Opening Bell and press conference: Descalzi at the New York Stock Exchange for 30 years ENI on Wa...

No, no, but I didn't talk about valuations.

The listing option always remains on the table. In the short term, I don't think so, because the difference compared to a few years ago is that we declared a growth plan that should bring the two companies together to 5.5 billion by 2030. There is a growth plan for renewables, customers, and biorefineries. I want to first see how it consolidates. We made a quality jump and have now pocketed about 6.2 billion in a year to fund these investments. First we need to consolidate this growth again, see the returns, and when we have stability and the ability to maintain these values, then we can talk about it. It's always on the table because it clearly brings significant added value and is something we clearly have in mind.

No. Otherwise I would have given it right away.

On renewables, let's say we have a different business model: we created companies that are able to be self-sufficient without incentives, without subsidies. For us it was a great opportunity because we needed to differentiate from oil so as not to always be tied to whatever happens in the market. And we verified this: in 2024-25 it was so, especially this year because we had growth. We reached 16 euros per share, we were at 11, so there is differentiation. We managed to grow, increase the buyback, increase the dividend, reduce debt. For me the transition must absolutely continue, but not in an exasperated and ideological way. We must manage to carry out a transition that creates returns, jobs, and without burdening utility bills or public debt. This is not a battle over who does more renewables, but over who manages to carry out the transition while creating value. In the United States we have nearly 2 gigawatts of renewables with long-term contracts. We continue to seek to satisfy today's demand and tomorrow's.

Fusion. On fusion: it had an important trigger in 2021 when CFS managed to find the superconductors, with our contribution, to contain plasma at high temperatures. Phase 1 is essentially complete from an infrastructure standpoint. In 2027 they will have to conduct the decisive test: achieving a Q greater than 1, meaning producing more energy than is consumed to create the fusion. CFS is already building the first commercial plant in Virginia, which should be operational in the early 2030s.

What Daniel Yergin wrote is still very valid: without energy there is no infrastructure, no medicine, no development, not even for artificial intelligence and hyperscale data centers. The limit we face is having affordable energy, because data and AI are growing incredibly. Right now data centers consume nearly 2% of global energy consumption, and by 2030 at least triple that is projected. Energy is absolutely essential—it remains what we need just as food is for human beings. As for what Lula said: I have no political affiliation, but it is clearly much better to invest in research, development, and positive things rather than wage war. This seems to me such an obvious statement that it is hard not to agree.

First of all, my dialogues are with my board—we are listed—so Eni's strategies are defined within Eni. Then there are conversations. On the addition concept, it is clearly very correct: the transition is additive. Those who thought the transition meant eliminating all sources through substitution did great harm to the transition, as all extreme things do. The transition has two legs: one leg of today, where fossil fuels are still at 82% (of which about 32% coal and 50% gas), and one future leg. When planning the future you need all the elements, you need to look at the past, see how much money you have, what technologies exist, who can invest. In Europe the fiscal margin for all countries either does not exist or is negative. The concept of substitution is wrong: the transition is additive. What needs to happen is for coal to disappear, for gas to decrease, and for new forms of energy to enter. Renewables alone cannot do it—that is the problem. On our side, in solar and wind we have reached 5.3 gigawatts, with nearly 2 gigawatts just here. We invested billions because we put them in a corporate structure that generates returns. On the investor side: over the past two years, our transition trajectory is no longer being questioned. Investors are interested in the development of Eni Plenitude, they see it is working, and this year they gave us about 6.2 billion in capital. When there is high volatility, investors look at the short term and want certainty on dividends and buybacks. This year we did very well, with a Total Shareholder Return of about 24-26%, first in the international sector, because we managed to increase production, reduce investments, reduce debt, and increase buybacks and dividends. It is not that Trump's arrival swept away the concept of the transition in investors' minds: for two years now they have been asking different things because volatility has taken over.

Yes, we talk about it constantly. On the euro-dollar: we have all our assets in dollars, so for us it is terrible—we lose hundreds of millions. And that is why this year's results are exceptional: just look at the third quarter where we beat all consensus, considering an absolutely unfavorable exchange rate. We had hundreds of millions directly due to the exchange rate. This is a direct impact on which we can do very little, honestly. On Venezuela: it is a problem because we are somewhat trapped by the success we had. We discovered enormous amounts of gas, but it goes to the domestic market, to civil society, to electricity production. We cannot stop it. The contract has an option to be paid in kind rather than in cash, with crude oil shipments that almost all went to the United States, to refineries. Trump blocked this. He blocked it for us and Repsol, but not for Chevron, which is somewhat more American than us. This obviously creates a huge problem for us because there are outstanding obligations. Yes, we are talking with the American administration, I have spoken directly with ministers—those I managed to meet—because at the last ADIPEC the American contingent was very strong, so we had the opportunity to talk. Let us see if we can find a solution. We are trying to convince the government to find a solution, to help us as they did under Trump 1, because we do not do additional gas activities for the Venezuelans—it is a very clear, linear, transparent matter. Right now the situation has gotten somewhat worse, so I do not know what the outcomes will be. We are observing it and living it with the utmost attention.

In Libya, we have been there through the last few years, through civil wars and great difficulty, because we produce gas and all of it goes to the country. Greenstream, our pipeline, sends a few billion to Italy—very little—and so we have become essential. We were the first to produce gas and sell it. This led Libya to promise to transition from coal to gas. They are extremely tied to this gas condition, and this has safeguarded our position, because whoever comes into government tries to preserve something that is essential for the population. There is no reason to be either optimistic or pessimistic. It would be better if the situation resolved itself, but from a risk mitigation standpoint on the projects we are developing, which are essentially gas projects, I would say we feel in a fairly secure and adequate situation, because we are helping them, we are investing, we are the sole investor in the country for something they need. I must say that Libya at all times has paid: we have never had outstanding obligations. They are always very punctual and structured in paying, which is important because it shows that when a country manages to identify a priority—I need gas to produce electricity, so it is a priority, I pay to have this gas—I would say that is already a sign of positivity.