We decided to create a flash mission on fuel taxation and the fiscal yield of the price increase. Through this hearing we will combine our commission hearing with the one integrated into the flash mission, whose rapporteur is Philippe Brun. I note it is somewhat paradoxical because Mr. Pouyanné's hearing was not initially planned for this date. I hope it takes place after the war, but also during a heatwave, as next Monday is predicted to be the hottest day on record, and carbon energies are clearly a factor. Given the fiscal challenges facing large French multinationals, hearing from the Chairman and CEO of TotalEnergies seemed both instructive and useful. We are interested in all taxation applied to TotalEnergies, especially recent provisions: the exceptional contribution on large company profits, the share buyback tax, and the implementation of OECD Pillar 2 on minimum taxation. In the context of an oil crisis, this hearing is particularly relevant. We are also interested in your analysis of the crisis's effects on your profits and margins, and consequently on your taxation. Thank you for being here and for accepting this hearing quickly. I now give you the floor for an introductory statement.
Mr. Chairman, gentlemen rapporteurs, ladies and gentlemen deputies, thank you for receiving me for this hearing on the taxation of profits, sometimes called superprofits, and multinational taxation. I will provide some factual elements about TotalEnergies. I am accompanied by our tax director, Nathalie Monietti. I note the hearing also covers the flash mission on fuel taxation led by Deputy Philippe Brun, but I will focus my opening remarks on results and taxation. First, results: in 2025, the company posted an adjusted net profit of $15.6 billion, about $4 billion per quarter, with an average oil price of $69 per barrel. That same year, we paid $19 billion in income taxes, production taxes, and royalties, giving an effective tax rate on profits of over 40%. For those who think we engage in tax optimization, I would rather pay 25% or 35% tax in France than 40% globally. In 2022, with oil at $101 per barrel, the tax rate was over 50%, and we paid $35 billion in taxes and production levies, compared to $19 billion last year. Our tax rate increases with the oil price because producing countries have mechanisms to capture a larger share of the oil rent when prices are high. For example, in Congo the rate goes from 46% to 59%, in Denmark from 40% to 54-64%. 70% of our profit comes from oil and gas production (45% oil, 25% LNG), 10% from electricity, and 20% from downstream activities (refining, trading, marketing). So when we talk about TotalEnergies' taxation, it is mainly the producing countries that levy the bulk of taxes. In Q1 2026, we posted a profit of $5.4 billion with an average oil price of $81 per barrel, compared to $4 billion at $69. Nothing extraordinary; it is the result of years of work. In 2015, our breakeven point was over $80 per barrel; we have lowered it to $25 per barrel through asset selection and efficiency. This means that above $25, the company generates positive cash flow, and to cover dividends we need about $50 per barrel. So when oil goes from $69 to $81, after tax, it is additional revenue because we lowered the breakeven. The crisis has cost us about 15% of our production, as we cannot produce or export from the Middle East, equivalent to about $8 per barrel. Our diversified global portfolio allowed us to withstand this. For example, Brazil is now our largest cash flow contributor. On LNG, we are the only company that never declared force majeure to customers, thanks to production in 11 other countries. Our integration of refining, trading, and distribution helps us manage volatility and ensure supply, especially in France, where we have a unique price cap policy to protect purchasing power. Finally, electricity now accounts for about 10% of our sales and results. This diversity allowed us to absorb the shock of the Hormuz closure. Oil cycles have ups and downs; in 2020, with oil at $40, the situation was much more difficult, and TotalEnergies did not request any public aid. In France, our industrial refining and petrochemical activities are structurally unprofitable due to energy costs, CO2 costs, and other factors. Over the last 10 years, we had six loss-making years (2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2024, 2025) and only three profitable ones (2022, 2023, and hopefully 2026). The refining activity alone has accumulated over €5 billion in tax losses over 15 years. Despite this, we continue to invest in France to maintain supply security, spending over €500 million annually on our three refineries. On taxation, we have published a fiscal transparency report since 2019, ahead of EU requirements. France is among the top five countries out of 130 where we pay the most taxes of all kinds. While we pay little corporate income tax in France due to the low profitability of our French industrial activities, we contribute about €2 billion annually to French public finances through various taxes, including the share buyback tax (€173 million in 2025) and social contributions for our 35,000 French employees. The low corporate tax in France is because we respect two principles: territoriality of taxation and non-double taxation of the same profit. France has signed many tax treaties and chose territoriality. We are the French company that pays the most income tax in the world: $32 billion in 2022, $19 billion in 2025, totaling about $100 billion over five years at an average rate of 43%, compared to the French corporate tax rate of 25.8%. If we were good at tax optimization, we would rather be taxed in France than in producing countries. We pay tax where we make profits. Some propose taxing TotalEnergies' profits made abroad, but that would violate the non-double taxation principle, as we are already taxed at high rates in producing countries (Norway 78%, UK 78%, UAE over 90%, Angola 50%, Denmark 54-64%). Taxing in France would be double taxation. Allocating by revenue would transfer tax from producing countries, often emerging nations, to more developed consuming countries, which was rejected in OECD discussions. Another idea is to return to the worldwide consolidated profit system, which was abolished by Parliament in 2011 because it was seen as a tax loophole. Our tax department showed that from 2000 to 2010, we would have paid the same amount in France with or without it. If you reinstate it, we will apply it, but you cannot tax profits twice: we would deduct taxes paid abroad and add exploration losses (€1 billion per year), and it would not result in more tax in France. Similarly, the OECD's GloBE 2, which sets a minimum 15% global tax, has not led to more tax in France because all countries have raised their rates to at least 15%. For the few that haven't (Bulgaria, Ireland), we pay the top-up to them. This generates huge administrative work for no benefit to France. Regarding tax havens, our transparency report shows that at end-2025, we have only 7 subsidiaries in 10 tax havens out of nearly 1,500, down from 30 in 2015. These remain for legal reasons: one in Bahamas from an acquisition (we are moving it), one in Bermuda for a Yemen LNG project (Yemen is at war), and five minority stakes in Nigeria, Angola, Oman projects where we depend on partners. There is no tax advantage; profits are taxed in the producing countries. On transfer pricing, our rule is simple: all internal transactions are at international market prices. It is impossible to buy oil from our production at $50 and sell to our refinery at $100; that would be caught by tax authorities. We have about 50 tax inspectors from Bercy auditing us permanently, and they have never found transfer pricing issues. If I wanted to optimize, I would rather bring profits to France at 25-35% than pay over 40% abroad. That is common sense. Thank you for your attention.
Thank you. Here is how we will proceed. I will ask a number of questions, then the general rapporteur, then the flash mission rapporteur Philippe Brun, and then group speakers. I informed your team that we have two formats: either question-answer ping-pong, or all questions at once. I choose the first. My questions concern both taxation and the flash mission on fuel prices. You have set a price cap of €1.99 for gasoline and €2.25 for diesel. From your remarks, you consider this a sufficient contribution to the collective effort, and that you have done your part, which would avoid exceptional taxation or further price controls. My first question is on your profits. In Q1, global profits were nearly €5 billion, up 51% compared to Q1 2025. I would like the same figures for France for the period March 1 to June 1, 2026, distinguishing refining and distribution, and comparing to the same period in 2025. Your representative before the Economic Affairs Committee stated that the refining margin in March was exceptionally good, while distribution was significantly lower in March compared to January-February. I assume you have the numbers.
I do not have the French fiscal result precisely. What I can say is that the margin was indeed high, and we did not hide it. It is still high; today the refining margin is $13 per barrel. You ask for profit figures. Again, I know the global results, not the French ones. The French result for Q1 is estimated at about €500 million. For March specifically, I do not have that. I know the margin was low in January-February, so most of that must come from March. So €500 million. The margin rose with the crisis, which is unusual because normally when oil prices rise, refining margins fall. That is why we talk about integration. The oil price rose sharply, and the refining margin also rose. It remains high; this morning it was around $13-14 per barrel, compared to a historical average of $5-6, so about three times higher. Why? The Hormuz crisis had two impacts: on crude oil, about 10 million barrels per day were removed from the market, largely compensated by China reducing imports by 4 million barrels per day and the US drawing down stocks and exporting 2 million more barrels per day. Those two countries absorbed about 60% of the crude shock, which is why the price rose but less than feared. The second impact was on refined products. Middle Eastern refineries, which are more modern and produce a lot of diesel and kerosene, were affected. France imported about 25% of its diesel from the Middle East. So there was a stronger impact on diesel and kerosene markets. Kerosene rose to over $200 per barrel and remains high because even though Hormuz reopened, Iranian attacks damaged refineries. Our refinery in Saudi Arabia was hit by three drone strikes and is operating at only 70% capacity, with repairs likely extending beyond end-2026. So product margins remain elevated. We have never seen both crude and product margins high simultaneously, except briefly in 2022. So to answer your question: €500 million for Q1. That is why I said in an interview that I think we will pay income tax in 2026 if the year continues and our refineries keep running.
Thank you. So you do not have the March figures. Your representative before the Economic Affairs Committee apparently had them. You also gave another explanation for the rise, Mr. Chairman. On April 29, you said it was your ability to capture the price increase that explained Total's exceptional margins in Q1. Would you repeat that?
Of course. I just explained it. Our breakeven is $25 per barrel. We built a company that is extremely resilient when prices are low, and when prices are higher, yes, as I demonstrated, our profits are higher, and our taxes are also higher, and the producing countries benefit first. That is normal because that is where we make our profits. That is the mechanism, and I fully stand by it, including the phrase I used.
Okay. Can you tell us what the price cap you decided cost you, and what your profits are net of that revenue loss? Do you have an idea?
You mean profit on revenue loss? Unfortunately, there is no profit; it is a loss. Okay.
No, I repeat my question. Let's understand each other. I ask, you answer. Okay. Thank you. So, can you tell us what the price cap cost you? Since you say it cost you something, the cap you decided on distribution in France.
For now, it continues; it is not finished, so I cannot give a final figure. There are several ways to calculate it: by reference to average prices of competitors, or to what we would have charged independently of the crisis. We are at about €200 million today.
Okay. Thank you. Approximately, because there is no precise accounting. As you know, we proposed a price freeze by acting on the refiners' margin, as the government did in 1990. Did you calculate what such a mechanism would have cost you over the past period, i.e., freezing prices at €1.70 per liter, which was the price before the war? Do you have an idea?
No, I don't have an idea.
Yet you said that something like that could even have prompted you to leave France. So there is...
I don't think I ever said those words. I simply said that if the government decided on a taxation mechanism, then we would comply with that mechanism and would not add a price cap on top of it.
Well. Now that prices are starting to fall at the pump, could we not consider, as a form of contribution, given the profits, that Total should make a national effort through administrative price and margin controls from now on to accelerate the drop to €1.70? Since we have a time limit, don't you think that would be both possible for you and good for the economy?
I am not in favor of administrative price and margin controls. You will not be surprised by my answer. I don't think that is the best solution for the country to address purchasing power. Purchasing power is important, which is why I come back to what we have done. We are the only oil company in the world to have applied this price cap mechanism. So to receive criticism when we are the only ones to have done so—I also get criticism from my fellow oil executives who ask why I did it and introduced a strange idea into the minds of governments. We did it voluntarily to protect the French, and we only do it in France because that is where our headquarters are and we have an attachment to our country. So criticizing this measure, I have trouble understanding. Now, why I say not necessarily: I looked at the evolution between quotations, which have been falling since the beginning of the week, and the prices at the pump since the beginning of the week. I see that we are replicating the drop day by day. The supply cost for diesel went from €1.90 to €1.85 since early June, and at the pump we went from about €2.09 to €1.94. So we are passing on the decline. You can verify this; the government has a tool to track it precisely. The ministers regularly convene all distribution heads and have set up monitoring tools. So we will pass on the price decline. But compared to the start of the crisis, the supply cost was €1.65; today it is €1.85, a difference of 20 cents. So we cannot say we will be at €1.70 immediately. We will get there as the crisis resolves. That is why we maintain our commitment: the prices I mention are averages. There are 1,200 rural stations in France where logistics costs are higher. Today, 2,000 stations still benefit from the €1.99 gasoline cap. So the cap is still effective for 2,000 stations, protecting purchasing power. For diesel, next weekend for the Father's Day weekend, we said we would apply €2.09. 1,000 stations will benefit. The good news is that if only 1,000 need it, that means 2,300 stations are already displaying a lower price. So we will not set a uniform price but a cap. We will not raise prices when they are falling. But there are still 1,000 stations, often rural ones.
They are the first to benefit from these cap policies because they have the highest supply costs.
Yeah. Regarding the criticisms you received on the capping issue. Some came from other distributors who explained that the margin at the distribution level was very small, about 2 to 3 cents if I'm not mistaken, but that in reality this price cut allowed you to gain market share in distribution. Do you have any information on that?
Market share gains translate into higher volumes. So yes, we have gained market share. The capping can be attributed to whom in the company? The more fuel you sell at the pump, the more you... Currently yes, because the cap is lower than the cost price. I recall that it's my integrated chain that allows me to finance it. Now, volumes have increased by about 15% at our stations because the French... there were even weekends when they increased by 30%, which caused quite a few queues at TotalEnergies pumps. I know many people do it, and myself, sometimes we wait a long time, and sometimes there is no residual product, we mobilize everyone. So there is an increase, knowing that the French market overall decreased because prices remained high, the French consumed less, it contracted between 10 and 15%. So yes, the French, which proves that this policy of protecting purchasing power was sensitive to the French since they came much more massively to TotalEnergies stations. It's rather good news for our company, which doesn't have a reputation of being cheap, but for once this repositioning in terms of how the French view our network satisfies me as CEO.
So volume up 15%. I have one last question on price. I'll come back to taxation later. At the end of February and beginning of March, it took two weeks for the price of unleaded and diesel to rise by 20 to 40 cents per liter and settle around 2 euros. Given the situation in the Middle East, all players seem to expect a clear easing. Can we therefore expect pump prices to fall as quickly as they rose?
It will depend on international prices. Again, crude is at $80, but refining margins have not fallen yet, from what I see. So currently I'm at 95, we were at 115. So yes, the answer to your question is it depends on international prices, and again we will be completely transparent and we will pass on the changes and we will demonstrate how we apply both downward and upward. That is the commitment we made. You see, I receive this rather complicated table every day, so I take care of it. I personally make sure the teams are passing on the changes. So I have a table that shows me supply costs, prices charged across various networks, and I check every evening to see if we are on the trajectory we committed to. So the commitment has been made and I have curves, I could show you one but Mr. President... well, I can't show it here but I can share it.
I think the rapporteur of the flash mission on fuel asked some written questions, we will answer them. Very well. Still on the issue of markets and the risk of speculation, the Financial Times calculated that TotalEnergies made an exceptional profit of one billion dollars in a single month just by buying in March cargoes of oil to be delivered in May. On April 28, Total declared before the National Assembly—it wasn't you, but one of your representatives twice—that it did not know where the press got this figure. The problem is that Total did not provide any other figures in response. So my question is simple: what profit did Total make on this operation that can be characterized as trading, and which had little to do with only supply issues or the war, but rather with speculation?
No, first of all I answered that question in an interview in Le Figaro that I invite you to read. I explained what happened. Our trading activities observed that in February the US Navy was massing at the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz. They deduced that something might happen. They made a choice. So they started buying oil, which other companies did not do. They took a significant risk. We discussed it internally because what they had not seen is that the Strait could close in two or three days, and when you buy futures, if you don't have physical delivery, you don't receive the physical oil; you can not only fail to make gains, you can make losses. It turns out that as an oil company, we produce oil in Abu Dhabi and have access to the Fujairah terminal. So we were able to take delivery of those barrels, and on that operation—which I don't call speculation but market observation and oil buying—it's not speculation because they could have been wrong, they could have faced non-delivery. They made money. There were other operations because traders don't just do that in one direction; their activity is controlled by us. They have risk limits, and when they take a position in one direction, they must take positions in others to balance their portfolio, and all that is monitored daily. So there were other operations at the same time that turned out to be loss-making. So it is a trading activity that many oil companies do. When we published our first quarter results, we were transparent in saying that oil trading results were excellent this quarter. And indeed, they are roughly—it's transparent, you find the results of our oil trading activity in our registration document, which is about 2 billion per year in results, so about 10% of the company's results. And this quarter, instead of making 500 million, they made about 500 million more. That won't happen every quarter, but it's up to them to manage.
A small global question on this issue. You said yourself that you had very significant margins globally of 5 billion euros, up 51% in the third quarter, 500 million in France if I understand correctly. Apparently, that will continue for at least a few months. We are in a situation where the cost of the war weighs on everyone, weighs on the French through purchasing power, weighs on the national community, and we will be led to credit cancellations to try to compensate. Do you understand that when an entity, in this case Total in France, makes excess profits during this period, some consider it normal, and I am one of them, that one way or another you contribute to compensating for the cost of the war?
But again, we did not declare war. I don't think France did either. It's not the French either. But the taxation of TotalEnergies, I have said, there is an international framework. I trust that France is a state of law. And so... wait, I'm not talking about... Excuse me, I'm talking about... No, no, but you will answer on taxation later, I'll come to that. I'm talking about each will have to make efforts, right? The state will have to make efforts. The French are already making many efforts. So my question is: do you not think that among the various actors impacted by the war, and in your case you are impacted positively, the numbers show, do you not find it normal that you might be asked for an exceptional contribution? But if you find the basis for an exceptional contribution within the framework of the rule of law, we will contribute. That is your decision. We already have a voluntary contribution. Nothing forced us to cap the pump price. Absolutely nothing. We did it because I drew lessons from what happened in 2022-2023 and I thought it was responsible of us to make a voluntary act. People can always say it's not enough. I see that the French appreciated it. So, since they appreciated it, we collectively decided to continue it as long as the war lasts. Afterwards, everyone is free to consider whether what we did is sufficient or insufficient. I think in any case, fundamentally, I repeat that I think it's better, and the division of roles from this point of view was interesting. It was not up to TotalEnergies—since I was solicited by several consumer groups, fishermen, farmers—to decide whether to give rebates to some and not others. It's not up to TotalEnergies to decide which groups are most fragile in the country. We decided a measure for all French people which I believe usefully complemented what the government could decide. So in answer to your question, my answer is we will do what the national representatives decide, within the rule of law, and once again TotalEnergies will pay much more tax in 2026 than we paid in 2025, but we will pay it in producing countries, because that's where we make most of our profits. In France, if results hold through the second, third, and fourth quarters, we will pay corporate income tax on profitable activities, including the additional corporate surtax provided for under French law.
OK. I agree with you on one thing: it is not up to you to decide. It would have been up to the state to decide a price freeze or a mechanism constraining you to certain contributions. I have one last question. I'll start with a disagreement. It's not the first time you respond on taxation paid in France by mixing social contributions and taxes. I don't want to insult you, I almost said 'well played' if it passes, but I won't insult you by thinking that social contributions, which are deferred salary, a way to solidify our social model, are the same as taxation. So in terms of taxation, I must note that for years, relative to your turnover, you pay zero or ridiculous corporate tax. Well, I consider that normal. It could have been through the pillar, but that won't see the light. I think there should be rectification mechanisms that adjust based on turnover. There have been proposed taxes on declared profits. But I have a question about that. So this is not a question, I know you disagree. It's my position. You said that Mrs. Patrier, who is next to you, said 'We have no results in tax havens' and you just gave an enumeration of certain tax havens. As you know, the problem is that the official list of tax havens does not cover the list of countries with very privileged taxation, especially in Europe, which can be considered tax havens. So I want to know if you have subsidiaries in countries like Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, that is, all countries with very privileged taxation. And I would like to know why Switzerland is completely absent from the 54 pages of your report that you call tax transparency, because there is the displayed tax rate but we know very well that implicit tax rates are considerably reduced in Switzerland.
The tax rate in Switzerland is again 15%. We did an exercise that goes beyond European obligations because we publish in this report all countries subject to European obligations, which by the way does not cover all tax havens. We added a number of them ourselves, considering that some countries, I don't think Switzerland is a tax haven. Again, we have no problem being transparent on Switzerland here to satisfy your request. Again, Switzerland is aligned with the global minimum tax of 15%. And just to say what's in this report: in this report you will find 60 countries? Actually all EU countries, including Luxembourg, including Ireland where we have almost nothing. You will find very reduced things. These countries represent 90% of the taxes we pay. 90% and 75% of profits. So we are transparent on 90% of taxes. To want to be transparent for 100%... The famous rest of the world represents 25% of profits. They have an average tax rate of 18%. 18% between 15 and 25. And there are two essential contributing countries since my attention was drawn to it: Switzerland and Singapore. So we will look into whether we will publish these two countries in the coming years. But again, I also refer since you ask to respect the decisions the state will take. The state gives us publication obligations. We preempted them 7 years, 5 years before. I have not seen in any text published by the European Union or the French state an obligation to publish results or taxes on a center of countries like Switzerland and Singapore. So I know we have to do our own policing. I am transparent with you today, but on these exercises, as I remind you, most of my colleagues in the CAC 40 are not very happy that we published this report because they consider that the obligation that will be imposed on them at the end of 2026 will lead them to reveal a lot of commercial secrets, and there is a challenge to the merits of the famous directive on country-by-country reporting that applies to European companies but absolutely not to American or Chinese companies or companies from many other countries. Well, we anticipated the issue because we are often asked questions. So you have a report that is already very complete, and I added elements today.
Thank you, Mr. Pouyanné. The floor now goes to the rapporteur general.
Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Chairman and CEO, listen, first of all, before asking questions, I want to highlight that we are fortunate in France to have a global company that plays a strategic role, is profitable, resilient. And if there have been direct effects on the pump in France, let's ask ourselves: if we didn't have a national company like Total, if we had ExxonMobil in France, do you think there would have been a voluntary price cap at the pump? Probably not. So we do not sufficiently rejoice every day in our ability to influence world affairs, only to then say we will weaken the few tools we have. Now, I have two or three questions. First, a technical question unrelated to taxation. Mr. President, I wrote to you about this. Suriname, I believe you are involved in Suriname, Guyana are countries that have extraction activity. There is oil. You did some tests, I think, in French Guiana which apparently were not conclusive. Do you consider that definitively on national territory there is no oil resource? Do you consider that future extraction techniques and their profitability are such that we will never succeed? Should we forget any capacity to find oil in a French department or region?
Well, I will repeat what I have already declared before the National Assembly. I remind you of the story. We found hydrocarbons in French Guiana in a well called Zaï, a discovery from around 2013-2014, where we found limited quantities of 50 million barrels, which is far too little to develop because it is deep offshore. To develop a deep offshore field, you need on the order of 500-700 million barrels. We had one positive well. The company then engaged in an appraisal campaign. We drilled five additional wells, all of which were negative—something we would never have done in any other country. When you make a limited discovery, you usually drill one or two wells to see if you can find an extension. We did not find an extension, and again, I think at the time we wanted to be sure we left nothing behind. So there were hydrocarbons in quantities far too small to be commercial. So we drilled the last well. All these hydrocarbons were not far from the border with Brazil. They were completely to the east of the Guiana Basin. The discoveries in Suriname or Guyana are all to the west. And in fact, I have a map, I have shown it to many people. I even went to see the president of the regional council of Guiana to show it. The problem is no one believes us. But it turns out that the Guiana-Suriname basin is completely disconnected geologically. It is not the same sedimentary basin as the Guiana basin. Between them there is a structural high. I have colored maps that illustrate it, and my geologists are certain they are disconnected. So we are not talking about the same thing. Just because oil was found west of Suriname does not mean it will be found in French Guiana. It is not the same basin. I recall the last well we drilled in France in 2019, before the laws prohibiting drilling, we had gone back to the west of the Guiana basin saying 'you never know' and found nothing. So if you ask me today, first of all you are a scientist, so I will not say there are no hydrocarbons in Guiana since we found some in small non-commercial quantities. But if you ask me whether TotalEnergies is ready to come back and drill in Guiana, the answer is no. I will not put TotalEnergies money into drilling new exploration wells in Guiana. We consider that we have already spent nearly 400 million euros with a negative result. That is the situation. Afterwards, I leave it to the national representation to decide whether prohibition laws are a good thing. I tend to think that if there were no prohibition law, the debate might be less present. Prohibition always gives the feeling that you want to hide things. So I am against prohibition laws. It's like alcohol prohibition in Chicago, people drank more, or prohibition in the Middle East. I think it's not a good idea to forbid things because it generates bad ideas. Once again, TotalEnergies' position is clear. We did the work, we may have been wrong, but we did a lot of work, we drilled a lot, so we will not drill in the Guiana basin even if the National Assembly authorized it again.
Yes, but it's far from today's topic.
So I see that we need to... pardon. I took the liberty of asking this question, and besides, you know Pierre DAC said 'Everything is in everything and vice versa.' So, earlier you said, and I noted it, that if the law were modified to allow French companies to keep accounts in dollars, perhaps we would consider repatriating economic activity to France. That's an interesting lead. So I noted it well: do you have other leads of this type that would allow you to say that if the law evolved in that direction, TotalEnergies would probably repatriate other economic activities to the national territory?
No, thank you for the question and for noting it. I commit today, I am ready to say it. It is simpler for us to manage subsidiaries in France where we have parent companies where we consolidate than to manage companies in the Netherlands. I say this without interest, and in the Netherlands there is no tax optimization either because the Netherlands requires companies to have real activity there. So the answer is yes. It's the main lead I know that would allow us to do that. I don't know any others today from that point of view. Of course, in terms of investment in France, the obvious situation—here we are talking about the location of legal activity. Investment in France is also linked to the French fiscal framework, which is relatively moving. And to return to our exchange about whether social contributions were mandatory levies or not, I had the feeling that it was seen in the state budgets. It is clear that today there are two obstacles: the cost of labor in other countries is high, and on the other hand, the fact that taxation is fluctuating, when large companies are subject to higher taxation, it does not encourage us to invest more in France. That's another subject.
Turn off your microphone.
So you are now also listed in New York. You have several times personally expressed your desire to continue maintaining the listing on the Paris financial market, and that is valuable in the debate. However, what changes in the French regulatory and fiscal framework could lead TotalEnergies to abandon the listing on the Paris financial market to retain only a US listing? In other words, are there red lines that would lead to the disappearance of the Paris market?
We will not leave the Paris market, that would be totally unreasonable. 90% of our shareholders are still located there. Why did we open the listing in New York? Because unfortunately, in the last 5 years, our shareholder base has profoundly evolved. We had about 27% institutional investors in France, they are now around 12%. We lost 15% of French institutional investors, which was a hallmark of the company. These 15% moved to US institutional investors, who now represent 52% this quarter. So we accompanied the fact that the energy and oil stock market moved to the United States. Why? Because of a number of rules that you, parliamentarians, regularly vote on, which set a framework for so-called responsible investment. This includes the SFDR directives under debate in the European Parliament, the French government's decisions to exclude TotalEnergies from lists of irresponsible investments because of fossil fuels, and a whole set of decisions that pushed French investors to consider that it was not responsible, in quotes, to keep TotalEnergies shares. I am the first to regret this. We spend our time explaining the opposite. It's not in our interest. So there is action to be taken on the regulatory level. There is an ongoing debate in the European Parliament on whether a company that produces oil and gas can be considered a transition company like TotalEnergies, because even if we continue to produce the oil and gas that everyone needs right now—I keep hearing about fuel for the past 3 months—fortunately we continue to produce it. And we invest, we invest every year 4 billion euros to build an electricity business. We were at 0% in 2020, we were at 10% of our sales production in 2025, we will be at 20% in 2030. So we are investing in the transition, particularly in renewable energies, to be qualified as in transition. We will see if the debate in the European Parliament allows us to be eligible for these shareholder funds. This debate is very important because it relates to notions of nationality and sovereignty.
So, decidedly, thank you. Last question: when we look at the last 20 years and compare the CAC 40 and the Dow Jones, we observe something striking. In Paris, a quarter of the companies have been replaced. In the US, half. Do you have any analysis, explanation, or comment on the fact that there is a low renewal rate of the most important companies in France? Is it related to the regulatory framework, difficulty in innovation? What is your analysis?
I think first that France is lucky to have very large companies that work well and are perennial, which is rather good in several sectors. However, we do not have in France, as in Europe, a technological sector, especially in everything digital, that is very vibrant. That is a real issue at the European level, not just French. Behind that, there are probably reasons related to innovation mechanisms, risk appetite, willingness to put capital into riskier activities. It's not really my subject, but I see in your question two ways to answer. One positive way: we have French companies that work well and are perennial. We should rejoice, and that's why I think we must be careful not to overload the taxation of these large companies because they are very useful to the country, in several domains, not just energy like mine. And indeed, there is a lack of capital today. The real question is why savings do not go to capital of private technology companies. There is a whole field to reform. I have already spoken, I think it is also linked to the fact that savings are very attracted to financing French public debt, by the state that absorbs them. There is also less risk appetite, and that relates to other regulations. You should ask our colleagues in banking and insurance about Basel 3 and other issues. After the 2008 crisis, there was a divergence between the two sides of the Atlantic. In 2008, the Americans were with us saying we would better regulate the financial world. The truth is they did it but then largely deregulated again, while we Europeans heavily regulated the financial sector. That's why when there is a major reform like the European Capital Markets Union, it's not enough to just unlock a few points; if we don't unlock the regulation that constrains investment in companies, especially the Basel rules, I'm afraid we will only have done part of the journey. But that's a question for my colleagues in the financial world.
I have the rapporteur general.
Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Chairman and CEO, thank you for being before us today. We are the representatives of a France that has been living a real social drama since February 28. We are the representatives of a France that cannot sustainably live with gasoline or diesel at more than 2 euros per liter. And we experience in our constituencies, especially rural ones where home-to-work commutes are over 60 km, very great difficulties that are only partially resolved by Total's commercial offers, given that today nearly two-thirds of French people buy their fuel in supermarkets and there are very few Total stations in our rural areas. The objective of this flash mission is to find solutions to keep prices reasonable. My first questions will focus on how Total approaches the market as an actor in a dominant position. I have before me the press release you issued in the first quarter of 2026, which did not fail to make headlines. In it, you congratulate yourselves on your ability to capture the price increase thanks to an integrated portfolio of high-performing and diversified businesses in oil. I wonder about the meaning of this phrase: congratulating yourselves on your ability to capture price increases. What do you mean by that? How do your activities in the energy sector influence your strategy regarding fuel?
First, regarding Mr. Point's comment, we are not in a dominant position. We represent 25% of the distribution market share in France. That is not a dominant position. We have one refinery out of two in France. Fortunately we still have them and we kept them. So I do not consider us in a dominant position. I understand very well what you are saying. We have a commitment to rural stations: we ensure that 90% of French people are within 15 minutes of a TotalEnergies station. I asked about your department: 94% of the population in your area is within 15 minutes of a TotalEnergies station, and 65% within 10 minutes. So we verified that the commitment we made is true. It's not perfect, but the French have found the addresses of TotalEnergies stations during this period. To return to your question, yes, there can be situations where prices rise and our facilities are not working. That's unfortunately what happened partly in 2022. In 2022, if we paid only a very low contribution, there was an exceptional tax on refining decided at the European level. We paid only a very low contribution. Why? Because the Gonfreville plant was shut down and the Normandy plants had problems and went on strike. So the result is that where we should have had significant results and thus paid a higher contribution, probably 100 to 150 million, we paid 30 million. This year, it happens that I am pleased, and it was a comment I made in that press release to the TotalEnergies teams, that the plants are working, which is good. That's what I call capturing the price increase. It's not always the case. It's not so obvious that everything works when prices are favorable. I am not ashamed to say it, and I think we should be pleased that a company can increase its profits when the environment allows it. But similarly, I didn't see anyone complain when our results were very strongly negative in 2020. I would have liked to hear the same chorus as in 2026. And by the way, no one asked to complain then, just as they don't ask to criticize us today. So yes, we have a system, we are a company that, again, the majority of profits come from production, not from refining, trading, and marketing. Certainly, those downstream activities had better results in Q1 2026 than in Q1 2025, and I explained why. But that's not where the majority of TotalEnergies' resources come from. So we made a voluntary decision to share part of these exceptional results with French customers.
Well, I will take you to my constituency, you will see that we are well over 15 minutes from a Total station. So the president asked you about the uniform price operation and its cost to Total. You said earlier that you think it cost about 200 million euros. Is that a monthly figure or a figure for the whole period? And when we compare these 200 million euros with your operating result and the figure you gave us on the cost of exploration in French Guiana, a pure loss of 400 million, how do you evaluate the importance of this effort in the group's overall finances?
Again, it's a figure to date, an order of magnitude since the beginning. Compared to what we spent in 2023, when we spent 400 to 500 million over a longer period, we are in the same range. So I don't compare this effort to others. I look at it in light of this market where we sought to protect French consumers.
Thank you. The flash mission heard from producers, excuse me, independent distributors who saw their market share decrease and their revenues halved, particularly due to the competition created by your offer. We also note that this offer has allowed you to value your customer portfolio, for example in electricity sales, customers benefiting from a price guarantee. What was the gain for your group from this marketing operation, particularly in gaining customers in the electricity sales sector?
Relatively limited: 50,000 customers today, so it's not extraordinary. For now, the French have difficulty making the connection 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. Independently, we wanted to make that link since TotalEnergies is not only an oil and gas company but also an electricity company, trying to tell our customers we can contribute to all your energies. We also launched an electricity offer where for 3 years customers can have a price guarantee 10% lower than the average public price in France. So that's the will to do both, but it's not yet completely proven. However, we have nearly 800,000 electricity subscribers who already benefit from the price guarantee. So we have a flow of 50,000 new ones, and 800,000 subscribers who understood that by having a card they can guarantee the price all year at less than 1.99 euros.
Regarding gasoline and diesel. We think we are retaining 800,000 customers through the joint offer—this is deliberate. A question: according to our calculations with the Flash mission, 80% of stations in France out of stock on diesel were TotalEnergies stations, although you represent 20% of stations. Your competitors accuse you of under-supplying your stations. First, the truth is essentially a marketing cost to prevent Parliament from taking the necessary measures, especially regarding the superprofits made by your group in the first quarter.
Our competitors need to make up their minds: either I'm gaining market share or I'm not supplying my stations voluntarily. We obviously, thanks to state support (since normally tankers cannot operate on weekends in France, we got special authorization), replenished. There was such a demand that some stations ran out. I myself faced the possibility of getting gas. So the teams worked hard everywhere in France, and I want to congratulate them. We did everything we could to supply our stations during the weekends with these special promotions.
Then profits: TotalEnergies profits rose 51% in Q1 2026 versus Q1 2025, net profit nearly 5 billion euros, dividend increased 6%. What are your forecasts for Q2?
It is likely Q2 will be higher than Q1 because the crisis continued in April, May, June. But I don't have all the results yet. I expect results to be higher than Q1, unless something goes wrong. The dividend is set once a year by the board. We pay quarterly installments of 91 euro cents, fixed for the year. It won't increase.
TotalEnergies distributes fuel in many countries, some with lower fuel taxes during the crisis. What is your view on measures in Spain, Poland, Austria, Italy?
We don't distribute gasoline in those countries. The only European country where we directly distribute fuel is Belgium. We sold all our networks in Germany, Netherlands, Italy because the European Parliament voted for a deep transformation of road transport towards electric vehicles by 2035. We anticipate a decline in oil markets in Europe, so we decided not to keep these activities. Instead, we build electric charging stations. So I have no comment on those countries' policies. On the substance, I am pleased that the French state was parsimonious in managing this crisis, because we cannot simultaneously complain about the public deficit and demand the state constantly intervene.
Last question: how will you position yourself in the coming months to ease the burden on our fellow citizens suffering from rising fuel prices, and not give the impression that this crisis is benefiting your group?
We will position ourselves the same way, maintaining the price caps. I feel oil markets will ease. We will replicate the downward movement faithfully. Another question we haven't addressed at executive committee level: having repositioned the brand as defending purchasing power, should we continue this positioning more aggressively in normal times or return to old practices? That debate is ongoing. My view: we should capitalize on strengthening the link between the French and our company.
