Good evening everyone. Welcome to this new debate of the Mardis de l'ESS, organized in collaboration with Junior Conseil and in partnership with the financial group ODO BHF. We also thank our partner LCP, which broadcasts this debate on its YouTube channel. In researching you, Mr. Pouyanné, we discovered several nicknames, all more creative than the last: Papou, Pugnax, or even Shrek. But behind these affectionate nicknames lies an epic story. Faced with the epic of your life, would Aer have sung you as a destructive Titan or an heir to the gods? Unable to ask him, we, the grocers of the ESS, will try to paint your portrait. Happy is he who, like Patrick, has made a beautiful voyage. But when will you see again, alas, the chimney smoke of your little Norman village? In what season will you see the clos of your poor house in the small village where you were born in 1963? You began your ascent by leaving this gray land for the brighter regions of Bayonne, where you followed your father, a customs director. Still mortal among mortals, you devoted yourself to sport, choosing the sacred art of rugby. Your loyalty to the Section Paloise finds a particular echo today in the commitment of the TotalEnergies group, which has become the club's key partner. Proof that sporting passions and sponsorship choices sometimes meet on common ground. Yet it is not Apollo who guides you, but Athena, goddess of strategy. Your time at the Lycée Michel Montaigne in Bordeaux in preparatory class was the first step of a perilous journey for Patrick Pouyanné. Victorious in the Titanomachy of preparatory classes, you entered the ranks of the École Polytechnique as a conqueror. In this sanctuary, you were given the nickname Pugnax, a name worthy of your hard work, which still resonates in the beautiful mythical bar of X. You now walk in the footsteps of the greatest. Graduated from Polytechnique in 1986, you saw in the Corps des Mines the necessary stepping stone for your ascent to the rank of senior civil servant in administration and industry. Yet, like any young graduate, you wandered through the maze of first professional experiences, and your Ariadne's thread led you to Vico, a French chip manufacturer. You were apparently not convinced and took the path of large banks, which led you to the London branch of BNP. In search of your Ithaca, you set sail in 1989 for the public sector, dropping your bags at the Directorate General for Industry, Research, and Environment of Nord-Pas-de-Calais. A sudden passion for the environment seized you. For the moment, it was only a fleeting affair. Four years later, you became a technical advisor to Édouard Balladur, the perfect position to whisper in the ear of power. But your concern for the climate, your Penelope, soon missed you, and you found her arms again in 1995 as a technical advisor for environment and industry. Finally, you joined the cabinet of François Fillon, occupying not a fictional post but the role of Director of Posts and Technologies. You donned your winged sandals to become the messenger of Matignon. But suddenly, a siren named oil sang an enchanting song: 'Come, Patrick, come famous hero, you the glory of the Normans, stop your ship here and lend an ear to our accents.' Apparently your sailors had tied you poorly to Matignon. So, yielding to the call of the sirens, you immersed yourself totally and swam with energy toward your future. You joined your nymph, the oil company Aquitaine, and soon took the reins of the Angolan subsidiary as Secretary General. My dear audience, do not be mistaken: the ascent will be rough. The hour of Patrick's twelve labors has sounded. In 1999, under the Qatari sun, you tamed the hydra that was the exploration and production subsidiary. After the Total group absorbed Elf Aquitaine, you inherited in 2002 the management of its entrails: finance, economics, and IT. You then tackled your second labor with the determination of a Hercules facing the Augean stables. 2006 marked the prelude to your third labor: you stepped onto the soil of the Strategy, Growth, and Research directorate of the queen Total to retrieve the golden apples of the Garden of the Hesperides. 'The struggle itself toward the summits suffices to fill a man's heart,' it is said. Yet you were not satisfied. In 2006, you became a member of the group's executive committee, and in 2011, like Hercules tracking the Centaurs, you tamed chemistry and petrochemistry as one subdues two untamed beasts. But every hero has a dark side. Rumor has it that you wake your collaborators with salted emails at 3 a.m., annoyed by the quality of the mayonnaise on tuna sandwiches during the last investor meeting. Oh, assembled people, hold your breath, for the hour of apotheosis is near. The heavy doors of the temple of the bosses of the CAC 40 open. A new watchtower rises to the top of the Total M. In the summer of 2015, carried by the breath of the board of directors, you officially became the all-powerful Chairman and CEO of Total. Proud Icarus of modern times, you are now well-winged. Your ascent has been dazzling, but beware: flying too close to the sun, you burn your wings, especially with global warming. You persist in exploiting resources while trying to seal Pandora's box, ignoring the murmurs of protest already released. In 2021, you erected the EACOP, that gigantic steel pipeline intended to bleed the lands of Uganda and Tanzania. You invoke the salvation of African territory, but some see the specter of a neocolonialism that does not say its name. Faced with the dark omens of Jean-Jouzel, priest of the climate who conjures you to stifle the source of fossils, you dare only a sentence of iron: 'I respect the life of scientists, but there is real life,' you say. You are not afraid to go to the end of your words. In Total's books, in 2025, we find 20% investment in renewables to respect scientists, and all the rest of the investments in the nectar of the gods. Just as you dismiss prophets, you dismiss political recommendations. The Russo-Ukrainian conflict does not unduly disturb your business. Russia is a good customer. After all, supplying Russian planes with fuel did not prevent you from being decorated as an Officer of the Legion of Honor in 2023. However, the hardest of your labors remains: to abandon fossil fuels for green energies before your empire misses the boat of the decarbonized odyssey. The only catch: like King Midas, everything you touch turns to black gold. Faced with criticism, you maintain that the structure of Total is solid. Investments are divided into four Corinthian columns, one major one for the ecological transition. Yet this temple wobbles. In October 2025, the Paris Judicial Court ruled and convicted the group for deceptive commercial practices. Your green plea collapses before the law, reminding us that in the game of truth, even those who sit on the throne of Olympus cannot win all their trials. Unfortunately, we do not have hundreds of pages to devote to your epic. But beyond the numbers and the songs of sirens, one question remains: Will you be the builder who will have diverted the course of destiny, or the stubborn Atlas collapsing under the weight of a world he did not want to transform? The gods are silent, the scientists are alarmed, the Mardis question themselves, and our audience awaits your answers. Mr. Pouyanné, the floor is yours. Welcome to the Mardis de l'ESS. We wish you, dear Mr. Pouyanné, and our dear audience, an excellent debate.
Good evening, Mr. Pouyanné, and thank you for accepting our invitation to the Mardis de l'ESS. As tradition dictates, you have a short right of reply to the presentation that has just been made.
So, I'm going to kill a myth. The myth is about rugby. I like rugby, but I was very tall when I was young, so I wasn't very strong. And in junior high, we always played rugby, and little by little I hated ending up in the mud and puddles. Actually, my real sport was tennis. I played tennis. So there's an error. The rest is generally good. I'd say 19 out of 20.
Thank you. Thank you. I won't respond to all the provocations; I'll have the debate to answer. It was a bit less fun than eight years ago. You should look up your predecessors, if I may say so. It was more impertinent eight years ago, but I was younger too. I was less impressive, no doubt. Thank you.
Yes, this is the second time I've come to see you. See, I like the ESS. It turns out my wife studied here in part. You didn't see that. You didn't find that. So it's a good reason to come back. Thank you very much. If I come back in eight years, I might no longer be CEO of TotalEnergies.
Our exchange will be structured in three parts. We will begin with the Pouyanné method for leading TotalEnergies. Then we will focus on the growth strategy of TotalEnergies, and finally we will broaden to the issues of the energy sector, focusing on current geopolitical conflicts.
So, to begin with the Pouyanné method, that is, your management method for leading TotalEnergies in general, for leading a large company. As Adélie and Pierre reminded us, you started your career in the public administration before joining TotalEnergies and becoming Chairman and CEO in 2015. What are the three key principles for managing and leading more than 100,000 employees at TotalEnergies?
Oh, that's a strong start tonight. I would have preferred to end with these beautiful questions. But I think what employees expect—and I experienced it during the Covid crisis—from the boss, is to give clear directions when everything becomes complicated. So the first thing is to have clear ideas yourself, because the bandwidth is quite low. Even with my executive committee, they will pick up about 70% of what I say, and then it goes down further. So when you get to the field, you have to simplify and give clear axes, not contradictory ones. That's an art of management. It sounds easy to say 'cut costs and grow,' but you have to tell them what's more important: cut costs or grow. It depends on the period. So it requires having a clear discourse, which I think I try to have. I'm known for that. Second, leadership is also about showing a certain way, a way of behaving. I have a motto inherited from my father: 'Where there's a will, there's a way.' I constantly try to show my colleagues that when you want, you can. For example, last week there was a crisis with the company's accounts. We finalized the accounts today with the auditors and the CFO in my office. He said, 'Oh, it's not going well, they want us to do something.' I said, 'Wait, let's stay. If it's not good, we'll convince them otherwise.' We convinced them. So you always have to show engagement and set an example, because in the end, people watch what the boss does and follow suit. Third, my way of working is always the same: you have to face reality and force people to express themselves. That requires spending a lot of time listening and inviting them to speak. They instinctively think, 'If I tell him the truth, he might not be completely happy.' So you have to encourage them to have confidence that if they tell you things, you will listen and then make decisions that are not completely stupid.
Some press articles describe your management as quite rough, direct, and blunt. Is that, in your view, a condition for being a good manager?
No, everyone has their own style. But on that, I have a simple philosophy. If the board of directors chose me to lead the company, it's not to correct my defects at 55. It's because they considered that I had a certain number of qualities. I deeply believe that it's better to rely on your qualities at that level than to try to correct your defects. Defects could have been corrected before. So people knew who I was. No surprise. Rumors aside, it's true that I can be rude, but I can also be emotional. I'm a character; everyone is ambiguous. After 11 years of leading, if I were truly impossible, I think they would have fired me. But there is no perfect boss. Don't look for a model. Instead, understand your limits. Look in the mirror, know who you are, and then play on your qualities. And when you know you're going too far, know that there are limits to how you behave. So, be yourself, but with talent. Being yourself without talent can be serious. But generally, you don't become CEO then.
A good piece of advice for ESS students. Could you tell us an anecdote about the most difficult negotiation you had in your career?
I can't reveal secrets, but first, I find negotiations amusing—it's the fun part of my job. Recently, for example, we embarked on a deal with Daniel Křetínský to buy half of all PGE's gas plants in Europe. We found ourselves one evening in a hotel room negotiating. It was emotional on both sides. But I knew that in the end, both he and I wanted to do the deal. There were moments of tension because we were talking about a 10 billion euro operation. Every 100 million or billion mattered. But we found solutions because we wanted to do it. I think that when discussions are difficult, people get closer. I've always experienced that in my career. One of my first negotiations was in Qatar when I was a young general manager of the subsidiary. We had to negotiate with the authorities how much of the cake they would give us. The plants produced 5 million tons of LNG, and we had 500,000 tons extra. The negotiation started at 99% for Qatar, 1% for us. That was a high starting point. There were tense moments. At one point, they thought I was rude. In the end, I got 93-7, but it took a few crises. The minister complained to my boss that I was tough. Today, I am probably the best friend of the Qatari minister, who has also grown like me to become CEO. So we create bonds in these negotiations. Overcoming difficulties is a success for both parties, and there is a form of satisfaction, even enjoyment. So I enjoy doing that. I'm known in the oil industry as the CEO of Total who manages to negotiate a lot of things himself.
And if this authority structures your internal management, it also raises the question of your influence outside the company, particularly in the political and public sphere. With the approach of the municipal and presidential elections in 2027, some business leaders are taking positions and calling for votes. In a poll published by La Tribune Dimanche on February 1st, 77% of respondents think France would be better off if entrepreneurs were listened to more in public decisions. In your view, should a private company CEO influence the country's political life?
I don't know about influence. I discovered when I became CEO of TotalEnergies ten years ago that nothing I said was ever neutral. One day, as a young CEO, I was on a radio show and was asked what I thought about the state intervening in Renault's capital. I answered with common sense, saying I thought the state should let companies be managed by their bosses. I received a call from the then Minister of Economy, who later became President of the Republic, telling me to be careful what I said. I told him I said what I truly think. So I realized that everything I said could have an impact. To answer your question: today, yes, in France, it's complicated because it's not our role. My role is not to call to vote for X or Y. I will never do that. I have 100,000 employees, and I deeply respect that each is free. Among my 35,000 employees in France, they must be representative of French society. So it's out of the question for me to take a political stance. However, a business leader, as I sometimes tend to do, can intervene in the public debate on economic matters, which I know. I won't enter political debates, but I can explain how I make investment decisions, how there is competition between countries, and that even as a French boss, I have to look at what's happening and that can influence investment choices. I think we need to say those things. I see in polls that more and more French people don't trust politicians, which is a shame because they are the leaders of democracy, and they turn to business leaders as compasses. What we must avoid is falling into political correctness. On the contrary, we have a voice to say things simply. The parliamentary budget debate was surreal, with so many economic nonsense. So we need to intervene because I wouldn't want the country to sink into something like 1981 again. It took 30 years to recover. We must avoid policies that are totally adverse to production. To create wealth, you need to produce. That means companies and people working. So we need to share simple messages, and the voice of business leaders can help. That said, being a politician is a profession, not mine. I respect that finding consensus in a fragmented parliament is complicated. That's not my job. But I think we must contribute to keeping our feet on the ground.
Do you have the right to express your personal opinions with a slightly offbeat perspective, or must you necessarily speak for the company?
When I speak, I speak in my own name and based on what I believe. People who know me know that I am relatively authentic in that regard. That's what journalists like. But that doesn't mean my brain doesn't work and I'll say things contrary to my company. I combine them. When you are CEO, you live for the company. It's very present. You represent it, embody it, you live for it. But you love it; it's not a burden. It's a great privilege to be CEO of TotalEnergies. So yes, that influences everything you do, but that doesn't mean I won't express myself. When I recently said that business leaders should engage in dialogue with all political parties in a democracy, it was more the citizen Patrick Pouyanné speaking than the CEO of TotalEnergies.
Speaking of that, in an interview granted to La Tribune in early January, you called for dialogue with the extremes. How do you concretely go about establishing a fruitful dialogue?
What I said is that it's not up to the elites to decide what is good or bad. I think we're on the wrong track. The more elites decide what is bad, the more we push French people to look at extremes. I simply said that when I hear the debates in parliament, I'm worried about the paths the country might take if certain parties came to power. It's not for me to decide; the French will decide. So I think it's time not to give the impression that we ostracize them, because that only makes things worse. Instead, we should have a demanding dialogue. I suggested that it be done collectively by employer organizations, rather than individually. There's currently a game in the media to see which boss has met Marine Le Pen or Jordan Bardella, as if there were a witch hunt. That's just not possible. I claim the freedom to meet anyone. I tried to answer that interview by saying that. Since then, I've never been asked again if I've met them. I think we need to move toward a more normal world, which doesn't mean that the citizen will vote for either extreme. It simply means that we must contribute. For TotalEnergies, I also speak as CEO: I don't want to be nationalized one day by people with strange ideas.
The credibility and environmental commitment of large companies also rest on the involvement of their leaders in collective frameworks. You are CEO of TotalEnergies, and since June 2025, you are Vice President of the Association Entreprises pour l'Environnement. Does your engagement in these bodies, like Entreprises pour l'Environnement, stem from an internal conviction about climate change, a personal conviction, a company conviction, or a governance and institutional representation logic?
No, your information is wrong because I actually chaired Entreprises pour l'Environnement as of 2025. As your colleague said in my background, I started working on environmental issues early on. I even participated in the first COP in Berlin as a technical advisor to the prime minister, in the French delegation. So these issues have always interested me. Some say it's not true, but it is. Personally, I have always been interested in the subject. I am constantly looking for ways to progress. If I got involved in Entreprises pour l'Environnement and accepted the presidency—which was not obligatory and was more risky than beneficial—it was to send a strong internal signal. At that time, we had decided to change Total's strategy to become TotalEnergies, moving more into electricity and renewables, and to promote sustainable development in the company. By doing that, I sent a strong signal that this was important to me. I also made sure that within the association, we created working groups across different functions—legal, HR, communications—to share experiences on how to progress on sustainable development. So it was an internal signal. I also gave time to the association to do my best. It forces you to reflect. For example, we engaged in studies on what a net-zero France by 2050 would mean and what we need to do by 2030. That forces reflection. So it was an engagement that was coherent with a progress approach for the company and for myself.
You provide a wonderful transition to move to the second part on the growth strategy of TotalEnergies. Since 2005, you have invested massively in renewable energies, buying many companies and industrializing your business unit GRP (gas, renewables, power). You now devote a third of your investments, that is, 5 billion euros per year, to this. Your goal is to reach 100 GW of installed capacity worldwide by 2030. Why such a change of course?
Let me dive into the energy world and climate. Honestly, if someone had told me in 2015, when I became CEO, that I would one day change the company's name and convince the board to build an electricity business, I wouldn't have signed up. It wasn't clear at all. But 2015 was the time of the Paris Agreement, and we entered a process where we asked ourselves many questions. Total was a company whose strategy was driven by supply. We looked for oil, and when you find it, you put it on the global market and are sure to find customers. You don't think much about demand. The same for natural gas. But with the Paris Agreement, we suddenly wondered: is this demand necessarily there? For 20 years, I had lived with the idea that oil demand grows. It still grows, but we started talking about electric vehicles and technologies. So we began looking at the world from the demand side. In all scenarios, the energy that grows is electricity, and significantly. So we asked ourselves: should we leave the company on oil and gas markets that may not grow by 2030-2040? Given that energy is long-term, where should we start moving? I could have been very comfortable staying in my shoes and continuing with oil and gas. But the most complicated decision I ever made—it was a negotiation with myself—was whether to diversify or not. It wasn't a sure thing because electricity is a different type of energy. There were two motivations. One: we can make electricity from gas, so there was an economic logic to extend the gas value chain. The other: we needed to enter decarbonization. A deep motivation was my employees. One day, I had lunch with young drillers who asked, 'What will we do in 10 years?' My obvious answer was 'You'll continue drilling.' But that question made me think. If my collaborators are questioning their future, we need to move. When I announced that Total would become TotalEnergies and that we would do other energies, especially renewable electricity, that question disappeared because we gave a future to all our employees. Not all will do renewables immediately, but we gave them a future. Internal surveys saw support for the strategy jump from 65-70% to over 80%. I did it largely for them, because in the end, it's the men and women who work every day that make the company successful. So we took the step to diversify into electricity and renewables. I told the board: if we do it, we must do it big. We're not going to have just three solar farms as an alibi. Given the size of the company, we need to aim for electricity and renewables to represent 20% of the energy we produce by 2030. We started from zero, and now we are at...
We're halfway through the transformation, we've already done 10%. It's not simple because you discover things every day. When you diversify, you can make mistakes. We bought many companies, not all exactly what we wanted, but we have significant financial means. To make it work, I have to continue oil and gas. There's a contradiction with stakeholders: he does renewables but continues oil and gas. I don't have a magic wand. To finance my renewables and electricity that aren't yet profitable, I need to continue oil and gas which generate cash. That's the DNA of the company. So we have a strategy of adding consistently, and it works. I was a bit long but I needed to explain the story.
And specifically regarding that, in May 2020, you announced setting the goal for TotalEnergies to be climate neutral by 2050. So how are you going to achieve that goal?
No, you're reducing what I said. It's not 2020, it's 2021. We said we would achieve it together with society. We cannot dissociate. We will grow low-carbon energy. We measure the carbon content of our energy products compared to 2015. We've achieved -18% in 10 years. The goal is -25% by 2030 and continue. We also work with clients to sell less carbon products, but they are more expensive. We need public policies. Look at Stellantis: they announced they are going too fast on electric cars because customers don't want to buy them because they are too expensive. We have a goal and have described what the company could be in 2050: 50% electricity, 25% decarbonized fuels, and still some oil and gas. Not totally neutral but a positive actor. The transition will take time. The debate with Jean Jouzel: he says scientifically we need to act now, but 80% of French people say they want sustainable energy but are not ready to pay more. The difficulty is making energy sustainable, affordable, and reliable.
So you present TotalEnergies as a multi-energy company, highlighting your record investments in solar and wind. But your hydrocarbon production, as you just said, continues to grow. So ultimately, by developing renewable projects without reducing your fossil production, you have become a partially green company but you are not yet greening your overall balance sheet.
Of course we will get there. Investments are actually 25-30%. Energy is long-term. I can't transform the company with a magic wand. Why continue to develop gas and oil? Because demand continues to grow, there are 6 billion people who need more energy. The idea is to stabilize oil, let gas grow because it complements renewables, and continue to grow renewables. We have a goal of 35 GW renewable capacity by 2025, we will be at 34, so almost there. We will reach 20% by 2030. We also need to convince shareholders. If you have good results, they leave you alone. Look at BP: they went faster and lost their job and are backtracking. So it's about finding the right ridge line to be a positive contributor to transition while maintaining economic balance.
And how do you arbitrate between the wishes of shareholders and your climate conviction?
Again, we arbitrate because we consider our strategy is good, it delivers results. Today we have a renewable electricity sector that will make 2.5-2.6 billion, which we'll read tomorrow, with 10% return on capital employed, and within a year I think it will start contributing to dividends. So the way is to be a bit stubborn, believe in your strategy, argue it, and let the facts and results show you are on the right track. That's how we do it.
So what do you answer to shareholders who want profitability right away?
But they have it in the short term. They have it? Yes, it's true they have it. If you buy TotalEnergies shares, it yields 5.5%. The dividend has never decreased in 40 years. Tomorrow we will announce it will grow again. So they have it. But again, the two must be compatible. There is no incompatibility because the art of management is to satisfy both legitimate short-term objectives. If I told them, 'Wait, I'm going to diversify into something I don't know, but for 5 years I ask you to leave me alone with no dividend,' you'll see if they applaud me. I'm sure I would say it, but I would also lose my job and we wouldn't implement the strategy. So if we are serious, we must make short-term compatible with medium-long term vision. And there, you have to be obstinate. And for now, among all the oil companies that said in 2020 they would do renewables, only we continue, because we were criticized but we said we will continue to produce oil and gas to make it all compatible.
We have a very good case study called the Carrefour Danone partnership. They told us that 25% of the variable compensation of senior executives at Danone and Carrefour is linked to achieving CSR and sustainable development objectives. So, to achieve these greenhouse gas reduction targets at TotalEnergies, is your compensation and that of the main executives indexed to your CSR results?
Yes, it's 20% because beyond 20, shareholders don't like it because they have difficulty qualifying if the objectives are hard or soft. But we have done it for a long time, and it's throughout the company, not just top executives. In 2020 there was a real change: we explained to all managers, including producers in Angola and refiners in Germany, that they are now judged on two criteria: production and emissions, and both became equivalent KPIs. When you change the criteria, people act accordingly. They didn't fully believe it at first, but at the end of the year when they saw it was true, it worked. Engineers found many good ideas to reduce emissions. In 5 years, emissions from oil and gas activities dropped about 40%, with many low-hanging fruits. We set a budget and told them to avoid anything over $100 per ton of carbon. Virtue can work if you direct it. The first five years of my mandate were about cutting costs because oil was $50, now it's about emissions.
So you are highlighting all the efforts made by TotalEnergies to reduce your emissions. Yet on October 23, 2025, TotalEnergies was convicted by French justice for greenwashing and deceptive commercial practices. How do you understand this gap between your announcements, the reality of your actions, and society's perception?
You need to read the judgment. The judgment satisfied us because contrary to what the plaintiffs said, the judge did not go into that territory. He looked at a website for customers and asked us to remove three paragraphs describing the ambition of carbon neutrality together with society, saying it's not false but not comprehensible for the average consumer. We removed them and didn't appeal because we are honest people. The judge didn't follow all the demands that our communication was false. On the subject, there is reflection on how to be more precise about the ambition. I take it as a way to better express what we want to do. So we were convicted, but it wasn't very serious. The question is how to bounce back.
And so how did you bounce back? Did you make changes or adjustments?
We are discussing, but that's up to the board. In 2020-21 everyone talked about net zero, but things have evolved. In 2025, scientists say 1.5°C is out of reach. That doesn't mean give up. The question is whether we can claim net zero if scientists say it's not possible. Also, Europe has given a definition of net zero, and it's complicated to be fully within that definition. So there is a legal protection issue. The framework will have to change. But the strategy will not change: continue to develop renewable electricity to decarbonize our mix and meet our objectives.
And regarding that, don't you have a deadline from which you say if it's not profitable, we stop?
No, it's profitable. It makes 10% return. I mean, my natural gas business is as profitable as my renewable electricity business today.
But solar is necessarily less profitable than oil. Right.
No, it's not. Wait, it's different. Why necessarily? Where did you get that? In which book? It's the vox populi of bankers? Of the financial world? The internal rate of return of wind projects... No, first of all, solar means nothing. A solar electron has zero value. An intermittent electron that works only 8 hours a day, nobody wants it. So in itself, it's a product that doesn't exist. And that's exactly the strategy of TotalEnergies: it's not just about doing solar renewable, it's a means to produce electricity. And we combine it with wind. Wind blows at night, often more at night than during the day. We combine it with gas plants. What we want is to produce electricity, and the whole strategy of TotalEnergies is not just renewable. It's renewables, batteries because storage is better, gas plants, trading, having customers, the whole value chain. And what I ask to be judged on is not just the renewable business, but whether our complete electricity business is profitable, and that is profitable. So yes, but why is solar considered... today solar developers in France, what do they do? They go to the state to get contracts that guarantee their revenues regardless of the electricity market. Why would you want the state to give them 12% return? Fortunately, it only gives 6 or 7, it's still public money. And maybe it's time to change the model. Today we know how to do market solar. We can face electricity if we combine with batteries. So in my opinion, there is a whole paradigm, but today in the US, for example, we invest in solar, it wouldn't occur to me because there is no revenue guarantee from the US government; what the US government gives us is accelerated tax depreciation for renewables. And the result is that it wouldn't occur to build a solar farm without putting a battery next to it, otherwise I would end up in a market where the price is negative when all solar farms operate at the same time, so it's more virtuous from that point of view. It forces me to think completely, and with that I achieve good returns. So solar alone, yes, solar subsidized by a state as infrastructure, that is indeed not very profitable, but it's not the same job as producing and distributing energy.
If there are associations that have denounced you for greenwashing and deceptive commercial practices, others are interested in your projects abroad. During your visit to Mozambique on Thursday, January 29, you formalized the relaunch of the mega gas project Mozambique LNG, suspended since 2021 after a jihadist attack. Many media and personalities have long denounced this project because it causes massive population displacements in the Afungi peninsula and threatens fragile ecosystems. In this investigative report published in June 2020, the NGO Friends of the Earth mentions forced displacements and derisory financial compensation. How do you justify this type of project in contexts of security tension and tension on the rights of local populations?
Because what Friends of the Earth says is not necessarily the truth. That's what leads your question. We force no one to move. It's not hundreds of thousands. There was an industrial zone decided by the Mozambican state, with about 2000 people maybe 1000, and we rebuilt villages, relocated them, negotiated respecting customary rights. I commissioned a mission from academic Jean-Christophe Rufin, who made a public report saying there were good things but also suggested improvements. I don't feel we were brutal. My teams respect. The company has a DNA of respect from working in many countries. It's easy to caricature. Friends of the Earth want to stop fossil fuels, so they use human rights as a more sensitive cord to convince that the company is on the wrong track. We take it seriously and ask third parties to look at it.
Precisely, regarding these jobs created on a similar subject, EACOP, the East African Crude Oil Pipeline. The main argument put forward by you and TotalEnergies in general is that you create a large number of jobs in these countries and that you revitalize their economy. But isn't this ultimately a lever of economic pressure on these countries, allowing you to carry out expropriations and install your activities, sometimes in natural parks?
