Well, dear colleagues, first we must propose a name to the President of the National Assembly for a commissioner to sit on the national steering committee of BPI France, to replace David Amiel who has become minister. I have received the candidacy of Mr. Christopher Besg. If there is no objection, we will decide accordingly. Now we come to the hearing of Mr. Patrick Pouyanné, Chairman and CEO of TotalEnergies. I wanted him to be heard before we create a flash mission on fuel taxation and the fiscal yield of price increases. This hearing will serve both purposes. I note the paradox: it was not originally scheduled, but it takes place after the war and during a heatwave. Given the fiscal issues facing large French multinationals, hearing Mr. Pouyanné is instructive and useful. We are interested in all taxation applying to TotalEnergies, especially recent provisions: exceptional contribution on large company profits, tax on share buybacks, and OECD Pillar 2 minimum taxation. In the oil crisis context, this hearing is even more relevant. We are also interested in your analyses of the crisis effects on your profits and margins and the resulting taxation. Thank you for accepting this hearing. Without further ado, I give you the floor.
Thank you. My tax director Nathalie Monietti is here. In 2025, TotalEnergies had net profit of $15.6 billion at $69 oil, paid $19 billion in taxes, effective rate over 40%. In 2022, at $101 oil, rate was over 50%, taxes $35 billion. Our tax rate increases with oil price because producer countries capture more rent. 70% of our profit comes from production. Q1 2026 profit $5.4 billion at $81 oil. Over 10 years we lowered our breakeven from $80 to $25 per barrel. The crisis cost 15% of production but our diversified portfolio (Brazil, global LNG, integrated refining, electricity) cushioned the blow. In France, our refining activities are structurally loss-making, with six deficit years out of ten and €5 billion accumulated tax losses, yet we invest €500 million annually. On taxation: we follow territoriality and non-double taxation. We pay tax where we earn profits. TotalEnergies is the French company paying the most tax on profits worldwide: €100 billion over five years at 43% average rate. Taxing foreign profits in France would be double taxation. Producer countries already tax at very high rates (Norway 78%, UAE over 90%). Reinstating the worldwide consolidated profit system, abolished in 2011, would not increase French tax. OECD's Pillar 2 minimum tax of 15% does not result in more tax for France because all countries have raised their rates to at least 15% (or require payment to them). Our Swiss trading operations are located in Geneva because that's where the talent is, not for tax reasons. We have only seven subsidiaries in tax havens, mostly for legal and accounting reasons. Transfer pricing is at international market prices, verified by French tax inspectors. If we wanted to optimize, we would bring profits to France taxed at 25–35% rather than paying 40–50% abroad.
Thank you. Here is how we will proceed. I will ask questions, then the general rapporteur, then rapporteur Philippe Brun, then group speakers. I choose question-response format. You have capped prices at €1.99 for gasoline and €2.25 for diesel. My first question: your first quarter worldwide profits were almost €5 billion, up 51% year-on-year. For France, can you provide your profits from March to June 2026, distinguishing refining and distribution, and comparing with the same period in 2025? Your representative said the March refining margin was exceptionally good.
I don't have the French tax result on hand, but my team can provide it. The margin is high, about $13 per barrel currently. The French result for Q1 is estimated at around €500 million. The crisis affected both crude and products. The Strait of Hormuz crisis reduced crude supply, but China reduced imports and the US exported from stocks, easing the shock. On products, Middle East refineries were damaged, reducing diesel and kerosene supply, keeping margins high. This is unprecedented. I expect we will pay corporate tax in 2026 if conditions continue.
Thank you. So you don't have the March figures. Your representative at the Economic Affairs Committee had them. You gave another explanation on April 29, saying it was your ability to capture the price increase. Would you repeat that?
Of course, I just explained. Our breakeven is $25 per barrel, so when prices rise, profits increase. I fully stand by that explanation.
Can you tell us what the price cap cost you, and what are your profits net of this revenue loss?
The cap is still ongoing, so no precise figure. There are several calculation methods. So far, it's about €200 million.
Thank you. Approximately because there is no precise accounting. Have you calculated what it would have cost if you had blocked prices at €0.70 per liter, the price before the war? Do you have an idea?
Yet you said that could have even prompted your departure from France.
I don't think I ever said that. I simply said that if the government decided on a tax mechanism, we would adapt to that mechanism and not add a price cap on top of it.
Good. Now that prices are starting to drop, couldn't we consider an administrative cap on prices and margins to accelerate the drop to €1.70? Would that be possible and good for the economy?
I am not in favor of administrative price and margin controls. I don't think that's the best solution for purchasing power. We are the only oil company in the world to have implemented a price cap. So receiving criticism when we are the ones who have implemented such a cap.
We were the only ones to do that. Actually, I get criticized by my oil peers who ask me why I did it. I introduced a strange idea into the thinking of a government center. We did it voluntarily to protect the French, and we only do it in France because that's where our headquarters are and we have a certain attachment to our country. So criticizing this measure, I admit I have trouble understanding. Now, why do I tell you not necessarily? I was looking at the evolution between the quotations that have been falling since the beginning of the week and the way prices are practiced at the pump. And well, I see that we are replicating day after day: the supply price has gone from, wait, I look at diesel. I took diesel as an example from 1.9 to 1.85. And when you look at the pump, we went from 2.09 to 1.94. So we are passing on the decrease. You can check for yourselves. The government has a tool that tracks it. I can tell you that ministers regularly call in all the distribution heads in the country and have set up monitoring. So we will pass on the decrease. But compared to the start of the crisis, the supply cost was €1.65. Today it's €1.85, 20 cents higher. So we can't say we'll be at €1.70 right away. We will be at €1.70 as the crisis resolves. That's why we maintain our commitment, because the prices I'm talking about are average prices. There are 1,200 rural stations in France where logistics costs and the cost of bringing fuel are higher than in large urban centers. Today, as I speak, 2,000 stations in France continue to benefit from the €1.99 cap on gasoline. The cap on gasoline is still effective for those stations. It protects French buying power. On diesel, next weekend, we said we would apply €2.09. There are 1,000 stations that will benefit. The good news is that if there are only 1,000, it means 2,300 stations will show a lower price. So we are not setting a single price, we are setting a cap. We are not going to raise prices when they are falling. But there are still 1,000 stations, often rural ones, that benefit first from these capping policies because they have the highest supply costs.
Yes. On the criticisms you received about the capping issue. Some came from other distributors who explained that the margin is very low in distribution, 2 to 3 cents if I'm not mistaken, but in reality this drop allowed you to gain market share in distribution. Do you have any elements on that?
Market share gain translates into larger volumes. So yes, I have elements: for TotalEnergys, well yes, the capping. The more gasoline you sell at the pump, the more you make... at the moment, since the cap is below cost price. I recall that it's my integrated chain that allows me to finance it. Volumes increased by about 15% in our stations because the French came. There were even weekends with a 30% increase, which caused quite a few queues. I know many people wait a long time, sometimes there is no product left. So there was an increase, knowing that the French market overall contracted by 10-15% because prices remained high. So yes, the French were sensitive to this purchasing power protection policy, they came much more to TotalEnergie stations. That is rather good news for our company, which doesn't have the reputation of being cheap, but this repositioning satisfies me as CEO.
So volume +15%. I have one last question on this price issue. I will move on to taxation later. End of February and beginning of March, it took two weeks for the price of 100-lead and diesel to rise between 20 and 40 cents per liter and settle around €2. Given the situation in the Middle East, all actors expect a clear easing. So can we expect pump prices to fall as quickly as they rose?
That depends on international prices. Crude is at $80, but refining margins have not fallen yet. For now, I'm at 95, we were at 115. So the answer is: it depends on international prices. We will be completely transparent and demonstrate how we apply reductions as well as increases. That is the commitment we made. I receive this complicated table every day and I take care of it myself to ensure the teams replicate properly. I have the supply costs and the prices practiced by various networks, and I check every evening. The commitment was made and I have curves. I can show you one, but I transferred it to your rapporteur of the flash mission on fuel, who asked written questions.
Okay. Still on the issue of markets and the risk of speculation, the Financial Times calculated that TotalEnergie would have made an exceptional profit of one billion dollars in one month just by buying March cargoes of oil to be delivered in May. On April 28, Total declared to the National Assembly, through one of your representatives, that they didn't know where the press got that figure. The problem is that Total didn't provide other figures in response. So my question is simple: What profit did Total make with this operation, which can be characterized as trading, and which had little to do with supply issues or the war, but rather speculation?
I answered that question in an interview in Le Figaro. I explained what happened. Our trading activities observed that in February the US Navy was massing at the entrance of the Strait of Hormuz. They deduced that something might happen. They made a choice: they started buying oil, which other companies didn't do. They took a significant risk. What they hadn't seen is that the Strait could close in 2-3 days. When you buy forward, if you don't get physical delivery, you can make losses. Since we produce oil in Abu Dhabi and have access to the Fujairah terminal, we were able to recover those barrels. On that operation, which was market observation and oil purchase, not speculation – because they could have been wrong and faced non-delivery – they made money. There were other operations that at the same time turned out to be losing. That's a trading activity that many oil companies practice. When we published Q1 results, we said that oil trading results were excellent, amounting to about €2 billion per year, about 10% of company results. This quarter, instead of €500 million, they made about €500 million more. That won't replicate every quarter, but that's for them to manage.
A small global question. You said you had very significant margins globally, €5 billion, up 51% in Q3. €500 million in France if I understood correctly. Apparently it will continue for a few months. We are in a situation where the cost of war weighs on everyone, on French purchasing power, on the national community, and we will be led to cancel credits to compensate. Do you understand that when an entity, in this case Total in France, makes super profits during this period, some consider it normal – I am among them – that in one way or another you contribute to compensating for the cost of the war?
We did not declare the war. France didn't either. It's not the French. But TotalEnergie's taxation has an international framework. I trust that France is a state of law.
Wait, I'm not talking about... Excuse me, I'm talking about... No, you will answer me on taxation later. I'm talking about everyone having to make efforts. The state will have to make efforts. The French already are. So my question is: do you not think it normal that you could be asked for an exceptional contribution?
If you find the basis for an exceptional contribution within the rule of law, we will contribute. That's your decision. We made a voluntary contribution. Nothing obliged us to cap the price at the pump. Absolutely nothing. We did it because I drew lessons from 2022-2023 and thought it responsible. You can say it's not enough, but I see the French appreciated it. So we collectively decided to continue it as long as the war lasts. It is not up to TotalEnergie to decide which groups are most fragile. We decided a measure for all French. The answer is: we will do what national representations decide, and TotalEnergie will pay much more tax in 2026 than in 2025, but in the producing countries where we make most of our profits. In France, if results hold through Q2, Q3, Q4, we will pay corporate tax, including the additional tax provided for under French law.
OK. At least we agree: it's not up to you to decide. That would be for the state to decide a price freeze or a constraining mechanism. I have one last question. I'll start with a disagreement. You mix contributions and taxes. Social contributions are deferred salary, not taxation. In terms of taxation, for years relative to your turnover, you pay zero or ridiculous corporate tax. That is not normal. There need to be rectification mechanisms. I know you disagree. You said, and Ms. Patrier next to you said, 'We have no results in tax havens.' But the official list doesn't match the list of privileged-taxation countries in Europe. So I want to know: do you have subsidiaries in Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands? And why is Switzerland completely absent from the 54 pages of your tax transparency report, where the displayed tax rate is not the effective one?
The tax rate in Switzerland is 15%. We go beyond European obligations by publishing this report. I don't think Switzerland is a tax haven. We can be transparent on Switzerland. Switzerland is aligned with the global minimum tax of 15%. In the report you find 60 countries, including Luxembourg and Ireland, where we have almost nothing. Those countries represent 90% of the taxes we pay and 75% of profits. So we are transparent on 90% of taxes. The rest of the world, 25% of profits, has an average tax rate of 18%. Two main contributing countries are Switzerland and Singapore. We will consider publishing them in future. But the state gives us obligations; we anticipated them. I see no obligation to publish taxes for Switzerland and Singapore. Most of my CAC40 colleagues are unhappy we published this report, as they consider the upcoming directive reveals commercial secrets. But we are ahead. The report is already very complete.
Thank you, Mr. Pouyanné. The questions of the Rapporteur Général.
Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Chairman and CEO, first I want to highlight that France is lucky to have a world-class company like TotalEnergie, strategic, profitable, resilient. If we had Exxon Mobil in France, would they have voluntarily capped pump prices? Probably not. So we should be more grateful for our tools. Now, I have two or three questions. First, a technical one: you wrote to me about Suriname and Guyana. You've done some tests in French Guiana, apparently inconclusive. Do you consider there are definitively no petroleum resources on national territory? Or will future extraction techniques make it uneconomical? Should we forget finding oil in a French department?
Pardon me. The hearing is about taxation and results. We're straying. I'll answer you in writing, but I don't want to widen the scope too much.
I have already declared to the National Assembly. We found hydrocarbons in Guyana on a well called Zaï, a discovery in 2013-2014, but only 50 million barrels, too low to develop in deep offshore. We drilled five additional appraisal wells, all negative. We would never have done that in any other country. We wanted to be sure we left nothing behind. The deposits we found are close to the border with Brazil, completely to the east of the Guiana basin. The discoveries in Suriname and Guyana are to the west, in a different sedimentary basin. Geologically disconnected. I have color maps showing this. Our last well in France was in 2019, before the ban. We found nothing commercial. So if you ask me if TotalEnergie is ready to drill again in French Guiana, the answer is no. We spent nearly €400 million with negative results. I leave it to the representation to decide if prohibitions are good. I'm against prohibition laws; they create the feeling of hiding things, like alcohol prohibition.
I see. That's far from today's subject, but since I wrote to you... Earlier you said that if the law allowed French companies to keep accounts in dollars, we might think about repatriating activities to France. That's interesting. Do you have other such ideas that would lead TotalEnergie to repatriate economic activities?
Thank you for noting that. Yes, it's simpler for us to manage subsidiaries in France than in the Netherlands. The Netherlands require actual economic activity. So that is the main idea I know of that would allow us to relocate legal entities. In terms of investment in France, it's also tied to the tax framework, which is quite volatile. On our earlier exchange about social charges, I felt it was about compulsory levies. Today, the cost of labor and fluctuating tax rates discourage investment in France.
Turn off your microphone.
You are now also listed in New York. You've personally expressed your desire to keep the Paris listing. However, what regulatory and fiscal changes could lead TotalEnergie to abandon the Paris listing and keep only a US listing? What red lines would cause that?
We will not leave the Paris listing; that would be completely unreasonable. 90% of our shareholders are still here. Why did we open in New York? In the last 5 years, our institutional shareholder base has changed. French institutional investors went from 27% to around 12%; they moved to US investors, who are now 52%. This is because of regulations you vote on: the SFDR directive, the French government's exclusion of TotalEnergie from responsible investment lists due to fossil fuels. All these decisions pushed French investors out. We are trying to explain the contrary. We invest €4 billion per year to build an electricity business, from 0% in 2020 to 10% of our production in 2025 and 20% by 2030. We'll see if the European debate allows us to be eligible for those funds.
Thank you. Last question. Over the last 20 years, comparing the CAC 40 and the Dow Jones: a quarter of companies in Paris have been renewed, in the US half. Do you have an analysis on the low renewal rate of large companies in France? Is it due to regulatory framework, innovation difficulty?
First, France is lucky to have very large companies that are sustainable. We lack a vibrant tech sector, especially in digital. That's a European issue. It probably relates to innovation mechanisms, risk appetite, capital allocation. There are two ways to answer: on the positive side we have well-functioning companies, and care must be taken not to overtax them. On the other hand, there is a lack of capital for private tech companies. Savings are attracted to public debt. There is less risk appetite, and regulation like Basel III has constrained investment. The US deregulated after 2008, while we over-regulated. The capital markets union is needed, but without unlocking regulatory constraints, we'll only go part of the way. That's for my colleagues in finance.
I have the Rapporteur Général. Thank you.
Mr. President. Mr. Chairman and CEO, thank you for being here. We represent a France experiencing a real social drama since February 28. A France that cannot sustainably live with gasoline or diesel above €2 per liter. In our rural constituencies, with commutes over 60 km, we face great difficulties only partially resolved by Total's offers. The goal of this flash mission is to find solutions for reasonable prices. My first questions are about Total's dominant position. In your Q1 2026 press release, you say you 'capture the price increase thanks to an integrated and diversified portfolio.' What does that mean? How do your energy activities influence your fuel strategy?
Mr. Brun, we are not in a dominant position. We have 25% market share in distribution in France. That's not dominant. We have one of two refineries in France, and we kept it. I don't consider we are dominant. We ensure that 90% of French are within 15 minutes of a TotalEnergie station. I checked for your department: 94% are within 15 minutes, 65% within 10 minutes. So the French found our stations. On your question: yes, there can be situations where prices rise and our facilities don't work, as in 2022. In 2022 we paid very low contribution because the Donges refinery was shut and other refineries had strikes. Instead of €100-150 million, we paid €30 million. This year, I am glad that the plants are working. That's what I call capturing the increase. It's not always the case. I'm not ashamed to say we should be glad when an enterprise increases profits when the environment allows it.
In the same way, once again, I didn't see anyone complaining when our results were very strongly negative in 2020. I would have liked to hear the same chorus that I heard in 2026. And moreover, we didn't ask for complaints in the same way that we don't ask to be criticized today. So yes, we have a system, we are a company that, once again, as I told you, the bulk of the profits. That's where it is in the analysis, I read, it's not refining, trading and marketing. Certainly, it's those downstream activities, but the bulk of TotalEnergies' result in the first quarter of 2026 came from our production activities. They are the ones contributing. So certainly, the others had a better result in Q1 2026 than in Q1 2025. And I explained why. But that's not where the bulk of TotalEnergies' resources come from. So we made a, we took a decision, once again voluntary, to distribute part of these, I would say, exceptional results to French customers.
I'll take you to my constituency, you'll see that we are much more than 15 minutes from a Total station.
I will share with you: the President asked you about the single-price operation and its cost to Total. You told us just now that you think it cost about 200 million euros. So is that a monthly figure? Is it a figure for the entire period? And when we compare those 200 million euros with your operating result, including the figure you just gave us, that is, the cost of exploration in Guyana, a pure loss of 400 million euros, how do you assess the importance of this effort in the group's overall finances?
Sorry, excuse me. It's a figure to date, you know. It's an estimate to date, an order of magnitude to date. So since the beginning, well, I consider that compared to what we spent at the time, I think in 2023, we had to spend 400 to 500 million euros. That's entirely in line with what we spent over a longer period. We are in the straight line of what we have spent. So I don't compare this effort to others. I look at it in light of this market where, once again, we sought to protect French consumers.
Thank you. The Flash mission heard from producers, sorry, independent distributors who saw their market share decrease and their turnover halved, notably due to the competition created by your offer. We also note that this offer allowed you, for example, to value your customer portfolio, for example on electricity sales, electricity customers benefiting from a price guarantee. What was the gain for your group from this marketing operation, particularly in terms of customer gains in the electricity sales sector?
Relatively limited, 50,000 customers today, so it's not extraordinary. For now, the French have difficulty making the link between TotalEnergies as a fuel supplier and TotalEnergies as an electricity supplier, even though we have more than 4 million customers in France, but we are still developing on this subject. We also wanted to make the link independently, since TotalEnergies is not only an oil and gas company but also an electricity company, to try to tell our customers that we can contribute to all your energies. We also launched an electricity offer that, I think, for 3 years, the French can have a guarantee of an electricity price 10% lower than the average public price practiced in France. So that's it. So it's the desire to do both, but it's not yet completely proven. On the other hand, we already have nearly 800,000 electricity subscribers who already benefit from the price guarantee. So we have a flow of 50,000 new ones, we have 800,000 electricity subscribers who have understood that by collecting a card, they are able to guarantee the price for the whole year at less than 1.99 on gasoline and diesel. So we can think that we are also loyalizing these 800,000 customers through the joint offer.
This is deliberate on our part. A question, Mr. Chairman and CEO, about the stockout rate at your stations. According to the calculations we made with the Flash mission, 80% of stations in France that were out of stock on diesel were TotalEnergies stations, while you represent 20% of all stations in France. Your competitors notably accuse you of having poorly supplied your stations, of having essentially done a marketing stunt to prevent Parliament from taking the necessary measures, particularly regarding the superprofits made by your group in the first quarter.
Our competitors need to decide: either I'm taking market share, or I'm not supplying my stations voluntarily. They could choose. We obviously, thanks to the support of the state, since I remind you that in France normally you cannot resupply on weekends, tanker trucks cannot operate in France. We had special authorization from the public authorities to be able to do so to resupply. Indeed, there was such a demand at our stations that some found themselves out of stock. I myself faced the possibility of getting gasoline at a station one day. It happened to me. But I can tell you that the TotalEnergies teams, on the contrary, worked tirelessly everywhere in France, and I want to congratulate them in front of you all for working tirelessly to face this influx of consumers in conditions that were not always very simple because there were long queues spilling onto national roads. On highways, it was even sometimes a bit dangerous. So no, we did everything we could to resupply, and therefore competitors cannot accuse us both of taking market share and of pretending to do marketing. No, we really did everything we could to supply our stations over the weekends when we were doing these special promotions.
