billion. The cost culture is part of the Group DNA. So, the foundation to deliver on the action plan was already there. The action plan was implemented effectively and rapidly, while maintaining continuity of operations throughout the crisis. And we delivered 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 investments, 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 Occi Anadarko deal. Despite the need to conserve cash, we maintained investments 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 cost by $0.3 billion, and we increased that objective in May to $1 billion. We over-delivered with $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 had high-graded and actively managed our portfolio to reduce the organic breakeven, which is -- 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 Groupwide 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 budgets 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 savings in 2020 are sustainable. So 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 structural deployments, 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's 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 low-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 enough since 2014 to $5.1 per barrel in 2020, best-in-class, once again, among the majors, and 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 a capex at $13 billion in 2020. On the right, you show -- we show you where the $5 billion of 2020 capex saving came from, so it will give you an idea of how we can flex spending. Most of the cost 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, so 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 transformation, we have 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 breakeven assets that we put together over the last five years with more than 30% rotation of the portfolio. Cash breakeven around $25 per barrel, strong balance sheet. 2020 was a tough year, but the Board's confidence 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 EUR0.66 per share and 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 shareholders trust 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. And this is for us the demonstration that our shareholders support 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, but thanks to our resilience, we posted a $4.1 billion of adjusted net income, and a $15.7 billion of cash flow from operations in 2020. Once again, in absolute terms, we are among the best performance 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 mid-year in June and concentrated mainly on our Canadian oil sands investments, which are high-cost assets and are reserves extending beyond 30 years. Despite the magnitude of the number, it is the lowest level of impairments among our peers. It demonstrates the high-quality of our assets and reflects an history of using prudent price assumptions.

On return on equity, although too low in such contest, 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.

And I will leave the floor to Patrick.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

So, thank you, Jean-Pierre and Helle for this presentation of our results and our resilience. I think, as you said, we have the foundation and now, I would like to again repeat the pillars of the foundation, which is this motto, HSE, delivery, cost and cash, that are well -- very well, and again, our teams have demonstrated in 2020. But when we ask them some to actually redeliver, which is, of course, a great comfort to engage on the transformation journey in which we have decided to go. And -- but we will always keep in mind that we need to deliver and that is because we are good and we've been 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 get from oil and gas business into these new energies.

So, I know that you all are expecting more informations 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 -- on the next presentation many details and geographies of all our assets, not everything, because we need to keep sometimes a 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 this green new energies. I don't dream to have a 25 multiple, but if we can get it from 6 or 5.5 to 6 or 5 to 7 to 10, we'll be more than happy. So this idea today is to do -- to have deep-dive in these assets.

So first, about immediate delivery. As you can see, we have gross installed capacity, which is of 7 gigawatt by end of 2020, which will go to 10 gigawatts by 2021. This represents, by the way, and we speak about the gross capacity, because this represents a gross capex of $5 billion in 2021. I will come back on it, but you know that we finance by equity only 30% of it, so $1.5 billion and you will make the math with me after that. The most important is that, all the projects that we sanctioned have an objective of more than 10% of equity.

The other part of the slide is very important. In September, we told you that we are targeting to 35 gigawatts by 2025. By that time, the renewable teams were not so -- a little unhappy, because they had only 25 gigawatt in their hands, but we are trusting them and in fact, the last six months, we worked -- continued to work, and now we have these 35 gigawatts in our portfolio and I will describe that to you.

First, why did we get them, because we really and from this perspective, 2020 was really for me a very important and accelerating year, a pivoting year in terms of renewables, because we have demonstrated to ourselves that we were able to really capture early stage opportunities to low-entry costs. There is no way to acquire existing assets because of the multiple that I just mentioned. But then another way to grow, which is, of course, organically from of all teams, but also to capture and to find agreements with some other development teams, which are at 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 and we can work with them to accelerate the developments and to put all these projects, I would say, to reality.

So, in 2020, we worked and we put together 10 gigawatts of new projects, mainly in Spain, in India. A first step in UK offshore win in Qatar. Since the end of the year, beginning of the year, we have accelerated another 10 gigawatt in 2021. We will not do that every month, be sure. So we have maybe already reached the objective of the year, now, we'll continue to work. But with four new steps, a big new step in the US, solar in the US, at a utility scale project, with two deals for 4 gigawatts. So that's important because it's a very -- it was one of the market -- of utility market, scale market for renewables out of which we were not there. Now, we have these projects that we need to deliver 1 gigawatt, by the way, will be used in order to green the electricity of all our downstream plants, refineries and all petrochemical plants.

We have also done a bold move by acquiring 20% of Adani Green Energy, that in January for $2 billion, that we have established two, three years ago a partnership with the Adani Group in gas, LNG, city gas. We have made, beginning of 2020, a first step of JV with them in solar of 3 gigawatts capacity, which we share some assets, which are now into production. But we have also decided that Adani Green Energy Limited has accelerated a lot in 2020. They have now a portfolio of almost 20 gigawatt of contracted capacity. They are going to increase it, I think, this week by acquiring rights to another 4 gigawatts. They have great ambitions. It's a great partner. We embarked 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. And so, we are very proud to embark with this number one solar developer in the world. And I think we are entering into a same story that we've done in Russia 10 years ago with Novatek and the LNG development of Yamal. So it's an investment. You know also well that we paid $2 billion, but the shares today have a value of $4 billion, so I think we might -- we will be able to deliver good profitability out of these investments.

And last, but not least, UK, where we took UK offshore wind. We made the first step in 2020 with SSE with Seagreen project. And last week, together with our partner Macquarie, we obtained the seabed rights of our 1.5 gigawatt projects on the eastern side of UK. We have been active, so we had to finance all these acquisitions and Jean-Pierre and his team, finance team, have done well. We issued an hybrid bond to finance renewable. Some people are asking me, but why can't 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 a renewable for a coupon of 1.9%, which is very highly competitive cost of capital.

So, the renewable business of Total has different fit. But 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 of what are the competence of each of these companies and subsidiaries. I would say, Total Solar International, it's a solar developer in Europe, the US and the Middle East. We are working also with Adani Green in India, which owns at the end of 2020 3.3 gigawatt.

Total Quadran is a subsidiary in France, solar and onshore wind, 1 gigawatt end of 2020. Total EREN is a company we put together with some funders of EREN. We have 30% of this company, which has 1.9 gigawatt of gross capacity and we have the option to acquire 100% in 2023 to go to IPO.

Adani Green, I just mentioned it, is the acquisition of the 20% as a shareholder. And Offshore Wind, we developed it ourselves in JVs mainly because of the magnitude of these projects. We have several in the UK and in France. And then we have another part of the business, which is dedicated to the distributed generation, with subsidiary called Total Distributed Generation, dealing mainly with corporate -- I mean just making corporate PPAs more than once in order to put in place -- to offer to corporations some solar 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 was being reconcentrated in 2020, mainly on the residential DG business. And it seems that the stock market appreciates a lot this -- I would say, refocusing of SunPower on this market. So that's different vehicles we have.

When we look to the portfolio more in detail and you have plenty of informations on this slide. We can look at them by maturity of assets. You can see that we have seven gigawatts in operation in gross capacity, the net is 3.1. I will come back on this notion just after. With -- 99% of these operations are covered by PPA, so almost all of it, 99.8% in fact. And we have PPA duration of 18 years and an average PPA price on this operation -- as operational assets of more than $110 per megawatt.

In construction, it's 5 gigawatts, 3 of net capacity. 90% covered by PPAs. The remaining part is a share, 30% share of the Seagreen project that we have in UK offshore, but we intend to go for CFD on next round. 20 year of PPA duration there again. And average price for these assets in construction at $55 per megawatt.

And in development, we have 23 gigawatts on 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 gigawatts or 10 gigawatts. Average duration 20 years. There is mix between 60% offtakers are state PPA or corporate PPAs, because we begin to work on this part. And the average PPA price for this new asset 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 UK, like the one we were awarded this week of the Round 4, which are not yet covered by PPA, but I would say it's a question of maturing all these assets.

So the important point is that already 60% of all the portfolio we mentioned of 35 gigawatts or more than 20 gigawatts are already covered by PPA, which allow this portfolio to deliver predictable long-term cash flow.

As 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 that are asking us how do you manage to make your 10% return. We have done an exercise taking and modeling in fact the 10 gigawatts of projects which were acquired in 2020. And so, by modeling of 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. But we try to understand if we have 10 gigawatts of projects start, how much of it will be the payback of this 10 gigawatts. I think a mix of solar, offshore wind, solar in Spain, solar in India, so geographies.

As you know, we invest 30% in equity. So 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. So when we said that this year we'll finance the equivalent of this 5 gigawatt -- $5 billion of gross capex, equity would be $1.5 billion and non-recourse debt will be, let's say, $3.5 billion. And the $1.5 billion are going into our investments. The $3.5 billion are on the asset themselves.

Then we will clearly developed by ourselves the projects. It's why this gross capacity is important, because this is the effort that Total supports during the development phase. And when the project is developed at the production start-up with COD like this, 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 local risk of delivery of sales. And 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 IDs as well.

And so for us, it's a matter of, I would say, de-risking part of the portfolio by selling 50% of the assets. And that's an important point of view for me as Chairman and CEO of the company, the other beauty of it is that you accelerate cash flows with increased returns. We gave you the figures of the five farm downs we have executed in our France and Japanese portfolio in the last three years until month of January. We sold 550 megawatts for $1.51 billion of EV, which is this 550 megawatt, if you take the cost of, let's say, $500 million, you see that a multiplicative effect is 5:2 [Phonetic].

So obviously this is important. It's accelerating cash flows. It's increasing returns. And you can see on the chart, five years of production, the remaining 50% we kept, we have more or less the payback of the equity investments, which is a global cash flow model, which we call the capital-light model that we are developing. So it's a question of de-risking the portfolio, getting the most by bearing again the investment until the production start-ups. And then the PPA will continue for 15 years to 20 years like I said before. And beyond it, production will continue again -- will continue because this type of assets have a long life. So this is a way that we are creating cash flow for the long term for our shareholders in business and it's a way to reach this 10% of return target on equity.

Finally, on this power business, as the growth is globally on the electricity production, because at the end, what we add is the net production. So, I remember the growth we finance the net, we get it as production and will feed our future reserves and cash flows. So net production, whereas last year, at 14 terawatt hour would increase by 40% to 20 terawatt hour, mainly from renewables as well from gas-fired power plants as we have acquired some in Spain. But 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 complained but you cannot understand where exactly the results, so 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 the cash flow which will help, which will in fact finance the cost of the debt and also the return to dividends to Total.

You can see that it's growing and this will grow in 2021 from, let's say, of around $500 million to something like $800 million, the most of the growth coming with renewable business. And we are still -- we are only a 10-gigawatt of installed capacity, 7 gigawatt to-date, 10 gigawatt at the end of the year, 20 terawatt hour. I remind you that the target for Total is to reach more than 100 terawatt hour by 2030, so it's five times more. So when we speak about generation of cash flow, that's the reality. This is exactly why we want to embark in this renewable portfolio -- business at scale.

Just a last word before I move to LNG. Sales, we have now 8 million customers in France, in Spain and Belgium. We delivered last year 50 terawatt hour of electricity to our customers. And I think we have also some few B2B customers in UK. We're intending to concentrate our efforts on these countries for the coming years.

So 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 resilience. We have seen, of course, the Brent lost something like 30%. And we have lost itself 16%. Asian prices were at the bottom. And despite that, the cash flow generation from LNG $3.2 billion was quite almost the same as last year. Why, in particular, because we continue to grow. We create value from scale and arbitrage 10% growth, $38 [Phonetic] million tons of sales last year and we expect 10% more for 2021. So we benefited, of course, from the start in particular, which will deliver at full scale in 2021. And so that's why we have this growth.

But as you know, we have -- this story is not over, because -- and we did not stop it. Despite the crisis, we have the two flagship projects in Russia Arctic 2, which is 45% progress on Train 1 by end of 2020 and Mozambique LNG, which is all 21% progress on end 2020. We face clearly some security issues, you know it's public and we are working with the Mozambique government. It does not have at this stage impact on the planning of the projects, which we'll deliver by 2024, because we are still mainly in the engineering phase, the logistical phase and the offshore works have been maintained. But obviously the situation on the ground will need to be controlled and we have a clear plan securing an area of at least 25 kilometres around the project itself in order to be able to resume the work, which is our intent, with our contractors. But my highest priority is the security, not only of my staff, but fundamentally as the staff who work on the ground in Mozambique.

In 2020, we have also maintained our commitment to LNG by sanctioning, like Helle said. The two only projects we have sanctioned worldwide, one is Train 7 in Nigeria and the other one, and we are happy to participate to that, is a project that Sempra is leading on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. It's a very well located project, closer to Asia, Gulf Coast, obviously, you avoid the bottleneck of the Panama channel. And it's low-cost project, because it's fundamentally sort of regas plant, where we benefit from all the infrastructure, JTs are already -- have already been invested. And it will be a sourced low-cost Permian gas.

So that's interesting. You can notice that on this slide systematically we put to you, we put an indication of the carbon intensity. And it's linked to the climate ambition that we deliver. We said that we want the allocation of capital should be consistent. You don't mind, probably, but let's say that the historic LNG plants have a carbon intensity of around 40 kilo per CO2 per barrel or more, 40 to 50. So you can see that the last plants we are, unlike Mozambique, on which the Total teams have done some -- to the plants which we inherited from Anadarko, we are making effort to minimize in order of projects [Technical Issues] we have made some interesting moves.

We acquired a company in France. [Technical Issues] France is 40 hour tera per year, so it's 20%. It can double, that projects will double its capacity in the coming years. So 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 United States, together with [Technical Issues] they have decided that because the move in mobility, we see clearly not only in US, but also in Europe. We think that gas mobility will become more biogas mobility for -- because everybody is engaged on both sides in the Atlantic in view toward the carbon neutrality.

So 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 US together with bio-CNG, bio-LNG distribution capacities.

And the last part of renewable gas road map is hydrogen. There again, a first project, pragmatic one, it's not the big. It's 40 megawatt electrolyzer, but it's an integrated project with a solar farm of 100 megawatt. And more importantly, this project will have to deliver green, firm green hydrogen to La Mede biorefinery. So how do we store the hydrogen if we deliver the firm is a project, which is worth around EUR200 million, on which, of course, we need to support -- from support from governments in order to move forward, but there is lot of enthusiasm in Europe from European governments to develop this hydrogen economy. It's a first step and we'll have -- will 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. And today, we -- by the way, just to illustrate it, we delivered 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 sales around the world. $7.6 billion. It's half of the group CFFO. If you are adding to that the downstream CFFO, which came at almost $5 billion, clearly today, it's true that most of the cash flows of Total come from oil. And when we invest more than 20% of our new investments in renewables and power, clearly we take part of this cash flow, but without this cash flow, there is no way to make the transition into which we engage. So it's why we have a strategy where we want to continue to maintain normal growing oil business, but to maintain all this activity and to be good at it, even excellent. The excellence is illustrated on the right side.

Again, when we took the upstream adjusted net operating income of three [Indecipherable] both E&P and LNG, because it's the 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, in all peers, despite the fact that among these peers we have the smallest production, which we should remember.

And frankly if I am proud of what we do, when I see that the global cash flow delivery by Total is at the size of some of the largest the peer group, I'm very proud that we are able to deliver. And again like I know that Jean-Pierre insisted a lot on it, it's back to the fundamental quality of the portfolio, and which has been driven by choices, which are low breakeven, because there is no real way to make -- to delivering -- to deliver value in this business. And the last five years have been, if there is one lesson, the volatility of oil price. So it's fundamental that when we make choices for the future, low technical cost, low breakeven is at the heart of what we select. And this is exactly what we will do. I will show you in the new project.

A word about our production. To tell you that, yes, this year we lost 100,000 barrels per day, more or less because of the quota policy, but as the CEO of Total, I'm supporting as a CEO the quota policy to be clear. We vote any quicker, 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, of Saudi Arabia, in particular, I think is praised by everybody in the industry. So yes, we lost production, but the positive impact on the oil price event today at $55, above $60. I understand this morning, I mean, despite the fact that the market remains fragile [Phonetic], inventories are -- still are more than 70 days on the OECD -- OECD inventory is much higher than 60-days that we had last year. So that's a nice policy. So we lost barrels, but at the end we gained some cash flows.

For 2021, we have a stable production, because we think that the quota are being relaxed mostly and Libya is --- has came back to a more normal production level. And 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 about '21 and '22, we don't have many projects coming on stream. The growth will come from 2023 and 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. So 3.3 million barrels per day, 3.4 million barrels per day is 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. In fact, at the end of the period, so I confirm that to you.

We heard about reserves. We proved reserves at the end of 2020, 18 years of proved and probable reserves so by the way, I have 20-year of average of PPA duration, I've 18 years of reserves, which means that all these assets have more or less a 20-year visibility and not 5G [Indecipherable] I mean, so it's quite a longer both type of assets have a clear visibility. We have 60% of reserve of gas consistent with the strategy, I would say a word about the renewal of reserve this year, we're on the slides at 127% [Phonetic] of renewable reserve replacement rates on the free average which makes a lot of sense.

This year we have to follow the SEC rules and in 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 million [Phonetic] barrels more or less of oil sands, 40 of this year. This -- off the proved reserves, which means that the yearly reserve replacement price will be lower by 100% about 70%. But again, this is more regulatory debooking because these proved reserves of Fortis will come back as proved reserves, when -- either price average price of the next year is higher than $45 per barrel. So, it just I would say a regulatory move like we've done in '16. What is more fundamental of proven and probable reserve, which is important figure, we look because its makes sense. Global portfolio last year was at 19 so we reduced from 19 to 18 why? Because -- but we have debooked voluntarily in line with climate ambitions, the oil sands go beyond 2050 as we announced in July, the impairments was fundamentally $6 billion or $7 billion were down our of the $10 billion on these assets, which we are the only stranded assets but, when we made the review at the Board level, we identified within our portfolio.

And so this asked one year, we lost one year, but again is to be fully consistent in our accountings with, so climate ambition to carbon neutrality by 2050. So, as it projects we take FIDs I told you as a consistency with the climate ambition for us, it's driven by two fundamental elements that we look at the Board level low technical costs, low breakeven, less than $20 per barrel. This is the case for Brazil. This is the case for Uganda project. And of course minimized carbon intensity. We want all the projects to be lower than the average of the portfolio, the average of the portfolio is 20 kilogram for CO2 per barrel, which is quite low compared to the average of the industry, it's even a little lower than that, the average of the industry is higher, more than 25 kilogram, so we have a good portfolio, but these two projects you can see will be at 15 in Brazil, and 13 in Uganda.

So, from this perspectives in some of carbon emissions, they are not deteriorating -- they're even contributing to lower or -- 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 [Indecipherable] Libra field, when which we entered. So, it's a profitable product -- profitable projects.

On Uganda which is onshore, we have other challenges in particular to manage the social and environmental impacts biodiversity and relocation of people. We have spent a lot of time in the Board's review of the order file and taking into consideration, these elements to approve the project as a commitment of TOTAL to the project. And we have taken one decision in line with the 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 we have been, by the way, all these reports are important part of the proven -- all the investment because we took some lessons, we put some action plans, we have to improve, we are not perfect and we will, by the way as well to give away the report make clear TOTAL to publish the reports, explain the action plans, which are being implemented in order to put in action the values for recommendation, and again it's part of the sustainability commitment that I mentioned at the beginning and we must demonstrate that we are able to develop an onshore project together with expecting all the sustainability commitment. But we want the company to respect.

So, this project I know [Indecipherable] I think -- is coming soon to award the EPC contract, so it's this quarter end of the quarter, let's say, to put our paper in play because, then we need to give approvals by the -- authorities, but everybody is working hard to finalize this project. Just last negotiation of cost with some contractors to put a little pressure. A word about the exploration, because it's true that in line as we are climate ambition, we have restricted the exploration budget to $800 million it's lower than before. And because fundamentally we have and very consistently decided to focus and to focus our exploration spendings on what we call the low-cost development projects and when we look to offshore -- deep offshore in particular giant fields.

We are,-- our teams are good, I would say it in that way. Our exploration team, last year we entered into a Suriname license and since we entered, we made the four major discoveries in the Block 58 together with Apache, we are -- we became operator of this Block since January. We will concentrate a lot of efforts in -- budget, exploration appraisal budget to this Basin of Suriname and Guyana, we are together, we are just currently drilling well together with Exxon, license [Indecipherable] be objective, including some important appraisal wells, the objective being for us to be able to define before year-end '21 first development, oil development in order to produce oil by 2025 on the Block 58.

So, a lot of activities in that part of the world growing people from TOTAL discovering this part of these regions, and a lot of commitment, but obviously we have potentially in our hands, a new jewel in terms of oil for the group. Then moving to oil, as a downstream. We know, we were -- we had the traditions since, 2015 but, the downstream was delivering more than $6 billion per year. This year it's not the case. It's not the case, then fundamentally because of the crisis, because in particular of the collapse of the demand. So, 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, but instead of $30 per ton and I think last year we were even a little more. We went down to $11 per ton, which I've never seen that. We'll show you a graph just after. Refining margins are compressed they are compressed because of course lack of demand, I would say the crude is supported by OPEC policy. So a good price of crude, no demand, so at the end of -- margins is very minimum, sometimes negative and in particular, as well as there is no more jet fuel or the jet fuel products are being pulled within the distillates, which -- today's margin as well.

So, situation is not very good. I think it can only improve, if we have a better economic return and if we -- before better demand there is no OPEC of refining. So, of course, we also suffered from vis-a-vis aspect. So, it's a obvious business in the downstream, petrochemicals have done well, very resilient, trading as of therefore we mentioned in Q2 and over-performance of $500 million, which has been maintaining for the year, maybe not being repeatable every year. Marketing and Services are -- contribution. And so for 2021, I would say, we will come back of more a better demand, we could expect more than $5 billion, maybe we are prudent, but you know it's also a very important to plan prudently, with uncertainties.

So, just a word about refining business, you can see on the left of -- been the margins. It's going to, the red line you compare it -- the amount of what we experienced in the last four years '16 to'19, so you can see that it has been a disaster since April, clearly linked to the COVID. Of course, our teams have put -- have been like -- dynamic adaptation on the short-term with COVID action plan reducing their cash spends $500 million we're using runs. We should not [Indecipherable] from our results, because of course you have the fixed cost to covers, but there was no choice and even we have done the voluntary shutdown of Donges in 2020, 2,000 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 -- by running it and refining oil products. We have also acted in 2020 a lot of work to begin to adopt our European footprint to the structural demand decline. We have [Indecipherable] finally, and the closing of the sale should happen by this quarter, by end of this month. I think -- does not contradict me I hope.

And then, which we have also engaged is the conversion of the -- in the Zero-Crude platform, which means, renewable fuels and bioplastics, in particular to answer renewable fuels for the aviation, I would say carbon -- lowering carbon footprint of aviation as [Indecipherable]. And marketing and 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 and services during the year, you can see the incredible drop of the jet sales, which went down by almost 70%, which affected our B2B sales because it's part of the cash flow, which is missing this year.

So, the rest of the business has been affected with an average of less than 10%, 15% of low -- lower sales, but at the same time as our refining margins were low, so marketing business was benefiting from better margins. So all-in-all, you can see that the retail business has done very well almost same cash flow from delivering than last year. It's also supported by the facts but it helped business, we have also some non-fuel sales which are more stable. So, resilient foot [Phonetic] and we appreciate -- it doesn't have the same volatility, obviously, for the rest of the portfolio.

So, 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 I think -- being prudent speaking about $40, $50 2025 we put also $60 because Helle, explained you why we believe strongly, but we have less investments in all these oil business at a certain point I'm convinced, but we will have suddenly because the demand is not diminishing except to COVID impact. So quickly, that we might we will face a supply crunch, we could push the price high, it's a material wins of market, we'll begin to anticipate that by the way, this supply crunch and is a strong belief. But at $50 per barrel. If we normalize all that you can see that we will 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. It will not remain at this levels and M&A as well as a growth plan. And coming as well from LNG and from renewables as we gave the figures. The sensitivity for this year $10 per barrel would give us $3.2 billion per barrel. And cash flow allocation no surprise as well, these slides, you know it, we just modified I would say the education of capital investment this year for 2021. Jean-Pierre explained you but we have decided to plan it prudently at $12 billion, if we could have one flexibility, because the flexibility, might be $1 billion, not more. It would be in line with the $13 billion, $16 billion we mentioned to you in September as a guideline.

Renewables and Power we represent more than 20% and I would say consider it's a new normal for future capital investments. So, dividend and clearly as the Board -- as demonstrated its strong commitment to support the dividend for the cycle. So, I would say in this environment we maintained EUR0.66 per quarter and you can expect, but it should be the same for the coming year. For the cycle may also when the price is going up, not overreacting both ways. And so the balance because a 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 there's a target even we'd like to have 15%. So, if we have cash flows, extra cash flows priority will be -- allocate [Indecipherable] the Company again, because again the big lessons for the last five years is a huge volatility. Share buyback, we will discuss it when we'll have high oil price and some flexibility, which is not the case again at that time.

So, to conclude this presentation and I begin by Total Energy's of course, this is for me, it's probably, it's an important decision, it's not every day, that you change the name of a company that you propose to your shoulder to change the name of the company, it was done I think very long time ago when CSP became Total when it was done because of the merger in 2000 just interim way Total [Indecipherable]. So, we have decided that because we really think at the Board level, but we want to incur these transformation in our identity. And I think it's a very strong message is not, that we are more than sales. We want to establish to Total Energies in a new category, no more in oil and gas company, but a broad energy company.

And 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 companies. So, today's evaluation does not recognize these long future. But by growing energy from renewable and LNG by upgrading our climate -- by embedding our climate into ambition into the financial policy. By supporting the dividend for the cycles. These are the four key message which is I think as the core of these Total Energies but we will build together. Thank you.

Questions and Answers:

Operator

[Operator Instructions].

We have the first question, and is coming from the line of Oswald Clint from Bernstein. Please ask your question.

Oswald Clint -- Bernstein -- Analyst

Hi, thank you very much for all the additional details today. I had two questions perhaps on the iGRP division. I mean, 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. Given us your new proportional EBITDA metric today as well, which is great. It's likely small, but I wanted the boiler back down to the cash flow last year in September, you told us $0.1 billion of cash flow in 2019 and how that might get up to $1.5 billion. I think by 2025? So I mean, my 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.

And then I'm sorry, the second one, I mean you've made Patrick some very interesting comments here around the valuation of renewable companies and how you would like to tap into that. The disclosures I guess of your new EBITDA will help, and that will certainly help but I guess the question is what happens if it doesn't, -- if it doesn't happen quickly enough, and I'm just asking you do have you considered or will you consider, would you consider other examples of showing that to the market. I just kind of help be struck by companies like EDP to spin out another little part of their business at 17% and suddenly it's there both EUR20 billion market cap. So, some of the parts is clearly worked in some of these names. So, I just wanted to get your thoughts on that, please.

Jean-Pierre Sbraire -- Chief Financial Officer

Okay. The first question, I mean, I'm not sure it's easy to do $1.5 billion to be a we not change the figure, because we now we have the portfolio where do we need to execute, and so 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 give me the opportunity to mention because I should have done it or -- at the end, but Phillips OK will retire in one month, I see in front of me, is not around the table, but you will be a next time Stephane Michel, no, it's nothing to see, he will retire just because he has the age Philippe, but Philippe has been the -- has led the capacity to I would say develop all this portfolio, no, Stephane will have to execute it to deliver the EUR1.5 billion. Maybe Philippe has done the easy part, it's not true, but no, we'll not change this figure. I think in 2020, I think we are at $250 million if I was looking to -- so to give you an update, it was not in the presentation in terms of cash flow direct to Total. So the $100 million became $250 million. So, again, the portfolio is there and we'll come back to you on this matter in September. I think it's better not to -- no way to change.

Now, honestly on the second part, you cannot compare Total, which has a market cap of EUR100 billion and EDP. I think it's a mistake from my view and let's be clear, if we transform Total in TotalEnergies 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. So I think we want to be -- we know that we need to be patient. We know what we need to deliver. Even if today all these renewable companies are more valorized on their potential of growth rather than the cash flow they deliver, probably people will ask us more, but I think the fundamental idea is we want to give the same clarity and a lot of -- by the way these companies are giving you in order to make these valorization. It could take time to -- but the business model of Total, yes, 10% is only a share of 100%, it's true, but I think, again, there are cycles in the markets and I'm optimistic.

So 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 fruit of TotalEnergies. It will take the time, but you know, the last, what I observed last round of UK offshore wind for me gives me comfort. When you see who has won the -- who were awarded during the last week these 1.5 gigawatts contracts, I would say 8 gigawatts, we saw big players. So I strongly believe because of the capital intensity of all this electricity and renewable business but there always been a time which is good to have people we were quicker than others, we invented it and which have a reward and then now the time to scale up all this business and to scale up, you need a lot of capital and then the big players will have a big share including in terms of returns and profits and this is exactly the strategy we want to develop within TotalEnergies.

Oswald Clint -- Bernstein -- Analyst

Thank you, thank you.

Operator

We have the next question is coming from the line of Biraj Borkhataria from RBC. Please ask your question.

Biraj Borkhataria -- RBC -- Analyst

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 there 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.

And 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.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

In fact, we did not win a lot of auction to be honest. Last year, we win in Qatar and this year in the U.K. And it's not us, but another 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. So, in fact, I think we lost more than we win. Why? Because auctions as always are not the best way to create value and 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 UK, 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 there and or what we mentioned Hanwha JV in the U.S. It's a direct discussion with them because we have a partnership. The Sanchez portfolio, it was a direct approach by all teams and not a tender organized by a banker like we've done in Spain last week. So it's more I think people on the ground identifying some potential partnerships bringing our value proposal, which means financial capacities, commercial capacity, attractiveness, when you refer some PPAs, corporate PPAs, you can convince people.

The Adani deal is not an auction, honestly, if we paid $2 [Phonetic] billion to get the 20%, it's because we have developed a fundamental strong partnership with Adani Group. So, I think it's making business and that's the way you create value. And by the way, Biraj, don't expect us to make an announcement every week. To be honest, I didn't plan beginning at end of the year that we will announce once as many deals as we've done. So I think now after -- but I will not say that to Stephane Michel will take the job because he will believe he has to rest. It's up to him to grow at the same momentum. So doing deals, again, auctions is not the best way because it's very company 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 and I think what I observed positively and if we have this momentum is because Total became serious, is considered as a very serious partner around the world. The ambition we have announced and it all started by the way by winning the auction in Qatar last January. We became immediately with this 800 megawatt credible partner including by the way attracting contractors, Chinese contractors knocking to our door because they want and giving -- they give us better costs in order to be competitive. So it's a virtuous circle and now with the ambition we have announced. Again, when you compare the amount of capital intensity we have a -- capital capex in this field, we are among the largest players. So I think it's a choice and people come to us with proposing projects and we can select.

The US journey has not been an easy one. I think we have at least two or three opportunities that we have decided to not to follow because of too expensive before we went on the ones we have selected and that's one advantage. This is a very large market, a very growing market. So 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 we -- it was a long journey to make -- we lot of efforts of everybody SunPower shareholders, Total in order to make the spin-off of the manufacturing business which has been a success, we created Maxion which has, by the way, its own -- 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 you know, very high true probably part of this new wave like the GameSoft story in the US, but 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 Total is to develop all utility-scale business.

So DG is part of the portfolio, but it's much too early to speak about any future and by the way it's a listed company, so I will not make any comment on SunPower, but I think, globally speaking, of course, we are in a much better position today than we were during several years and SunPower is in a much better position and I would like to pay tribute to Tom Werner and his team who have done a very good job during the last years.

Biraj Borkhataria -- RBC -- Analyst

Thank you.

Operator

We have the next question coming from the line of Michele Della Vigna from Goldman Sachs. Please ask your question.

Michele Della Vigna -- Goldman Sachs -- Analyst

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. So we are just exiting a deep recession. You're prioritizing financial degearing, which makes perfect sense, but 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 and how would you put in the context importance of buybacks.

And then 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, but there is a rising wariness about potential stranded assets in the long-term. I'm wondering what is your 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.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

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. So we have been above the 40%. I think this idea of 40% was I think for me is not a bad metrics to -- it depends, of course, of the level of the crude 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, but it's always the same debate.

You have some shareholders who prefer dividend, some others prefer buyback. Honestly, Michele, if I have a 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, but you know and vaccines are being spread, but not all over the world. So, it could take time. So maybe we are too prudent within Total, but 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, but obviously, my view is that supporting the dividend full cycle is fundamental to keep trust and so we need to manage prudently as we already increase the dividend, but we'll see. And then if we have more cash, it's normal, but we have to return more to shareholders who have to be, of course, rewarded for their patience.

Decarbonization gas as a key role. Yes, that's true. It's interesting what you said, but you know there is hydrogen and you speak about blue hydrogen, it's clear when you think to hydrogen you got to be big scale. There are two ways to do it. Either you do very big solar farms in the middle of Saudi Arabia or Qatar or Morocco are very big and you have a very low cost of electricity because obviously green hydrogen fundamental is not only to lower the cost of electrolyzer is fundamentally to be able to produce a very low cost of electricity, so large scale. Scale will be of essence in that story. So 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 US, by the way. And then, but 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 things that we have to combine both. I'm not sure what we have that in all the locations but it's obvious, but 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 and we have some very -- the best location for blue hydrogen are the ones where you can produce gas, it's very low cost and where you have, you can find these large CO2. I think Novatek is looking to that, obviously, I'm sure with 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 -- remember the story in LNG 30, 40 years ago, we were a pioneer within Total by developing LNG in Qatar or Indonesia, but we find to do that some Japanese customers. If the customer is ready to pay a certain level in order to develop this LNG technology, which was nowhere and 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. So governments can do things like in Europe, but also it will be a mix. So we are at the beginning of a journey, but I see that for me. And your question is a good question in terms of judging 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 the future for Total on the blue one providing we identify the carbon storage and the other feat being green with renewables.

Michele Della Vigna -- Goldman Sachs -- Analyst

Thank you.

Operator

You have the next question coming from the line of Lydia Rainforth from Barclays. Please ask your question.

Lydia Rainforth -- Barclays -- Analyst

Thanks and good afternoon. Two if I could, Patrick, I think first of all, what happens to the capex budget at higher prices in terms of deal size. Obviously, it gives you a little bit more flexibility, but does extra spend go into the renewable space or does it go into the upstream to capture some of that -- the potential uplift in prices. And then 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 of it. Are you finding that the cost of reducing emission is coming down as you do more work on it? Thanks.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

So, 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 [Phonetic], we have a very low cost in fact, which we are not just a question of concentration, so you will have to be patient on the second one and Arnaud will answer in his 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 and 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 we take a little time so we cannot reactivate that immediately because we need to remobilize I would say rigs and things like that, but it might be done and so that's an idea because this providing and short cycle means payback for two years.

So if we have a vision that price could remain at a good level, then it's an opportunity, but at this stage, I'm not yet there. It's not because I've seen yesterday evening $60, but I consider [Indecipherable] is variable and when you see that Saudi Arabia has decided by itself to cut 1 million barrel, it means that I think they see some fragility in the market. So don't become too short sight too short-term and too short-term assumption should not dominate our decision.

Then when you are able, it's possible, but you need to have opportunities to do that, and again, we have when there is, it's a matter of maturing opportunities and it's not because I decided to spend 1 [Phonetic]billion that I will spend 1 [Phonetic] billion, it does not work like that, you know, opportunities needs to be profitable to reach the target. So there is a maturity of the portfolio and so 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 again my priority is first to come back to strengthen the balance sheet.

Lydia Rainforth -- Barclays -- Analyst

Thank you.

Operator

The next question is coming from the line of Thomas Adolff from Credit Suisse. Please ask your question.

Thomas Adolff -- Credit Suisse -- Analyst

Good afternoon, thanks for taking my question. I guess my first question is on LNG and perhaps you can share your latest thoughts on Qatar and your potential participation of fiscal terms, are they more acceptable and entry costs more digestible. And then secondly, just in terms of the pre-FID production contribution in 2025. Can you remind me whether the large part of it is going to be driven by Suriname and Uganda, a simple yes or no is fine.

And then 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, you can use biomethane and you are involved in all three different technologies. As it relates to heavy duty transport, which technology are you the most excited about? Thank you.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

I will let Helle answering of the exitation on technology for transport maybe and Suriname equation is by 2025 I think it's quite minimum is something like potentially 20,000, 30,000 barrel per day. So it's not important. Uganda is more important. It's 100,000 barrel per day. It's why we -- because 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 this FID now. Now, before I let this time to Helle to think, but and maybe by the way Alexey can complement if he want, Helle, LNG -- Qatar. I don't know, you know better than me what are the entry because I don't know I'm waiting for to see the terms.

You know, I think that Qatar is moving forward. They have announced that they have awarded the EPC, so which by the way is good because part of the first approach they've done one year and a half ago where there was a big uncertainty on capex. So of course it was difficult to manipulate some fiscal terms and entry costs without having the capex. So I think that will be clarified. I understand from Sadal Kabi that I met recently that he intends to bring partners. I think fundamentally what Qatar will ask is to some offtake because now in LNG with what happened, we also know what and so we'll see what level of commitment on offtake differently players will take.

So for me at the end, it's a matter of reward -- of risk and reward. I mean we know what they are expecting and then we'll see the rewards if there is a good balance, we'll move forward and obviously, we have a strong story in Qatar, but again, it's not a matter of emotion, it's a matter of at the end of the day of and I think by the way Sadal Kabi thinks exactly like me, it's a question of risk and reward and there are good -- plenty of good advantage in Qatar, which in particular the cost of production and the cost of LNG efficiency and then we are waiting. I think it will come soon and then we'll take some decisions about our commitment on Qatar. Helle? Alexey?

Helle Kristoffersen -- President, Strategy and Innovation

Yes, Thomas. I think the answer is, we are excited about everything and then 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, but then I'm not sure that there is enough opportunity worldwide to switch the whole heavy duty transport to those two decarbonizing technologies. So then 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 you know, we will also be seeing electrical trucks going forward, not immediately. So it's also a question of maturity and timeline and then, of course, you can combine a little bit of everything by doing e-fuels. So 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.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Yeah, Alexey, you want to add something? No? No, I think that, honestly, the biogas story for heavy duty I think as the volume of biogas might not be sufficient, that's the point, but let's see, I mean, let's see what -- Qatar has a lot of policies behind it and let's see as well what the truck manufacturers will decide. They might decide for ourselves. So 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 we'll see that. So, I think Helle is right. At this point, we have to be ready and to understand in which -- for which of these fuels the one we can produce in the best efficient way and where we can produce them in the best efficient way and this is what we can bring to our customers and to the policy makers. Okay?

Operator

Our next question comes from the line of Irene Himona from Societe Generale. Please ask your question.

Irene Himona -- Societe Generale -- Analyst

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 of Total to be women by 2025. What was that proportion in 2020 please? And my third question is, you raised today the portion of capital expenditure on renewables to all the [Technical Issues] and you show how by 2030 oil product sales will be down quite materially and 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.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Okay, Jean-Pierre will take the second one. I will answer the first one. We have more or less 20%. In fact, today in all our management committees, I ask all my colleagues to have at least two women out of 10 I will say and we intend to go to two to three fundamentally and I think it's an important move. We 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. And so I wait for somebody else coming. And I think it's important again for me because diversity brings some collective intelligence. We are a better Group 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 and that's something on which we are really embarked.

You have to know, but fundamentally, among what we call the, I would say, the managers in Total [Foreign Speech] managers, we have today around 33% of women. So the idea is fundamentally and we continue to increase it, but it's difficult. When we think we should go to 35% because it's a matter of recruitment. You know, we have a lot of technical positions where we find less women. So 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. So to come to a certain level of normality I would say. Maybe then we'll go from 30% to 35%, but then it's a matter of few figures. It's one person, but that's the idea and I want to do that at different levels. It's very supported by the Board and so that's a strong policy, which is also contributing to the ESG commitment of the company. So Jean-Pierre, tax rate?

Jean-Pierre Sbraire -- Chief Financial Officer

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, overall 2020 with Brent around $40 per barrel, you have a tax rate at 29%. So it's fully in line with the guidance we gave 30% at $40 per barrel. And if you remind the 2019 figure, so in an environment around $60 per barrel, you have an E&P tax rate around 40%.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

So you can think 35% or 50%.

Jean-Pierre Sbraire -- Chief Financial Officer

Exactly.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

If it works. So that's more as a guideline. Again, you could have some quarterly effects because of tax deferred and with the caveat, all the systems are not perfect but at the end of the day, when I look to the average on the year, we are always the same type of guideline, so it works.

Jean-Pierre Sbraire -- Chief Financial Officer

In line with the guidance we gave.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

So you have a precise answer for your model, Irene. And then it's because maybe you will not have a precise answer on the last one because I observed that you want to have more clarity. I would love that you ask the same questions to all my energy colleagues, I'm sure that you are asking the same question to all my big energy new competitors in the renewable fields, because for the time being, I'm not sure it's really a question that the market are asking. So to tell you the truth, yes, I think by '20 [Phonetic], I mean I hope it will be cash neutral by 2030 because again, that's true, but the more we invest, the more the gap increase, but we said $1.5 billion by 2025. By that time, let's say we spend something like $3 billion, I don't know the figures. So by 2030, yes, if you can take this assumption, but the cash neutrality should be an objective for the Company.

And I'm not -- little clear for me, it's nothing surprising and when I'm entering into Russia in 2011, the cash neutrality of the investments of Novatek will be reached this year 10, 11, 12 years after because we have to invest in energy, it's always long cycle. It serve [Phonetic] us well when -- remember, we made a lot of works on Angola before we have changed the cash neutrality in Angola, which is today one, I would say, of the cash cow of the Company. It took us more than 10 years, because 15, 20 years before we really obtained. So, in energy requires a lot of investment because you continue to willing to grow. So, growing means investments, and 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 an interesting discussion I had with Gautam Adani about the future of AGEL because obviously I was ready to take 20%. But I want some my money back, like UK Prime Minister said, one day to Europe. So I used the same way to work. Now, it's OK. Now, let's say, it's a good horizon, a good objective, but you just put us and I adopted it.

Irene Himona -- Societe Generale -- Analyst

Thank you very much.

Operator

Thank you. Your next question is from Christyan Malek from J.P. Morgan. Please go ahead.

Christyan Malek -- J.P. Morgan -- Analyst

Thank you and thank you for a very comprehensive presentation. Two questions, if I may. First, so really appreciate the detail on the path this is 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? And what would the key triggers be?

And the second question is about disclosure. And 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 location valuation than it's to the pure-plays in the low-carbon business and in the renewables business. Can we expect greater disclosure to demonstrate progress toward this 10% equity IRR target? And would you consider disclosing carbon intensity levels by asset or region, given it seems investors want greater transparency or clarity whether it's financials, carbon intensity on the portfolio and not just a holistic target? So, probably more than two questions there, apologies.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

So, the first question, I think I answered to one of your colleagues, I think, again, no, I mean, it's not on the table today at all. As I said just before, we changed our name to TotalEnergies, not just suddenly IPO the Energies. I mean, 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, but it's a question of passion, as you said, that the more -- the larger the stake will be in our portfolio is better we'll be understood and it will be a value add. So -- but it's clear that we are willing to invent a new category of energy company. And I don't see why today there is a debate about the legitimacy of oil and gas to produce electricity, probably we're afraid some electricity companies, by the way, by coming into the picture after what happened in round four in UK, maybe you are right to be afraid.

But, I mean, it's a matter for me of delivery. So it's not there and not on the short-term and we see, again, I think a 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 -- but renewable is fully part of this business model. And so, renewable and electricity is full part of this business model. And so, I don't intend to change the business model every morning by -- because I wake up and I'm afraid by the valuation of the Company.

Low-carbon disclosure, OK, we'll give you a lot of disclosure today, if you don't have enough, you will tell me. So, we will give you capacity by geography, by technology. We'll give you -- so -- and by the way, we intend to give you that every quarter of what I said. If we need to give more, I'm not sure if there was a debate. I have seen that one competitor has given even the PPA by contract. I'm not sure I'm willing to say to my competing -- to my competitors all the -- all my figures. I had never gave that for oil and gas and never disclose all the fiscal terms of the oil and gas contracts. So, I'm a little sensitive.

But, let's say, all interested because Christyan where we are alone is that -- and so, we will give you by region, we will give you by technology figures, you will see that wind represent around 20%, 25%. We will give you the net capacity. So, I think 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 because again our willingness by disclosing more is clearly, but everybody could better valorize and give the right valuation on this portfolio and 35 gigawatts, 20 gigawatts of cap -- of PPA. Just these figures and the price we gave you, if you compare with on some renewable company, I think you can find some good valuation. So, I take the point and then we'll be happy to welcome your suggestion in the coming weeks.

Christyan Malek -- J.P. Morgan -- Analyst

Thank you.

Operator

Our next question is from the line of Jason Kenney from Santander. Please go ahead.

Jason Kenney -- Santander -- Analyst

Hi, there. So truly impressive level of disclosure from Total. 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 Costa that Total is on as well. Material portfolio additions over recent months. And I know that in comments you've mentioned that renewables could be 40% of sales or revenues by 2050, and 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.

And the second maybe to Helle, could you envisage a macro scenario where we have 80 million barrels a day of demand for oil only in 2025? So, no more than 80 million barrels a day of demand. And what kind of oil price do you think that would entail if we would see that demand? Obviously, there's two sides of the equation here.

And then one more, if I may, and it's on 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 is an investment in photoelectrocatalysis that you could maybe combine with the solar panels and just create hydrogen directly without using electrolyzers.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

So the first answer is 15%, 20% by 2030, 2035, I would say, fundamentally. 15%, 20% I think is already -- that is the horizon.

The second question, I will ask Helle. I'm sure she has that scenario. If she has that scenario I think she will refine, in fact, tomorrow morning. So, I'm just letting Helle...

Helle Kristoffersen -- President, Strategy and Innovation

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'll be tons of other issues, if oil demand drops to that level, I think we'll have -- the world will be undergoing be the wake of disappearing. So, I think that 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.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

And by the way, I mean, just to comment on it. The only scenario you can think is that, it's not one but two, three pandemics on the row that we think that we are all locked down. But there is nothing -- nobody is moving anymore, which I hope not for all of us. But, I mean, we've seen something credible in 2020, so -- but I hope it will not happen. But by the way, let me give -- the oil price is not only given by demand and supply, I don't know if you noticed today. Today, honestly, at $55 the demand is not yet very well, they're very high, the inventories are high, because we have some players in the market, which have been quite efficient.

Helle Kristoffersen -- President, Strategy and Innovation

Disciplined.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

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? But we are targeting to get $50, I would say. And it's back to what is a competition between oil in Russia, oil in the Saudi Arabia and oil in the shallow in the US. But -- so my vision is that, today you have -- 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 would prefer to diminish their production by letting the oil price crashing to, I don't know, which level. So, I mean, for me, you have there, and again, the oil demand, I know that we -- everybody is very -- today are thinking to -- the word transition means something, it means -- but the world today, let's be clear, the whole world is working because we have oil, and we should not forget it. I mean, 80% of the world economy is carbonized, I mean, and we will not shift it just because we are winning it somewhere. And so, it will take time. So, my view is that, the oil price at this level, I would answer to you, it's $45 or $50 per barrel. Because of the supplier discipline, not because of supply and demand.

Jason Kenney -- Santander -- Analyst

I was probably thinking more about efficiency gains a substitution effects where other fuel switch in to take some of the oil demand with the oil pricing?

Helle Kristoffersen -- President, Strategy and Innovation

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.

Jason Kenney -- Santander -- Analyst

Fair enough. Okay.

Helle Kristoffersen -- President, Strategy and Innovation

So, I think we showed you some very aggressive assumptions in the Total Energy outlook, very aggressive assumptions, but we can't reach that level that you just suggested in five years, even by being super, super aggressive.

I didn't catch your last question, please. Can you repeat it?

Jason Kenney -- Santander -- Analyst

Yeah. I mean, it was basically cutting out the middle man of the electrolyzer and just going straight from photoelectrocatalysis on solar panels already producing hydrogen.

Helle Kristoffersen -- President, Strategy and Innovation

That's still very early stage, I think.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Philippe, you are the expert in solar panels and hydrogen. And if we have an expert, would you...

Helle Kristoffersen -- President, Strategy and Innovation

Yeah. But it's...

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Helle is the R&D, in charge of innovation, but...

Helle Kristoffersen -- President, Strategy and Innovation

Yeah. It's being looked at upon as far as I'm aware. Philippe, I'll leave you, but very early stage at this point in time.

Philippe Sauquet -- President, Gas, Renewables and Power

Yeah. Well, Helle, it's perfectly right to produce hydrogen, there are two molecules that are embedded on the nerve, methane on one side and you have to separate hydrogen from carbon, it's easy, but it goes with CO2. Or we always to separate in water hydrogen from oxygen and you need a lot of energy, because it's very stable molecule. And to get from solar directly level of intense energy that you need to separate those two molecules is a real, real challenge. So, I don't think that we will see a photocatalysis. High-temperature electrodes is much more promising to me. So it will be boring.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

No, no. As you know, I think, Jason is willing to see if he need to -- he wants to invest in which company. So high-temperature technology. As the hydrogen company are just becoming crazy in terms of valuation. We're just looking for the next...

Jason Kenney -- Santander -- Analyst

Absolutely, yeah.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

The next golden mine. Where is the next golden mine? So, Clia, next question.

Operator

The next question comes from the line of Paul Cheng from Scotiabank. Please ask your question.

Paul Cheng -- Scotiabank -- Analyst

On carbon sequestration, you haven't mentioned anything on that. That seems to be a big differences in approach between the European and the US 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. So, 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 emphasized 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 to $16 billion for the next several years. Is there a organic capex estimate that you can share? What's our planned [Phonetic] net investment? What's the organic capex may look like? Thank you.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

The first question, I didn't mentioned 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 Solutions, but Arnaud will cover the carbon sequestration. And honestly, I will tell you, just reveal something today to you is that, I ask 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, but carbon sequestration is obviously for me something, in particular have been public, Total has invested in awful lives that I consider, but I think some positions in the North Sea, we've definitely felt it might be a future for us.

Is it a business? That's more a question. Is it -- it's a necessity for sure to offset, I would say, to store some carbon and it's back to the hydrogen, where do we store this CO2 if want to develop some blue hydrogen. But 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. But, again, it -- and it will, of course, be highly dependent on CO2 pricing to think about the -- that technology to become a business. So -- but Arnaud will develop it in this presentation just after.

The organic capex, I don't know, if I have the right to disclose it. So, I think it's -- it depends -- no, I don't disclose it. No, it's -- no. It's a matter -- it's a flexibility we keep around this, but the -- I can just tell you that the organic capex in 2020 was $10 billion. So that you can -- you will see it in our accounts. So I can't reveal something it isn't in account. But again -- and then the way we speak up, when we look to net investments, but of course, one difficulty we faced in 2020, let's be clear, it's been when the oil price is low, the capacity to divest on assets is not so strong. You have to lose some value. We are not ready to lose value. And so, there is -- when you see -- there is acquisition, but with divestments. So for me, it's more about equation, but I'm looking carefully which is, if I can say more I can buy more but organic capex, the range of 2020 around $10 billion is a good figure.

Paul Cheng -- Scotiabank -- Analyst

Thank you.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

And it's back to my answer also to short cycle capex, which is a way to have some flexible organic capex, I would say.

Operator

Our next question comes from the line of Martijn Rats from Morgan Stanley. Please ask your question.

Martijn Rats -- Morgan Stanley -- Analyst

Yeah. Hi. Good afternoon. I've got two, if I may. First of all, the ESG bonds, sort of the bonds linked to climate KPIs. That seems a rather big deal. And I was wondering if you could talk about it perhaps a little bit more. Specifically, I was interested in the sort of the magnitude of the sort of cost of capital advantage you think you could get relative to more traditional bonds by using this approach?

And then secondly, yeah, not something that gets an awful lot of attention these days. But I was wondering what your outlook is for your European refining portfolio. And what levels of sort 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 close, for example. And so, if you could talk about that a bit, that'd be great.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

The second question, no, I did not mention that we will restart the refineries closed. Donges has been just temporarily shut down to face some low margins. But we never announced that we are closing Donges. No way. So, maybe I wasn't clear. The one we announced that we are really closing in terms as a refinery is Grandpuits, like La Mede, this one will never come back as refining capacity, oil product capacity. When we did two fact, I would say, conjectural decision to shutdown Donges, it was clearly announced as a temporary shutdowns because to wait for better margins. And I think where Total has done a lot in portfolio in terms of restructuring, since the last 10 years, so other players around Europe should also take their responsibilities.

Jean-Pierre will tell you everything about these ESG bonds.

Jean-Pierre Sbraire -- Chief Financial Officer

Yes. The idea is to use climate KPI bonds in the future for our bonds insurance. It's not directly linked to a cost advantage. I know that's on the market at present time there is what we call the greenium. I don't know exactly plus 5 bps. But the main driver is to align up the financing policy with our climate ambitions. And it's a matter of sustainability, it's a material of acceptability. However, then way of reducing the costs of our bond issuance.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

But the bond issuance by Total today at which level as in average? We issue bonds at which level?

Jean-Pierre Sbraire -- Chief Financial Officer

At present time we issue bonds less than 2%. In 2020, during the second quarter, we show a $3 billion, sorry, $9 billion of new bonds with very long maturity and we are able to capture 40 years maturity at less than 3%. So, on average, I would say, around 2%.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Yeah. And I think it's an important for me a decision of the Board, as you said, it's quite a big deal, Martijn, you're right because all that is back to, for me, all these debates, in particular, in Europe on taxonomy and the fact that there is even people pushing the ECB to decide that they should know -- today ECB as a monetary body asked to be neutral when they buy some bonds, they have to be neutral bonds, neutral buyer to buy all their share bonds. There are people pushing the ECB to align their way they repurchase bonds on the taxonomy and taxonomy is quite, I would say, a stringent approach, maybe too stringent, by the way.

But I think what we proposed today is a way to say, OK, look, you have some corporation, some companies like that who are in transition. We need to finance the transition. And so -- and -- but at the same time, by the way, Total is very useful because again the economy today is a carbon economy. So, if we cannot finance our future, there is a real problems, it could create a problem. So, linking all our bonds tomorrow to become ESG bonds, like you said, I like your idea, ESG bonds, we call them sustainability bonds, by the way. ESG bonds is clearer to KPI -- 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. But again, we are obliged to take -- to pre-empt and I think it's a strong message to all these monetary policy bodies. But 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 as 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 these economies in transition, so these -- 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 these -- 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. So, I think this is for me something very important and I hope that these ESG bonds policy will be well received an even can be -- if we make some copies, it would be good. And -- but at least for Total. But I take the point, Martijn. I will ask -- so there is a new KPI for Jean-Pierre, which is to lower his cost of debt by -- thanks to my idea to make easy bonds. So, it's good. Okay.

Martijn Rats -- Morgan Stanley -- Analyst

Wonderful. Thank you.

Operator

We have the next question is coming from the line of Alastair Syme from Citi. Please ask your question.

Alastair Syme -- Citigroup -- Analyst

Hi. Thank you. I just had one question really on that Slide 28, where you sort of talked about the renewables financing model and it's just intrigued around the farm down strategy whether you are 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, I mean, the strategy works until there is a lack of buyers that are interested in taking on that risk to helping you derisk. Thank you.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Of course, you are right, but today the market is huge. When we make some farm downs, I can tell you, the price we obtain always better. So, it's clear but it's linked also to the very low interest rate, but the attractiveness for -- you have many, many financial institutions work perfectly, who are themselves wants to decarbonize their own portfolio, where everybody is the same transition. And so, you have more demand for these type of assets and supply. So, it's clear. So, it may change in the future. But with the maturity, I mean, or that is the question of market maturity, and we'll see. But honestly, I think for the next five years, I'm comfortable, but it will be -- we will be able to execute this approach and that's something -- so there is a lot of appetite for that.

Okay. Maybe -- it's 4:30 Ladislas. Maybe we should move to the next -- 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. So, maybe we should introduce -- we should keep the questions for the last session if you are right, and introduce Arnaud and Adrien now.

Ladislas Paszkiewicz -- Senior Vice President, Investor Relations

All right. Yes. And we -- after the presentation of Arnaud and Adrien, anyway, we'll have also a Q&A session. So you will have time to present -- to ask your questions. So, now comes the second part of the day with the climate roadmap in action. And so, there will be Arnaud and then Adrien Henry, as I mentioned earlier on. So, I switch directly to Arnaud Breuillac.

Arnaud Breuillac -- President, Exploration and Production

Yes, 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, and 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 our refined oil and gas. This can be achieved by electrification of the process and by increasing the energy efficiency. Avoid, by ensuring the offering of venting and keeping methane emissions near to zero. And capture with CCS projects and I will come back on that and also on methane emission at -- later on in my presentation. Of course, portfolio management would impact emissions but we scrutinize all new projects to ensure that their marginal impact to our Scope 1 and 2 emissions is positive.

Finally, in parallel to optimizing the energy used and minimizing the energy lost, we are developing carbon sinks, notably with natural-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 Companywide systematic review of all opportunities to reduce Scope 1 and 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 a 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 this 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 significantly -- to significant savings on fuel gas consumptions. For example, for further optimizing the base -- 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, on [Indecipherable] fields in the North Sea with connection to wind power turbine and solarization of onshore sites 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 early on, we've managed to reduce the emission intensity of the project down to 25 kilogram of CO2 per barrel -- per barrel equivalent, of course, significantly below the average emissions intensity of LNG projects, that is shown on this slide, that 38 kilogram 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 kilogram of CO2 per barrel, at plateau level, thanks to the extraction of CO2 from the fuel gas and injection 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 kilogram of CO2 per barrel, well below the average intensity of our oil and gas operated assets at around 20 kilogram as mentioned. And, for example, we've decided to add an LPG extraction unit on the Tilenga upstream production facilities to optimize fuel gas consumption. And we are also supplying the local market with those LPGs, that's substituting charcoal being used for cooking.

On the EACOP project, the pipeline project to extract the oil from Tilenga, the pumping stations will be solarized in Tanzania. So, all new upstream projects are scrutinized during the conceptual and design phase to ensure that no opportunity is lost to reduce our emissions.

Now, look -- 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, so electrification of the processes by producing green hydrogen in La Mede biorefinery from a 100 megawatt operated solar farm or by supplying our European refineries with green electricity. This is our Go Green project, and I will come back to this. 1.4 million tons 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 generation, and we have a major project in our Leuna refinery in Germany. And by using digital solution as in E&P to optimize energy consumption. And last, 0.8 million ton of CO2 per year will be captured from the SMR unit in our Zeeland refinery. And in addition, we've -- for beyond 2025, we have another CO2 capture project studied for our refinery in Antwerp.

A few words on our Go Green project, which will be a significant contribution to the reduction of our mission in Europe, as 2 million ton 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 terawatt hour 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 operator industrial sites, especially our refineries, but also our commercial sites and offices across Europe with an estimated power consumption of 6 terawatt hour 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 ton of CO2 equivalent per year by 2025.

Now, let's focus on methane emissions. 2020 a global methane emissions from the oil and gas sector are estimated by the IEA at around 72 million ton. 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 unburned gas at the flare tips, cold vents associated to production, process venting and unburned 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 as a warming factor that is at least 25 times greater than CO2. Measurements of Group methane emissions are combination of continuous measurements by flow meter on flare and cold 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, after to design facilities with closed flare systems to replace gas instruments with air or inert gas and to systematically exclude continues called 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. First on, Tyra redevelopment project in Denmark, a new project. So, all cold vents have been removed, leading to a methane reduction of 1.2 kilo ton 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 the installation of an electronic -- electrical compressor, sorry, will contribute to a reduction of 7.4 kilo ton per year of methane, which is equivalent 180,000 ton of CO2. And last, on Elgin platform, in the UK, 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 3.8 kilo 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 Lacq 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 in some of our onshore and offshore operated sites.

Satellite data acquisition is booming, and we are partnering with new companies like Kayrros, GHGSat, which have specialized in satellite detection of greenhouse gas emission and we are also developing fixed camera and microsensors for continuous local monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions. We believe that the combination of drone and satellite measurements, together with onsite 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 a 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 projects are essential for the industry to meet the climate challenge. All two degree sea 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, as the global CCS capacity last year in 2020 was 40 million ton and identified projects by 2030 adding up to 170 million ton. So today there is a need for acceleration of development of CCS project that currently require tax incentives and carbon pricing to fly. We were the number of projects planned to be launched in the next 10 years will drive cost down, so economies of scale and technology improvements.

Europe, with its net zero ambition by 2050 has clear targets to develop CCS and in -- and several countries have setup fiscal incentives on CCS projects. Therefore, we should see strong growth in CCS and particularly in the North Sea that provides a favorable environment with a concentration of large industrial complex connected to infrastructure pipeline 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 ton of CO2 storage. The Northern Lights project in Norway being the most advanced with other projects in the UK 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. And 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 the Scope 1 and 2 footprint. We are targeting 3 million to 5 million ton of CO2 storage capacity per year by 2030 for the Group.

Let's have a more detailed look at our main projects. First, 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 1 was taken in May of last year and this project has received a strong support from the Norwegian government, both with their announcement of a target price for CO2 of $220 per tons by 2030, but also with an 80% state subsidy on the $800 million capex for Phase 1. This Phase 1 will include the transportation, injection and storage of up to 1.5 million ton of CO2 per year, the unit cost of this Phase is approximately $150 per ton of CO2. Phase 2 will consist of an extension to reach 5 million ton of CO2 per year to fulfill the needs of European emitters and should have a unit cost around $70 per ton of CO2, thanks to economies of scales, mainly on transport.

In the Netherlands, the climate accord [Phonetic] has set the pace for decarbonized economy, with a target price of $150 per ton of CO2 by 2030 with attractive subsidies for CCS and EUR 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 side. 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 Snohvit refinery and would be connected to the CO2 transportation infrastructure with the gathering pipeline and export terminal at the port of Snohvit.

Also, in the Netherlands, the Aramis project aims at giving a new life to depleted fields. We have identified the potential to store more than 4 million ton 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, platform 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 to 4 million ton 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 reserves 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 are 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, will present our Natural-Based Solution to sink carbon in nature as this will be required to get to zero net emissions by 2050.

Adrien Henry -- Vice President, Nature-Based Solutions

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 credit for the Group. The plan is to build these capacities and volumes from now to 2030 as the first milestone, and these activities shall contribute to get to the net zero emissions balance from 2030 onwards, as said by Arnaud earlier. And 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, and we started originating, designing and achieving some operations.

Of course, there are multiple ways to sync 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 come from these operations. As a consequence, we decided to focus on some of the ways that nature offers to sequester carbon and mostly photosynthesis and soil carbon absorption and this by difference to other possible ways like the solutions 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. This is for many reasons, but mostly because we think they are 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. So both conservation and creation of new carbon sequestration ways are necessary. The second good 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 jobs 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 would 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. So, 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 a various types of operations and to bundle them in a portfolio approach. In fact, and on the ground, we will have all these types of operations in our portfolio.

The second very important pillar for deploying our operations is, of course, the environment -- the certification and verification environment that applies today that will apply in time. And we set for ourselves the target in 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. So 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 are realistic and reasonable baseline for the calculation of the sequestration of the carbon through nature and 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, and 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 underground 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 a 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 leave from this 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 quarter for emissions to the atmosphere. So, 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 an 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 agri forestry protection 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 share -- 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.

And 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 core benefits that will come from this operation.

Now, 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. The 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. And this company is proven and seasoned in the financing and deploying money alongside farmers, so that the transition from an unsustainable pasture management ways to sustainable pasture management ways what is, obviously, called generative -- regenerative agriculture transition.

So 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 and it means different grazing models. It means different amendments to the sites, 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 markets for nature-based activities, so it offers robust framework with proven experiences before and the second good reason is that in Australia this soil carbon methodologies have been proven several times already. So it's a good move to start with the first phase on this operation.

You could consider that may be 1 million ton 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, and 10,000 hectares is the goal for this first phase and it's already a significant surface of land.

Now, 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 set out an agreement with a long experienced Peruvian NGO for the design and the development of two very significant operations that can sequester, and that would -- that can lead, sorry, 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 credit. Here again, 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 decrease in such cases.

What is also very important in these two operations is the fact that they add afforestation and reforestation through a growth forestry scheme to the conservation part of the activity. So, again, we are not opposing creation of new carbon sinks or -- 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 boost sequester carbon and create improved livelihoods for population, so that we erase the varicosis 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. So it's a development in-house, together with a long-proven partner for the operation. So the planting operations in a 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 land 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 forest atmosphere locally where there was only very few plants growing. And doing so, we will sequester carbon in the first 20 years of the operations and generate the corresponding amounts of verified emission reductions. So 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, but 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. And 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 the cities with both construction wood and energy wood. So first phase creation of a planted forest, a forest atmosphere generation of carbon sequestration and corresponding emission reduction, and second phase, selective thinning so that we create the possibility for the emergence of natural forest in a very long-term while producing locally construction wood and energy wood for growing populations.

Last, but not least, on this operation we included 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 count. This was my last example for picturing the type of operations we intend to have in our Nature-Based Solutions portfolio of operations.

And so, 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, including nature-based value chains that capture carbon. And in this order, I mean, all this is working together, this is our strong belief and this is the model we defined for our nature-based operations. And, 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, bearing 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 1 million -- $100 million per year over this period. And, of course, with this portfolio approach I described, we will target balance average price under $20 per ton of CO2. And 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 in picture, multi-year project. Again, with this we will target 5 million to 10 million ton 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.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Thank you, Adrien, and thank you, Arnaud. I think, Adrien, maybe you can stay there in case there are any questions. We are a little far for more additional domain, which is good with Adrien is that, at least we learn that time is peaking. It's an Executive Committee. So we continue to learn. I hope you learn but I think it's a real -- 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.

So, we think we will open the second round of questions for half an hour, I think, as was planned, so that we can close at 5:30. I think it's quite already 3 hours and 30. It's quite a good time of listening and answering. So, please if you have any questions, of course, on the second part or on the first part for those that we interrupted 450 [Phonetic].

Operator

Thank you. We have a first question is coming from the line of Anish Kapadia from Palissy Advisors. Please ask your question.

Anish Kapadia -- Palissy Advisors -- Analyst

Hi. Thanks very much for the presentation. I just had a question, going back to the upstream. When -- just looking at the US Gulf of Mexico, I had a couple of questions around that. With the federal permitting and potentially coming in, could you talk about how that could potentially affect your Gulf of Mexico operations and further developments?

And then if you could also say something about the potential FIDs in the Gulf of Mexico? I think you have a few projects close to FID. And in particular, if there's been any effects on your thoughts on the Ballymore discovery, given the disappointment that Shell has had with Appomattox? Thank you.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Okay. Gulf of Mexico, we are fundamentally -- we have two portfolio has been -- is either we are linked to Chevron as an operator. And I trust Chevron is 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 and we are also with them on other assets, Tahiti and Jack. So we have a good partnership. But this year, it is true that we have on our side one project, which is fundamental plateau as an operated project together with Equinor. I think it was -- it's part of the projects in which we did not -- that we were a little suspended, to be honest, in 2020, plateau because we had some arbitration to be done in capex and it's a project which we have to work on in order to lower the costs.

The difficulty in the Gulf of Mexico is the size of the reserves and size of discoveries contrary to Brazil or to maybe Suriname. We have pools of holes [Phonetic], which are not so big. And so, we need to work hard in order to reach our targets in terms of technical cost breakeven. The beauty of the US is normally, but the fiscal terms is lowering the -- so attractive fiscal terms are lowering the breakeven in terms -- and there is, of course, an upside as soon as the price of oil is going up. So we need to review -- so, I would say, my answer to the first, let's -- I don't have all the details of the permitting that, 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 plateau, in particular on Ballymore. So, I don't see a -- as it could have on other properties. This one is well -- these ones are well controlled. So 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. And to be -- we are reviewing that independently, I would say, of the decisions of the federal government.

So, beyond Ballymore and beyond North plateau, in which we will restart the work. I'm not so convinced that we will have an aggressive exploration strategy at the Gulf of Mexico. But again, it's not linked to the recent decision of the federal administration. It's more -- I've said during my presentation that we want to refocus our exploration on these large low-cost developments and, obviously, when we have made a large review of what we've done in the last 20 years, I cannot say, that it has delivered really these very large developments which are offering low costs. So 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. So I don't see any impacts, again on -- specifically on the federal -- new federal policy on these two projects.

Anish Kapadia -- Palissy Advisors -- Analyst

Thank you.

Operator

The next question comes from the line of Alessandro Pozzi from Mediobanca. Please ask your question.

Alessandro Pozzi -- Mediobanca -- Analyst

Oh, 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. But when we look at the LNG, I'm not sure if the market is so tight. So 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 are coming from the big spike in the gas prices, but maybe some of those factors behind that are maybe normalizing this year. So, anything you can say about short, medium-term outlook for LNG?

And my second one is on offshore wind in the UK. It looks like you left some of your competitors quite upset because they haven't won any acreage in UK also because of the option fee. But that keeps me wondering whether maybe the renewable economics in OECD countries are getting a very competitive and compressed maybe below your 10% equity threshold.

And the final one on Mozambique. I was wondering whether if -- whether you have a timeline on when onshore work can restart there. Thank you.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

No. The situation is not the same between LNG and oil. It's clear. Renewable 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 US, but also we have a project in Mozambique. So we could have feared last year, but we 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 LNG market, there was a sort of -- I mean, in particular the US projects, we have developed by transferring a lot of risk on the offtakers. And I think with the crash, not only significantly to the oil price, but a crash on the GKM. I mean, the low market we've seen, some spot markets I think people realize, but taking -- making -- taking offtake risks without being integrated in the project could be quite imbalance.

So my view is that, what happened this year between again the spot marking [Phonetic] crash in the Asia, plus the -- I mean, less investments in our industry leading to less FIDs. It's probably good because we will probably have a more normalized LNG market in terms of new projects coming on stream or being sanctioned. So 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 plus 3% despite the global economic crash is quite impressive because it's lead fundamentally by the shift in Korea, in China, in India from coal to gas. So there is a good demand. And I would say some cold water being put on all the people rushing for more projects. So, globally speaking, my vision is that, by 2025, where we could have fear to have another supply, I think we have a more balanced vision of the 2025 horizon but it could have been that it was one year ago.

Offshore wind, I mean, again, I think the option fees part of the equation, when it will be a matter of I will be the CFD because it's only part of the equation, we have some fee to get the seabed. But what I'm sure is that we don't have the seabed rights, there is no project. So because I think that's clear. But what we observed is that, as I said before, this market is from me is -- it conveys a clear signal that you have today players with larger balance sheet able to manage these risks. But again, I can't tell you, but the option fee we paid, which is I think GBP83,000 per megawatt per year, which is half -- almost half of what some of our competitors paid.

We are within or the range of what is acceptable to us. And we keep the capacity to get our returns, but we are targeting. No, 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 one of more Pierre mentioned that figure -- that date is a good target. It's an ambitious one. It's a good one. The quicker we go to the target of FID and then the quicker we get the production to better so returns will be. But again, one of the big element today still missing is was the specificity of this UK auction is that, they separate in the UK, the seabed rise on one rights and then the CFD auction. And so, it's when we'll have the CFD, but we'll really know what is real of profitability. But we have been, I can tell you, very reasonable on our side, of CFD expectations and the way we bid.

Mozambique timeline, onshore work, I mean, let me be clear, we all agree when we met with governments, but the sooner is better that we want to mobilize to remobilize. So, if underground again the armed forces and the police are able to recontrol the area that we agreed 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. So, because, of course, we know what we did. But what is very important to us is, we want to be sure that when we will remobilize people, we can really engage in a sustainable work there and there is -- we don't want to reengage and when to stop again, that would be very a detrimental for the trust of all the partners in this project. So, let's first work and so. And again, this is going beyond the situation, but region is not only a matter of average vary around the project is a more global security issue for us, the Mozambique government. And so, we'll see what we can control -- recontrol the situation.

Alessandro Pozzi -- Mediobanca -- Analyst

Okay. That was very clear. Thank you.

Operator

The next question comes from the line of Peter Low from Redburn. Please ask your question.

Peter Low -- Redburn -- Analyst

Hi, thanks. I just had a question on the ambition to green or 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?

Then perhaps as a follow-on, are you seeing demand for similar PPAs from third-party companies who want to reduce their own initiatives? And is that an area Total will seek to grow in going forward kind of moving away from kind of government stock PPAs toward kind of full commercial ones as compete to decarbonize. Thanks.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

So, yes, it's organized clearly as a clear contract. The way we work within Total, even if it's spare or free subsidiaries involved. You have Total Solar Spain, which signs PPA with Total Trading Power, I would say, which is based on 15-year PPA with a price, which is within the market, there was a negotiation, which will allow on one side, Total Solar Spain to develop the projects having secure the PPA, which is part of the renewable business. And then you have another contract between Total Trading Power and Total Refining and Chemical division, which is again selling SunPower. Of course, they don't have exactly the same pricing because in-between somebody is supposed to make some money. And the beauty is that, when we compare today, in fact, Total Refining and Chemicals is buying SunPower from, I would say, on the market with some more or less medium and long-term contracts. And so, at the end, there is a question whether it makes sense for Total renewing Total Refining and Chemicals to buy SunPower from us [Phonetic] versus why is it trading is interfacing because obviously once the solar plants are in Spain and the other plants are not in Spain, so you need to manage all that.

So -- and we structure it in a way and this is a second question. But this model could be offered tomorrow to other corporation. In fact, we really wanted to structure it within the market with market rule. So that what we have done within Total and it's done in the Europe. It will be done tomorrow in the US in the same way in Texas, we have -- where we have with the acquisition. So it could be done exactly with the same way for corporations. The entity, which takes more is there in the middle is Total Trading Power, that's -- but the beauty, of course, is that, it's one element within the large portfolio and this is while in always business, we need to have trading businesses, trading entities, because at the end they aggregate. Some sources are coming from Spain and some sources are coming from other places and some more customers. So, can they can make their own optimization of the business and 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. And so, we have engaged with some corporations -- other corporations, which are looking for that.

Versus states, I'm not sure to have captured what is versus states. But, again, my vision is that, like we've seen in the US, the US 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 we'll see -- let's say, corporate PPAs are coming. It depends, of course, as a technologies. It's not true for offshore wind, even if probably Netherlands -- the Netherlands have began to make some PPAs -- some corporate PPAs are not willing to subsidize anymore 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 an hydrogen development but might be also a way. So, I think there is an evolution.

But, 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 weak corporations. And one day in 15 years all that will be merchant market, like we've seen, for example, LNG is a perfect parallel. At the beginning, we developed the LNG industry. We have long-term contracts with Asian customers, 15 years long-term contracts. And then, it moved to more spot development market. So, 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 merchant market.

Peter Low -- Redburn -- Analyst

Thank you.

Operator

The next question comes from the line of Christopher Kuplent from Bank of America. Please ask your question.

Christopher Kuplent -- Bank of America -- Analyst

Hello. Thank you very much. And I'll keep it to just one question, Patrick. I mean, 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. So what do you -- 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 or do you have other more important explanations?

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Only explanations I have is that, the yield, the Total is lower than some of our peers, and -- but it takes time. Okay. You clearly you have today -- I was clear in my introduction you have a fact that the equity markets 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, I mean, sustainability of the model. I think Total is working hard to show that there is a sustainable model. And, again, if we are willing to establish the strategy is to show -- to demonstrate to the market to install TotalEnergies in the long-term. So, I'm not thinking it's a question of either in equity affiliates, all that is technicality. It's not the case. It's more fundamental. And 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 clarity. We have part of the business model. But again, guys, I'm not -- 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. So it's part of what we do. So, it could take time. But, again, I think and -- but fundamentally I'm convinced as well is, but keeping the dividend intact is at the core of the investment thesis. And, of course, from this perspective, that we are -- I see that it is today the challenge is there, it's a question of sustainability of the model. So let's -- but not in terms of cash flow, it's more about climate, CO2 impact, etc.

Ryan Todd -- Piper Sandler -- Analyst

Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much.

Operator

The next question comes from the line of Dan Boyd from Mizuho Securities. Please ask your question.

Daniel Boyd -- Mizuho Securities -- Analyst

Hi, thanks. I have two questions. The first one is just when I look at your TCF guidance out to 2025 at $50 a barrel. It looks to me 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. So I'm just wondering if there were some conservatism Based on that new update. Or if you can kind of 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, you've held off on upstream divestments. But as we go forward, if the commodity prices hold, presumably you would go back to the market to sell assets, and in that scenario where would we expect the incremental capital to go, would that be primarily accelerate the low-carbon ambition? Thanks.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

The first one, I think the increase of $6 billion was more or less what we said in September. So maybe you are -- it's a question of millimeter on this slide. But having said that, there might -- I'm not sure, but, of course, the -- no, I think we are -- for me, it was more as a same guidance. So, I'm -- the team will check and we'll come back to you. But I think the increase of $6 billion was what we had -- I had in mind. No. Okay?

Jean-Pierre Sbraire -- Chief Financial Officer

When we gave the guidance by sectors between LNG, between downstream and E&P on the slides. So you have already terms. And so, obviously that is more or less in line with what...

Daniel Boyd -- Mizuho Securities -- Analyst

I'll follow up.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Okay. So maybe not only if it's a matter of 3%, 4%. But I think fundamental, we did not ran out of the figures, to be honest.

The second one, as I told you, I mean, let's be clear, for the time being, proceeds for asset sales, we need to look at them, but what I told you is that, I think I answered the question, it's like, it will be either, I mean, possible to look to some short cycle, flexible capex on the upstream whichever quick delivery payback. That's possible. The other part is accelerate renewables. Again, it's a matter of, I think, the opportunity. So, you -- but people are working, but you know I will be clear, what we have done recently does not mobilize a lot of capex. I mean acquisition cost is quite low, because what we've done in Spain, what we've done again in the US these are stage payments what we pay in fact according to the progress of the projects and so that's not changing a lot. That's not requiring a lot of capital expenditures and the rest of the projects, you know, we cannot accelerate the portfolio because we decide it's a matter of putting all that together. Do we have more M&A might [Phonetic] renewables. No, honestly, I think that what we've done this year with Adani was a big chunk, $2 billion and we don't work on things today. Today we don't have something else in mind. So 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 but then if we have more cash flows, we will allocate that to deliver it to company.

Christopher Kuplent -- Bank of America -- Analyst

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

Operator

We have the next question coming from the line of Ryan Todd --

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

How many questions do you have? Yeah, but I think we'll stop at 5:45. So I take the questions quickly and so let's go Ryan. Let's go. So four questions, but no more after that. Okay, Ryan.

Ryan Todd -- Piper Sandler -- Analyst

Great. Thank you. Maybe a couple of quick ones on -- one on the PPA on the renewables business, your disclosure shows kind of a steady decline in the PPA price from 110 megawatt hour or dollars per megawatt hour to 55 to 45 on the projects under development in 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? And then 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% plus as in the other buckets?

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

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. It's not the business model of Total, it's is fundamentally to link. So 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 UK, 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.

So the second question is quite clear for me and at a certain point, maybe in the future, we'll see if we accept a certain level of merchant risks, but I will say it's not the business model and it's not that we are developing with our renewable team. On the first one, you know it's logic, you know, I think we inherited from the portfolio we had from, which is already operated, we inherited from in particular, Total Quadran when we go direct energies, some very old PPAs with high prices, so that's logic and you see we have seen in that industry the PPA cost decreased with the cost, in fact.

The PPA price decrease, the cost decrease. So I mean, we are very transparent and I see that I think yes, because there is a limit to that you know at a certain point, because you need to make money. It depends as well as the region where you deploy your projects, so you will have to, I think part of the disclosure, but we will find in the is a deep dive will be also the geographies. You will be able to reconcile but my view is that I think I'm not surprised and I can think that it will continue to decline to a certain point because it's certain point, there will be no more profitability and it's also linked to the technology because there I have gave you figure and I think it was a question from Christyan because he would like -- he was right Christyan to say that the average for wind project and not for wind projects and solar projects should not be the same.

So we will find ways to disclose these type of technologies. So global trend is that I think that PPA prices are following in fact the decline of the technological cost, which is very logical. My view is that in the solar industry, we are not far from I would say reaching the asymptotic part. So 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 and offshore wind, still clearly we are not yet I would say at a optimum cost of all that. There is still some improvement when we speak about floating offshore it is even more right. So no, I'm not surprised, I think it's but it's part of, I would and I think the other companies working on this business. So does it has implication on IRR? Again it's a matter of, we decrease the PPA price if we can decrease the cost. So the IRR is a mix of at the end returns is a mix of cost and revenue. So there is a link for me between both.

Ryan Todd -- Piper Sandler -- Analyst

Perfect, thank you.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Yes, you have another question.

Operator

Okay, we have another question coming from the line of Lucas Herrmann from Exane. Please ask your question.

Lucas Herrmann -- Exane -- Analyst

Thanks very much and thanks for the opportunity and Patrick, thanks for the many hours of comment. 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 and 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 and 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 and chemicals to be a separate business or is the tie between electrons etc and some of the options within refining and chemicals too tight.

And second question, if I might. Just on the natural carbon 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 with what they're doing, but so is it a profit center in its own right or is it just an offset center. Thanks, Patrick.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Yeah, the second question is very clear. It's strictly for us. We clearly consider that we have to be a -- it's question for me. We consider that as clearly linked to our capacity to go to carbon neutrality and so we develop all these business fundamentally to be able to offset our emissions because we'll need them as soon as long as we want to be carbon neutral. We know what we need to all this carbon credit. So the second question is very clear and that's where we are.

The first one, honestly, I mean the business model we want to develop is clearly multi-energy company. So we have an oil business linked to which integration is along the value chain for each of them. So we are developing oil integrated upstream, downstream adapting of course the footprint of our business to the demand. So if there is less demand, we need to adapt our own capacities, but I mean and the same for the gas, same for electricity. And you know you speak about chemicals, but what we have within 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 -- and 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 Bostick to Arkema, we divested Atotech. So all these, what we were calling specialty chemicals have been divested. So for me, there is no -- I mean I don't envisage -- we can I see again look this year petrochemicals we're more resilient than the others. So 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. No, it's not true.

Lucas Herrmann -- Exane -- Analyst

But 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 is willing to put on your equity. And the faster you shift toward low emission, the more rapidly you're likely to see an appreciation in your price and that's the rationale behind the question rather than the questions which have simply been, spin-out renewables, attract a multiple that way.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Okay, understood, understood. So, but the question is for Bernard. Arnaud was voice -- the speaking voice for E&P and LNG, as you've seen. So Bernard has to work hard to lower its emission quickly at this point. But stage, I don't think it's -- I see that globally as a Group and, yes, it's true but we refining and chemicals are part of the Scope 1 and 2 emissions. But today, when you look to our global emissions, it's only part of the issue. But we are not there. We are not there.

Lucas Herrmann -- Exane -- Analyst

Thank you. And thank you.

Operator

We have the next question is coming from the line of Jason Gabelman from Cowen. Please ask your question.

Jason Gabelman -- Cowen and Company -- Analyst

Yeah, hi. 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 $2 billion cash flow growth from 2019 to 2025, but it seems like now there are some component in there for a higher margin. So 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.

And then my second question just on, back to the farm downs of the Power business. I mean, 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.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Okay. First one to $2 billion, no, there is no margin growth with $2 billion. It's -- it was explained before. It's $1 billion coming from the fundamentally from the various chemical projects which we have the cracker in the US, cracker -- I mean, I'm speaking about the control of Alexis and Bernard. And Bernard, you can elaborate on the component of the $1 billion and Alexis same. He has some growth in some retail markets can elaborate on the $1 billion. When it was $1 billion from the refining, $1 billion from marketing and maybe you could explain. So it's not linked to an assumption on -- it's $2 billion as an absolute, I mean. Yeah. Bernard, Alexis?

Bernard Pinatel -- President, Refining and Chemicals

Yes. We have two components there is on the petrochemical side, of course, all the big projects that you mentioned Patrick. Starting now in the US Gulf Coast with a new cracker and next year with the PE line, our joint venture with Borealis Borstar. And we have also, by the -- let's say, by 2025 the start-up of our larger petrochemical projects in Middle East. And the second dimension is on the renewable diesel as we will grow production. We will generate more cash flows. We released last year that 1 ton of renewable diesel generated $350. So you multiply that by the million tons we will do and you come up to the 1 billion additional cash flow.

Alexis Vovk -- President, Marketing and Services

So petrochemicals and renewable fuels. And Alexis, your $1 billion extra that you will bring to the Group that 1 billion that the -- our plan, the 5-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 the cash flow, especially from the non-fuel revenues in Europe and developing our strong market share in Africa and we have launched some new developments in new markets, Brazil, Saudi Arabia Mexico, and we will also get some growth from there.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Okay. So it's $500 million from growth and it's $300 million coming from the recovery of the COVID that we lost this year as we rebased considering that the demand will come back, so that's $800 million. So you have the thing. No. But the accelerating farm down, unfortunately, you don't get -- we don't receive the same amount of money if you farm down at a reverse entity. So, I mean, there is a -- it's a matter of maturity of the project because financial institution of these guys, they love projects with no risk. So, 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 acquired this pipeline with a low-cost of entry. I want to keep this low-cost substantially for Total because we have the balance sheet to support the development rather than putting them in -- rather than divesting that to people, but I prefer to divest.

So, for me, the only point that we could ask ourselves is once we have all the elements and including the PPAs, is there a possibility to development stage to farm down quicker than waiting COD, that's something on which we, but clearly our strategy is to get access to pipeline. We have a low-cost of entry to matures the pipeline and then we are ready to bear [Phonetic] risk. And if we'd farm down, we want the people to pay with no risk. So if they accept execution risk, as a project execution, maybe we look and look at it. But generally, our experience is that, this type of -- you obtain better valuation if you wait for -- as you see -- I mean, I think put your assets into production and then it's just a matter of -- it's like a pipeline. They love pipeline. It's an infrastructure at the end. So if you want to raise your 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.

The last question, who has the honor of the last question? The best one. No?

Operator

We have the last question coming from the line of Paul Cheng from Scotiabank. Please ask your question.

Paul Cheng -- Scotiabank -- Analyst

Thank you. Two quick ones. First, in your production guidance for this year that's flat to 2020, that seems a bit low given last year that we have the government curtailment. So, what's the underlying assumption in the government curtailment in this year? Is that similar to last year or that you actually have a higher number?

The second one is on the gas and 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 impacted such as in trading or in derivative that we should be aware. Thank you.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

First question, no, it's clear, I mean, you have a natural decline of portfolio, let's say, 3%. So 3% of 3 million barrel per day or 2.9 [Indecipherable], let's say, 19,000 barrel per day. And so, we think that it's difficult, but it's not -- we are seeing that between the Qatar, Libya we'll offer something like 30,000 or 40,000, 50,000 barrel per day. When we make an assumption about at which rate quota could be relaxed and it's difficult to guess. So, again, I'm not sure, we are very prudent. Honestly, I think we are reasonable.

So curtailments, no, I think we stopped -- curtailments were mainly in Canada. And I think we have no -- we don't have anymore assumptions to curtailment in this figure. So, the big -- the question mark again is that, which rate quotas might be relaxed and it's difficult to anticipate. So, I don't think we are -- so the reality is that it's not new. Is that we don't have the start-ups in 2021. We have experienced a lot of start-ups in the previous years, but we don't have new projects coming on stream in 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 GRP, I will give that as a final question to our CFO or to Arnaud. I will give it to Philippe, as Philippe is the last answer to this type of figure. So Philippe for you -- it's a good question for you, in particular that you will explain this as you -- it will be your last answer to this group of people.

Philippe Sauquet -- President, Gas, Renewables and Power

Yes. 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 get some option for the month of Jan, which was much more interesting than boring month of December.

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

I think, in fact, our traders did not anticipate a boom of the gas price, they were not -- they are not -- we should hire a metrologist, I think, in the team. I think they didn't all this boom coming up, but they've seen it in January. So the good news. I think, in fact, Philippe is very nice to Stephane, which will lead the President, which should become President for Gas, Renewables and Power, giving him of the good results for the first quarter 2021. So, that's I think the answer. So on this note, I would like to tell you 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 and Chemicals, Marketing & Services and again, I wish you the best for this year including of course a good half 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. So thank you for your attendance and see you soon. Bye.

Duration: 233 minutes

Call participants:

Ladislas Paszkiewicz -- Senior Vice President, Investor Relations

Patrick Pouyanne -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Helle Kristoffersen -- President, Strategy and Innovation

Jean-Pierre Sbraire -- Chief Financial Officer

Philippe Sauquet -- President, Gas, Renewables and Power

Arnaud Breuillac -- President, Exploration and Production

Adrien Henry -- Vice President, Nature-Based Solutions

Bernard Pinatel -- President, Refining and Chemicals

Alexis Vovk -- President, Marketing and Services

Oswald Clint -- Bernstein -- Analyst

Biraj Borkhataria -- RBC -- Analyst

Michele Della Vigna -- Goldman Sachs -- Analyst

Lydia Rainforth -- Barclays -- Analyst

Thomas Adolff -- Credit Suisse -- Analyst

Irene Himona -- Societe Generale -- Analyst

Christyan Malek -- J.P. Morgan -- Analyst

Jason Kenney -- Santander -- Analyst

Paul Cheng -- Scotiabank -- Analyst

Martijn Rats -- Morgan Stanley -- Analyst

Alastair Syme -- Citigroup -- Analyst

Anish Kapadia -- Palissy Advisors -- Analyst

Alessandro Pozzi -- Mediobanca -- Analyst

Peter Low -- Redburn -- Analyst

Christopher Kuplent -- Bank of America -- Analyst

Ryan Todd -- Piper Sandler -- Analyst

Daniel Boyd -- Mizuho Securities -- Analyst

Lucas Herrmann -- Exane -- Analyst

Jason Gabelman -- Cowen and Company -- Analyst

More TOT analysis

All earnings call transcripts

AlphaStreet Logo

This article represents the opinion of the writer, who may disagree with the “official” recommendation position of a Motley Fool premium advisory service. We’re motley! Questioning an investing thesis -- even one of our own -- helps us all think critically about investing and make decisions that help us become smarter, happier, and richer.