That's why I come back to what we did. We are the only oil company in the world to have applied this price cap mechanism. So receiving criticism when we are the only ones to have done that—I have trouble understanding it. Now, why do I say it's not necessarily? Look at the evolution between the falling international prices since the start of the week and how pump prices have moved. We are replicating the supply cost day after day. For diesel, the supply cost went from 1.90 to 1.85, and at the pump we went from 2.09 to 1.94. So we are passing on the decrease. The government has a monitoring tool. We will continue to pass on the decline. But compared to the start of the crisis, the supply cost was 1.65; today it's 1.85, so we can't be at 1.70 immediately. That's why we maintain our commitment: the price cap is still effective for 2,000 stations on gasoline, protecting purchasing power. For diesel, next weekend we'll apply 2.09 for 1,000 stations, but the good news is that 2,300 stations will already be below that. We're not setting a single price, just a cap.
Yes. On the criticism you received about the price cap, some came from other distributors who said the margin is only 2 to 3 cents, but also that this allowed you to gain market share. Do you have any data on that?
Gaining market share translates into higher volumes. Yes, I have data. For TotalEnergies, the price cap—who can I attribute it to? The more gasoline you sell at the pump, the more you sell, even though the cap is below cost. I remind you that it's my integrated chain that finances it. Volumes have increased by about 15% in our stations, sometimes 30% on weekends, causing queues. Meanwhile, the French market overall contracted by 10-15% because of high prices. So the French appreciated this purchasing power protection and came to TotalEnergies in greater numbers. That's good news for our company, which isn't known for cheap stations, but this repositioning satisfies me as CEO.
So more volume, plus 15%. I have one last question on prices. In late February and early March, it took two weeks for the price of gasoline and diesel to rise 20 to 40 cents per liter and settle around €2. Given the situation in the Middle East, everyone expects a clear easing. Can we expect pump prices to fall as quickly as they rose?
It depends on international prices. Again, crude is at $80, but refining margins haven't dropped yet. So for now, I'm at 95, we were at 115. The answer to your question is: it depends on international prices, and once again we will be transparent and pass on decreases as well as increases. That's our commitment. I receive a daily table showing supply costs and prices across networks, and I check every evening that we're on track. I have curves I can show you, but I can't pass them over. I think your rapporteur for the fuel flash mission asked us written questions, and we'll answer them.
Very well. Still on the question of markets and the risk of speculation, the Financial Times calculated that TotalEnergies made an exceptional profit of $1 billion in one month just by buying oil cargoes in March for delivery in May. On April 28, Total told the National Assembly—not you, but one of your representatives—twice that they didn't know where the press got that figure. The problem is that Total didn't provide any other numbers. So my question is simple: what profit did Total actually make on this operation, which can be characterized as trading and had little to do with supply issues or the war, but rather speculation?
First, 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 to the Strait of Hormuz. They deduced something might happen. They made a choice and bought oil, which other companies didn't do. They took a significant risk. What they hadn't seen was that the Strait could close in 2-3 days, and if you buy futures without physical delivery, you could lose money. Since we are an oil producer in Abu Dhabi, we had access to the Fujairah terminal and could take delivery. On that operation—which I don't call speculation but market observation and oil purchase—they made money. There were other operations that were losing at the same time because traders must balance their portfolios. This is a trading activity that many oil companies practice. When we published our first-quarter results, we were transparent in saying that oil trading results were excellent that quarter. They are about €2 billion per year, roughly 10% of the company's results. This quarter, instead of €500 million, they made about €500 million more. That won't repeat every quarter.
A small global question on this. You said yourself that you had very significant margins worldwide of €5 billion, up 51% in Q3. €500 million in France, if I understood correctly. This will apparently continue for at least a few months. We are in a situation where the cost of war weighs on everyone, on the French through purchasing power, on the national community, and we will have to cancel credits to compensate. Do you understand that when an entity like Total in France makes excess profits during this period, some people—including me—consider it normal that you contribute in some way to compensating for the cost of the war?
Again, we didn't declare the war. Nor did France, by the way. But TotalEnergies' taxation is set in an international framework. I trust that France is a state of law. Wait—excuse me, I'm not talking about taxation yet. I'm talking about everyone having to make efforts. The state will have to make efforts. The French are already making many efforts. So my question is: don't you think that among the various actors impacted by the war—and in your case you are impacted positively, the numbers show it—don't you find it normal that you might be asked for an exceptional contribution? But if you find a legal basis for an exceptional contribution, we will contribute. That's your decision. We have already made a voluntary contribution. Nothing forced us to cap pump prices. Absolutely nothing. We did it because I learned the lessons of 2022-2023 and thought it was responsible. You can say it's not enough, but I see that the French appreciated it. Since they appreciated it, we collectively decided to continue it as long as the war lasts. Everyone is free to consider whether what we did is sufficient or not. I think it is, and the division of roles was interesting. It wasn't up to TotalEnergies to decide which groups are most fragile. We decided a measure for all French people that usefully complemented what the government could decide. So my answer is: we will do what the national representation decides, within the rule of law. And again, TotalEnergies will pay much more tax in 2026 than in 2025, but we will pay it in the producing countries where we make most of our profits. In France, if results hold in Q2, Q3, and Q4, we will pay corporate income tax on profitable activities, including the surtax provided for by French law.
OK. I agree with you on one thing: it's not up to you to decide. It would have been up to the state to decide on a price freeze or a mechanism forcing you to contribute. I have one last question. I'll start with a disagreement. This isn't the first time you've answered about taxes paid in France by mixing social contributions and taxes. I won't insult you by thinking you confuse them—social contributions are deferred wages, not taxes. On taxation, it's clear that for years, relative to your revenue, you pay zero or ridiculously low corporate tax. I consider that abnormal. It could have been corrected by the pillar that won't see the light of day. I think there should be correction mechanisms based on revenue. But I have a question: you said Madame Patrier next to you said, 'We have no results in tax havens,' and you listed some. The problem is that the official list of tax havens doesn't match the list of countries with very privileged tax regimes, especially in Europe. So I'd like to know if you have subsidiaries in countries like Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands—all countries with very privileged tax regimes. And why is Switzerland completely absent from the 54 pages of your tax transparency report? Because the stated tax rate is one thing, but the implicit rate in Switzerland is considerably reduced.
The tax rate in Switzerland is 15%. We have done an exercise going beyond European obligations by publishing in this report all countries subject to European obligations, which doesn't cover all tax havens. We added some ourselves. I don't consider Switzerland a tax haven. Again, we have no problem being transparent on Switzerland to satisfy your request. Switzerland is aligned with the global minimum tax of 15%. In this report, you'll find 60-10 countries, including Luxembourg and Ireland where we have almost nothing. These countries represent 90% of the taxes we pay and 75% of profits. So we are transparent on 90% of taxes. We could aim for 100%. The famous 'rest of the world' represents 25% of profits with an average tax rate of 18%. Two main contributors are Switzerland and Singapore. We'll consider publishing those two countries in the coming years. But again, the state gives us publication obligations. We have exceeded them by 5-7 years. I haven't seen any EU or French text requiring us to publish taxes for a center like Switzerland or Singapore. I know we need to police ourselves. I'm being transparent with you today. Most of my CAC 40 colleagues are not happy that we published this report because they consider it reveals trade secrets and contest the merit of the tax reporting directive, which applies to European companies but not American or Chinese ones. We preceded the subject because we are often asked questions. So you have a very comprehensive report, and I've added elements today.
Thank you, Mr. Pouyanné. The questions from the rapporteur general.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and CEO, first I want to highlight that we are lucky in France to have a world-class company that is strategic, profitable, and resilient. If there have been direct effects at 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? Probably not. So we don't celebrate enough our ability to influence world affairs, and we shouldn't weaken the few tools we have. Now, I have two or three questions. First, a technical question unrelated to taxation. Mr. Chairman, I wrote to you about this. Suriname and Guyana have extraction activities. You did some tests in French Guiana that seem inconclusive. Do you consider that definitively there are no oil resources on national territory? Do you think future extraction techniques and their profitability mean we'll never get there? Should we forget about finding oil in a French department or region?
Sorry, the hearing is about taxation and results. We're straying quite far. I'd like not to open that up. Mr. Rapporteur, you wrote to me, I'll answer you in writing, but I don't want this to be an opportunity to widen the scope too much.
I'll repeat what I've already declared before the National Assembly. We found hydrocarbons in French Guiana on a well called Zaï, dating from 2013-2014, with reduced quantities—50 million barrels, far too little to develop in deep offshore. To develop an offshore field, you need 500-700 million barrels. We had one positive well. The company then drilled five appraisal wells, all negative—something we would never have done in any other country. We didn't find the extension. I think at the time we wanted to be sure we left nothing behind. So there were hydrocarbons in quantities too small to be commercial. The last well was drilled in 2019 before the laws forbade drilling. We went back to the west of the Guiana basin and found nothing. So if you ask me today, first, you're a scientist, so I won't say there are no hydrocarbons in Guiana—we found some in non-commercial quantities. But if you ask if TotalEnergies is ready to drill again in Guiana, the answer is no. I will not put TotalEnergies' money into drilling new exploration wells. We have already spent nearly €400 million for a negative result. That's the situation. I leave it to the national representation to decide whether prohibition laws are a good thing. I tend to think that without the prohibition law, the debate would be less present. Prohibition always gives the feeling that you want to hide things. I'm against prohibition laws—like alcohol prohibition in Chicago, people drank more. I think it's not a good idea to ban things because it generates bad ideas. But again, TotalEnergies' position is clear: we did the work, we may have been wrong, but we drilled a lot, so we will not drill in the Guiana basin even if the national representation authorized it again.
Yes, but it's far from today's topic. I'd like to... Please, it's far from today's topic, but since I wrote to you, I allowed myself to ask. Besides, you know Pierre Dac said 'Everything is in everything and vice versa.' Earlier you said—I noted this—if the law were changed to allow French companies to keep accounts in dollars, perhaps we would consider repatriating economic activity to France. That's an interesting lead. Do you have other such leads that would make you say, 'Yes, if the law evolved in this direction, TotalEnergies would probably repatriate other economic activities to the national territory'?
No, that's the main one. Thank you for the question and for noting it. I commit today to say it's simpler for us to manage subsidiaries in France, where we have a parent company and consolidate, than to manage companies in the Netherlands. There's no tax optimization in the Netherlands either, since they require real activity. So the answer is yes. That's the main lead I know of that would allow us to do that. I don't know any others from that perspective. Of course, in terms of investment in France, the situation is obvious—we're talking about locating legal activities. Investment in France is also linked to the French tax framework, which is relatively unstable. And to come back to our exchange about whether social contributions are compulsory levies, I had the feeling they are, given the state budgets. It's clear that today there are two obstacles: the cost of labor in other countries is high, and the fluctuating tax rates for large companies don't 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 personally expressed your desire to keep the listing on the Paris stock exchange, and that's valuable in the debate. However, what changes in the French regulatory and tax framework could—not you, but—lead TotalEnergies to abandon the Paris listing and keep only a US listing? In other words, are there red lines that would lead to the disappearance of the Paris exchange?
We will not leave the Paris exchange; that would be completely unreasonable. 90% of our shareholders are still located there. Why did we open a listing in New York? Because over the past five years, our shareholder base has changed profoundly. We had about 27% French institutional investors; now they are around 12%. We lost 15% of French institutional shareholders, while US institutional investors now represent 52%. So we accompanied the shift of energy and oil stocks to the US. Why? Because of a number of rules you parliamentarians vote on that set a 'responsible' investment framework—the SFDR directives debated in the European Parliament, the French government's decision to exclude TotalEnergies from responsible investment lists because of fossil fuels. All these decisions pushed French investors to consider it irresponsible to hold TotalEnergies shares. I'm the first to regret it. We spend our time explaining the opposite. So there is regulatory action to be taken. There is a debate in the European Parliament on whether a company that produces oil and gas can be considered a transition company like TotalEnergies, since even as we continue producing the oil and gas everyone needs—and we've been talking about fuel for three months—we invest €4 billion per year to build an electricity business. We went from 0% in 2020 to 10% of our sales and production in 2025, and will be at 20% in 2030. So we are investing in the transition, especially renewables, to qualify as a transition company. We'll see if the European Parliament debate allows us to be eligible for these shareholder funds. That debate is very important because it touches on notions of nationality and sovereignty.
So, decidedly. Thank you. Last question. When you look at the last 20 years and compare the CAC 40 and the Dow Jones, you see a striking observation: in Paris, a quarter of the companies have been renewed; in the US, half. Do you have an analysis, explanation, or comment on the low renewal rate of the largest companies in France? Is it linked to the regulatory framework, difficulty innovating? What is your analysis?
I think first that France is lucky to have very large companies that work well and are long-lasting, which is rather good in several sectors. We don't have, in France or Europe, a very vibrant technology sector, especially in digital. That's a real issue at the European level, not just French. Behind that, there are reasons you mentioned: innovation mechanisms, risk appetite, willingness to put capital into riskier activities. That's not really my subject, but I see two ways to answer. One positive: we have French companies that work well and are long-lasting. We should be happy about that, 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. And indeed, there is a lack of capital. The real question is why savings don't go into private technology companies. There is a whole field to reform. I've already said it's also linked to the fact that savings are attracted to French public debt, and there is less risk appetite. That relates to other regulations—you should ask our banker and insurer colleagues about Basel III and other rules. After the 2008 crisis, there was a divergence between the two sides of the Atlantic. Initially, the Americans were with us to better regulate finance, but they largely deregulated again while we Europeans heavily regulated the financial sector. That's why when there is a major reform like the Capital Markets Union, we can't just think that unlocking a few points will do it if we don't also unlock the regulation that constrains investment in companies, especially the Basel rules. I'm afraid we'll only go part of the way. But that's a question for my colleagues in the financial world.
I have the rapporteur general. Thank you. The rapporteur of the Flash Mission, Philippe Brun.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and CEO, thank you for being here today. We represent a France that has been living a real social drama since February 28. We represent a France that cannot sustainably live with gasoline or diesel at over €2 per liter. In our constituencies, especially rural ones where commutes are over 60 km, we see great difficulties that are only partially resolved by Total's commercial offers, given that nearly two-thirds of French people buy fuel at supermarkets and there are few Total stations in rural areas. The objective of this flash mission is to find solutions to keep prices reasonable. My first questions will be about how Total approaches the market as a player in a dominant position. I have before me your first-quarter 2026 press release, which didn't fail to make headlines. In it, you boast of 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 that phrase: 'capture the price increase.' What do you mean by that? How do your activities in the energy sector influence your fuel strategy?
Mr. Brun, first, we are not in a dominant position. We have 25% market share in French fuel distribution—that's not dominant. We have one refinery out of two in France. Fortunately, we still have them and kept them. So I don't consider us dominant. I understand what you're saying. We have a commitment to rural stations: we ensure that 90% of French people are within 15 minutes of a TotalEnergies station. I checked in your department: 94% of the population is within 15 minutes, 65% within 10 minutes. So the commitment holds. It's not perfect, but the French found the addresses of TotalEnergies stations during this period. To come back to your question: yes, there can be situations where prices rise and our facilities don't work. That's partly what happened in 2022. In 2022, we paid only a very low exceptional tax on refining because the Donges refinery was shut down and Normandy had strikes. So instead of paying €100-150 million, we paid €30 million. This year, I am pleased—and that comment in the press release was directed at TotalEnergies teams—that the plants are running. That's good.
That's what I call capturing the price increase. It's not always obvious. I'm not ashamed to say we should be proud of a company that can increase profits when the environment allows. No one complained when our results were negative in 2020. Our Q1 2026 results came mainly from production, not refining or trading. We voluntarily decided to share some of these exceptional results with French customers.
I will take you to my constituency; you will see that it is well more than 15 minutes from a Total station.
So the President asked you about the single-price operation and its cost to Total. You said it cost about 200 million euros. Is that a monthly figure or for the entire period? And when comparing that 200 million to your operating profit, how do you evaluate this effort in the group's overall finances?
Sorry, excuse me. That is a figure as of today, an estimate. Since the beginning, compared to what we spent in 2023, around 400 to 500 million euros over a longer period. We are in line with that spending. I am not comparing this effort to others; I look at it in the context of this market where we sought to protect French consumers.
Thank you. The Flash mission interviewed independent distributors who saw their market share decrease and their turnover halved due to the competition created by your offer. We also note that this offer allowed you to value your customer portfolio, for example in electricity sales. What was the gain for your group from this marketing operation, particularly in customer gains in electricity sales?
Relatively limited, 50,000 customers so far. French people have difficulty linking TotalEnergies as a fuel supplier and TotalEnergies as an electricity supplier. We have over 4 million customers in France, but we are still developing. We also launched an electricity offer guaranteeing a price 10% lower than the average public price for three years. So there is a desire to do both, but it is not yet fully proven. However, we already have 800,000 electricity subscribers who benefit from the price guarantee. By recovering a card, they can guarantee the price for a whole year at less than €1.99 on petrol and diesel. So we are also retaining those 800,000 customers through the joint offer.
This is deliberate on our part. I have a question about the stock-out rate at your stations. According to the Flash mission's calculations, 80% of stations in France that ran out of diesel were TotalEnergies stations, while you represent 20% of stations. Competitors accuse you of under-supplying your stations. This is essentially a marketing cost to prevent Parliament from taking necessary measures on the windfall profits made by your group in the first quarter.
Our competitors should decide: either I'm gaining market share or I'm deliberately not supplying. We obviously had the support of the state to resupply on weekends. There was such demand at our stations that some ran out. Our teams worked tirelessly across France to handle this influx. Competitors cannot accuse us of both gaining market share and doing marketing. We did everything we could.
So profits: TotalEnergies group profits increased 51% in Q1 2026 compared to Q1 2025, net profit was nearly €5 billion, and dividends increased 6%. What are your forecasts for the second quarter?
It is probable that the second quarter will be higher than the first since the crisis continued in April, May, June. I don't have all the results yet, but I expect higher results than Q1. Regarding the dividend, it is fixed once a year by the board at €0.91 per quarter. It will not increase this year.
TotalEnergies distributes fuel in many countries with reduced fuel taxation during the crisis. What is your view on measures in Spain, Poland, Austria, Italy that adopted lower fuel taxes at the pump?
We do not distribute petrol in those countries. The only European country where we directly distribute is Belgium, since we sold our networks in Germany, Netherlands, Italy because we anticipate the decline of oil markets in Europe due to the EU's 2035 zero-emission vehicle mandate. We are focusing on electric charging in those countries. So I have no comment on those countries' policies. I am glad the French state showed restraint in managing this crisis. Citizens cannot complain about public deficits while asking the state to constantly intervene. The state targeted public support, which seems adequate, but it's not for me to comment.
