Ladies and gentlemen, it's time to start now. Welcome to TOTAL 2012 Results and Outlook. I'd like to welcome also those of you who are joining us via webcast. A few reminders before we start in case of emergency you have two exit door in this room, on the left of the room, also back and a request for everyone, if you could keep your electronic device on silent mode. Today we'll have presentation that will be followed by a Q&A session. Again thank you for your attention. Welcome and Christophe, the floor is yours.

Before I start I mean, very pleased to be back in this room, if you remember we were there before and then the floor fell not unusual and he’s got and unfortunately we don't like when the sky falls on our head, certainly following the good work. Mr. Patrick Patrick de La Chevardière: Okay, good afternoon, everyone. Thank you, Margerie, (inaudible) We presents our 2012 results and I will come back afterwards to summarize what we call the outlook, but first I will make some brief comments sort of introduction. Compared to a year ago, the worldwide economic situation is improving and this creates a better environment for TOTAL. The market in terms of oil prices has been relatively stable and well above $100 per barrel for more than three years now. Looking at 2012, despite the unexpected challenges we faced in UK and in Algeria and in Yemen, the Group delivered strong and competitive results. So I can say, I’m proud of our many accomplishments for the year. For example, in the upstream, we started up six new projects and made significant discoveries in Argentina, Norway, Nigeria, and in the Gulf of Mexico, I would say a plus. In the downstream, our marketing activities remain robust. The Normandy upgrade was completed and we are on track with Jubail startup. We reduced our hearing, strengthened the balance sheet, and increased the dividend which helped to give us for 2012 the best TOTAL shareholders return of the super majors. What are we doing now? Our past-forward is clear and we are focusing on execution. We are committed to delivery on time and in budgets, the portfolio of more than 20 high quality projects. We are moving fast with our $15 billion to $20 billion asset sale program. We have an exciting…

Okay, thank you, Patrick. It’s good you ended with investment, because I would like to say that without investment there is no cash and no profit. And especially when those investments are well controlled and definitely profitable, while that is the way you build the future of dynamic company. So the outlook; outlook I like to try to move to slide, so it means that when there is recent change, but finally is impact on the what we call fundamentals is limited. What is changing you know, new production of (inaudible) in U.S. given more production of shale gas, all of this is I think an impact of course, on the U.S. especially on North America as a whole. But globally at the world level, we still remain I would say not only under control, but with limited impact on our view of the long-term. You cannot have a vision, you cannot have a strategy as a group without having to tell your investors what are your views on price of energy. Here, to make it short, Patrick told you that 2011, 2012 it was almost flat, average at $111 per barrel for oil. Today, we are $120. We definitely consider in TOTAL that to launch our projects to make budgets and plan is too high and we need to be more conservative, so we are still using the $100 per barrel and even less when we consider that Total might be short and maybe little bit more risky. In that case, we use the $80 per barrel, but otherwise we don’t see any reason to change this forecast when we see the result of all of those changes on the fundamentals. Fundamentals are clear, lot of resources much more than we saw, which is good news for our energy…

We have Peter Hutton from RBC. Peter Hutton – RBC Capital Markets: Just two quick questions…

Wait a moment. Ladies and gentlemen, for the Q&A, once given the go ahead by Christophe, I will ask you if you not mind to stand up to present yourself and please restrict yourself to one question in order to give the opportunity to your colleague to participate, okay? Sorry for that.

Sorry again, sorry. Peter Hutton from RBC. Peter Hutton – RBC Capital Markets: And just a definitional questions on the cash flow guidance that you gave on page 25. Can I just check what exchange rate you are using, is it 1.3? Because when I'm looking at the average 2012 to 2014, it looks like about $28 billion average, so about $21.5 billion, 22 in euros, which it looks around flat from where you were in 2012 over the remaining two years in that period. So just questioning what the exchange rate is and also I note that last year was a $110 Brent and now you are using $100 Brent, what’s the kind of sensitivity of that extra $10 on Brent? Patrick de La Chevardière: We use 1.3 euro/dollar exchange rate. For our project, we use two oil price scenario, the $80 per barrel scenario for short plateau, the $100 per barrel scenario for long plateau. That’s basically the main sensitivity we use to access our project. The sensitivity for $10 per barrel for our cash flow is $1.7 billion of cash flows.

On the top of the euro/dollar rates as a limited impact on our accounts question for the €1, what you know that our dollars accounts will be much more reflecting the situation of the company. The euro/dollar rates has an impact on refining and for all activities we saw in Europe, so it’s was mainly Downstream. But that said that in Upstream, the impact of the euro/dollar is really, really limited to, let’s say, except from taking the dollar into euro. Patrick de La Chevardière: Yeah, one can ask that the Brent sensitivity in 3Q because of taxes. Iain Reid – Jefferies: Hi, this is Iain Reid from Jefferies. Christophe, couple of questions please, you don’t talk much about the Canadian oil sands mining projects anymore, and also Uganda two projects, which are obviously got some challenges. Could you explain, where you think the challenges are from real point of view and what sort of volumes you are expecting from those two in your 2017 target? And kind of related question in Nigeria, Egina which is also been delayed in terms of FID, is that really a kind of project management issue or is there any influence of the PIB on your decision making there?

On Canada and Uganda I mean it’s not that I want to avoid it, we are working hard with this, because this is probably the easiest part of portfolio, not only in terms of environment, but also in terms of cost. So we have been as you know working largely with Suncor to see the synergies between all two groups and to in a way rejoin the development of Fort Hills and Joslyn that’s underway. As you probably know, there are discussions on what we should do or not do with the upgrade, we wanted to develop, which is reserve, but sometimes it’s important to take the time to keep your cost under control and to make sure that you are taking the right decision. Things have changed when I said the globally the fundamentals have not changed, well they have changed in North America as I said and not only for the price of oil, WTI versus Brent, but also with the fact that bringing new additional condensate from States to Canada, it’s changing the probably the environment, and due to this some aspects have to be reviewed, but at the same time it’s still part of our production by 2017, so we have delayed it, it’s part of our also forecast, so it is already included, I mean the delay, but what’s important is to see the existing production moving along that’s the case of our project reserve ConocoPhillips and for the rest it will take a little bit of time, but when we talk about the potential development of long-term plateau after 2017, definitely you’ll find Canada, and I hope at that time, based on the system all way of developing those reserves, which as you know, today are at cost per barrel, which is not far off $90 per barrel. So it’s first making sure that we are not making any mistakes, but again, it’s part of our long-term reserves. So we will discuss it on a regular basis, but there is nothing to eye on that, you talked about Uganda too now? Iain Reid – Jefferies: Yeah.

Well, on Uganda, it’s a little bit different, because it’s not heavy oil even it’s flexi, but that’s not the same, well the discussions today are much forward with the government, so everything is ready to start, but there is still discussing at the government level, and between the parliament and the government on what should be the development of a refinery, you know the subject, and we said very clearly to the authorities that if the outlook of the production of Uganda is refinery in land, I mean there will be no projects. So I can’t be more transparent than to say if we cannot achieve to have a pipe to be able to export the production to the seas through Kenya or Tanzania, but most probably Kenya is project, I mean will be – I don’t know we might have to consider of what we do, no pipe, no project. Today, we still are waiting for getting the approval of the pipe.

(Question Inaudible)

Sorry.

(Inaudible)

Egina. Well, Egina is going to be starting very soon. I mean the last question is on the tendering of the EPC contract between two Koreans company and I want to add – the sales is classical in our operation. We have now reached an agreement with the authorities, so the announcement of the FID is really a question of not much less. This could be first and then… Lydia Rainforth – Barclays Capital: Thank you. Lydia Rainforth from Barclays. My question comes from cash flow, if I could. So if I just following up the earlier question on the cash flow level, it does looks like the average $32 billion to $33 billion you was talking about the 35% for pay that you are gaining quite a bit in cash flow from 2012 level, how comfortable are you that is actually achievable with the production levels that you have? And then secondly just picking up, Christophe you said about being a dollar company, and which is around the dividend and that is not in euro terms, is there any consideration actually assessing that in dollar term?

I can answer with the cash flow, yes, we are comfortable with the cash flow break for 2012 to 2014. We show into that our net investment was maintained at $22 million level, and we will continue and maintain it. And as I was mentioning in my presentation, the sale of asset is definitely part of our program. The dividend and the value of course, is a further question. Patrick de La Chevardière: This is – because it gives us a chance to talk for hours on something which we cannot predict, because I mean definitely the dividend is still and has to be assessed in euro, because we are a French company. So we have no right to say dollar dividend. And then it’s true that when you receive a dividend, you might have plus or minus depending on the euro dollar rate, so this is why we try to tell our investors we give you an advance date when, I mean you will be receiving your dividend in dollars. You know, that it’s in euro, you know in advance the amount which will be paid by the company. So try to find solution if you want to avoid any chance risk to cover the dividend. But I have no way for the time being of telling you that we could make it a dollar dividend, it’s not legal. Sometime we try to improve things in making it in a quarterly basis. So it helps for the – I would say, U.S. investors or those who are using dollar, also out there, currency to predict everything, because it’s smaller amount and is definitely based on shorter than being just on a year basis. But again I’m always very happy when I see that you receive more in dollars than you should because of the improvement of the euro, which is the case today. But it’s not the case, so for the time being no change we can escape from the euro dividend. But we like to do what we don’t do it anymore. I remember we used to say when it was good to say that the dividend will increase in safe through the dollar or euro rate. We are making as we see, it’s an important increase, we don’t do this anymore. So 3.5% increase in euro. Irene Himona – Societe Generale: Thank you. Irene Himona of Societe Generale, Chris you referred to the 2017 target of 3 million barrels a day as a capacity target. Of course this is an industry where things like Yemen and [Gorgon] can undo happening. So I just wanted to clarify, is the 3% targeted growth to 2015 capacity or a production target, and if it is production growth, then what sort of capacity utilization, do you internally assume, in terms of contingencies? Thank you.

Thank you. It helps to give additional explanation. That’s why we’re splitting if I could say this. The period in 2015 and then 2017, the 3 million barrels per day capacity is 2017. So looking at all the pipeline of new project coming on stream and those projects are delivering the production. Those project are part of the investment if we are talking about today, and those are going to bring the additional cash to the Company. Now it’s true that it’s difficult to predict what’s happening in Yemen, even if we think the situation is improving there. I mean recently two attack there have been stopped by the army before they had any damage on the pipe. So we hope that we’re now entering into a new era well cross fingers. But it’s definitely not part of the capacities as you can imagine. For 2015 where we have this 3% increase that is based on production, now I mean if there is some major events stopping yet, it will be stopped, but the impact is not the same, but not bringing production from new projects. I would insist to say, what counts are those new projects because that those on which we are investing, so it’s important that they deliver the growth and value. But when we say and you know this I’ve been discussing this often with you that we first replaced our production which is roughly 900 million barrels equivalent per year. I mean that’s already new production. So the decline when we face it is with new production, new investment and new value. So in fact the actual production doesn’t start from the level you had the year before, start including the decline and we are today capable to reduce the decline. Yes, the 3% average…

You mean after 2017? Alexandra Vermesch – Exane BNP Paribas SA: No your target is 2015, so . . .

Our priority today is – there is no priority, I mean the company has its long-term plan. We cannot change it every day, so we have our investment as you call them organic then divestment, that's investment based on which we are very strict, and we keep that at $22 billion, and that's the commitment of the Company and proved to be realistic, then we have our strategy on small policy on dividend, we increased the dividend by 3.5%. We have a payout, which is just below 44% in 2012, which gave us certain flexibility on the average on the long-term, which is 50%. So the priority is to do everything, I mean I cannot say for everything is to pay dividend and not doing investment, definitely I mean if we do provide the Company, which means our shareholders with good projects, well, they got the return to pay additional dividend and when you see the period 2015, 2017, you see that there is an additional cash on the top of the $7 billion, which represent the level of the total dividend. What will be at that time, the usual those “Additional Cash Flow”, but I don’t like the word additional cash flow. It’s not additional is the cash flow available, so what you do is it, well you really reduce your gearing for your increased dividend or you do both, or you think about something nice, what I mean I cannot say even this, when he said, what is he having in mind, nothing at all or any growth for the time being absolutely enough to cover our pleasure to deliver growth in profitable way to those shareholders, but no priority, I could say in a way that the priority are first salaries, we need to pay your employees, especially the one of Patrick is very stingy, but we start joking on this. Patrick de La Chevardière: I’ waiting to 16…

Let’s wait.

But seriously, I mean dividend and investment are the same priority, and I have to be leaving together, but I will tell you that I will pay dividend result investment and the opposite. We have to prove that, we have the cash for delivering the two, and when you see the gearing at 21 at Franklin, I mean it’s difficult to consider that the Group is missing any concerns about it’s flexibility to cover, I mean even things which to that could be considered as in our view not doable, I’m talking about a full drop on oil price, maybe you never know, you cannot predict. We are in a world which is becoming more and more volatile, but at the same time, when you look at the assumptions, well it’s difficult also to see a certain people that are going to see that the barrel might be back one day at $75, I don’t know what, well for the time being it’s more than $110, it’s $120, we don’t take it as for granted, but at least where it is, so before looking about $75, let’s enjoy the $120 and be optimistic. Martijn P. Rats – Morgan Stanley & Co. International: Hi, all, it’s Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley. I just wanted to ask you brief two questions. In terms of the improvement in the guidance for operating cash flow that you are thinking at, what share of that is coming from the downstream, particularly with the Gabon refinery come on stream, is there anyway sort of giving an order of magnitude. I know that you have quantified the improvement and return on capital employed, but in terms of additional cash flow, something sort of an indication would be helpful. Second question I want to ask is about the macro outlook and where you have a bullish view on all our markets. At the same time over the last couple of months we’ve seen various forecasts at EIA, OPEC, the BP Energy outlook which at least maybe not between now and 2013, but at least over the next couple of years we're calling for a much more significant buildings fair capacity decline in OPEC. Between your internal forecast and those forecast, where would you see the difference that sort of gives you the confidence that’s fair capacity build will not happen or at least not to the same extent it is in Iraq or it is somewhere else, any comments to that would be much appreciated?

Well, I said that we are bullish because when we use 180 of the price is 120, if you call that bullish, I don’t know what it means, that’s the opposite and its the time where we deciding TOTAL to be even more drastic with our teams to say don't forget that 104 and don't be too much focusing on the price today because this might sustainable at that level. If the time where the price go to 120, okay, can I say bad luck, no, it's good luck, especially if work on 100, because it mean that all the 20 is additional cash, and that's what happened last year. Last year we had finally better results on cash because we have been getting the benefit to of the 111, which is not 100. So we don’t say that we're bullish, now you hear so many things in the market which is normal, that was in levels and we have had this discussion. Saudi Aramco which is now one our best partner, we exchanged all information extremely good relationship. But we are surprised to hear that OPEC did not exist any more, but they are existing, because today the country which is making all the move is Saudi Arabia and they have been very well driving the problem we face with Iran. If they were not able to increase their production very quickly to face, in fact that the Iran dropped its exports by more than 1 million barrels per day, therefore it’s approximately would have been 200, and I don’t know we would be saying, is doing a 50, what I can tell you if Iran stop exporting, it will go up and that’s life. When we talk about stray capacities, look at (inaudible) they are absolutely in line…

To give you an additional vision I would say that for the Downstream, we are entering in a period where Downstream will be a source of cash for the rest of the Group. Sometimes we have a problem to explain that it’s not, because you have high levels of return that it means no cash. If you remember the old days of preferred during the 90's the Downstream has been financing the Upstream, thanks to the cash from Downstream, thanks to the depreciation, et cetera. So I mean what's happening to Jubail is a very good example. We have with Jubail is now (inaudible) and Port Arthur, in U.S. made most of what we have to do in terms of new investment. There are still investment to come probably if we can reach an acceptable agreement with all the parties involved in Antwerp, but most of our big investment is now behind us. Now, we want to get the benefit of the new organization and also the new project. Oswald Clint – Sanford Bernstein: Hi, Oswald Clint, at Sanford Bernstein, question on exploration, out of the lot of acreages in the last couple of years and quite a lot of countries you’ve got a big reliance on exploration to fill the upwards of that, could you be a bit more specific and say how much oil and gas did you find last year in those four significant discoveries and is it enough and does it give the confidence in a reliance on almost greater exploration from here? Thank you.

That’s on the [Potex]. Well, I mean in 2012, we had not been drilling a lot of what we call new acreages. The real start is now on with Ivory Coast, with Kenya being announced yet, but soon to be announced to go. So that is part of what we call our new additional volunteer of increasing the exploration program. So we will see the result there. As I told you that it represent for 2013 5 billion barrels of oil equipment, what is the mix of the slate between oil and gas? Patrick de La Chevardière: 55 oil?

Okay, we have full of exploration. So 50-50 is not bad, 55-45 or more than bit on that. While again, if you remember in our production of gas, today we have 40% of that gas coming from all related formulas. So when you see the split between oil and gas in TOTAL in terms of production, you have to look at disposal in terms of what is the marketing of this gas, is it on local market, domestic prices or all related to the 40%. Jon? Jon Rigby – UBS Ltd.: This is Jon Rigby from UBS. Can I – in the L base, you used to talk about technical costs, so I understand why you’ve dropped them, because it doesn’t really make sure what you’re doing, but I note that your depreciation charge in the Upstream is going to buy about 20% this year over the last year. So the two-part question. So can you just explain what the moving parts of that is this year, is it just new projects coming on that dramatically change your DD&A and what would those be? And then second is, I know that your CapEx in the Upstream is now running at over three times your depreciation. So can we expect this sort of profound change in DD&A to impact earnings over that period of 2016, 2017 that you tend to refer to in the framework of cash flow? Thanks.

I will leave it to Patrick for talking that. First, on exploration, it’s true that in 2012, while we have been increasing the exploration being depreciated, and if I’m correct, it represents something like 500 additional DD&A dollars or charges, but I mean when you are more active on exploration, but it is no more that you have more charges as far as you're not always successful before you get the benefit of the new barrels, the first of the non-benefit of drilling more, so the unsuccessful part is being charged to your profit or loss. But I mean I don't consider further notice that it has been used, because the result of our strategy when increased the project from $2.2 billion to $2.8 billion, I mean that's part of the reason. On the DD&A before Patrick answers, we have been not disclosing the technical cost this time. We will do it again in September. The reason was, we didn't get the figures of our competitors, so we have ours, we will have theirs, definitely you're right and seeing that they are depreciating for the DD&A reason, but we are totally certain that the case for everybody, but particularly you might say more now, but you will get the full presentation as you would all in September. Patrick de La Chevardière: Yeah, you are right that DD&A increased the technical cost, which is about $23 per BOE include $2 per BOE increase in DD&A in 2012. We expect DD&A to increase by about 10% in 2015 and 10% to plateau.

The thing with the capital employed producing, non-producing. Lucas Herrmann – Deutsche Bank: Thanks. This is Lucas Herrmann, Deutsche Bank. In a way it’s pulling on from John question. When we look at cash flow, we can see that your expectation is broadly a 50% or so increase in operation cash over the course of the – through the 2015, 2017 period. And now, if I was also asking what your expectations are for net income over the same period. Wherein I am trying to take the count of what’s actually going to be happening to depreciation and what’s going to be happening to the difference between tax paid and accounting tax. Could you give us some indication Patrick of how you see accounting profits for one of the best price or net income moving over similar period? Well is it that 50% improvement in cash? Patrick de La Chevardière: Okay. Net income will go at a lower pace than the cash flow. The return on capital employee will increase beyond 2015, 2016, 2017 and as I was mentioning to you the net income will go at lower space because of the DD&A. But DD&A will plateau at 2015 and beyond.

Look at the slide it was high quality upstream projects. So you will see that our new project are getting, which is at the upper level, and that’s how you calculate your income at the end. But be careful it was technical cost. Technical cost cannot mean directly that you will have less profits, the difference where it is and by whom it’s spurred. And sometimes people will see that we have too many production sharing contracts, well because the production is showing contract, the technical cost is paid by the government. So instance in Angola if you have an increase in technical cost it will not have the direct income on your bottom line. It will have one of course, but less than which now directly $2 less is $2 after tax after splits between profit oil and between the different partners. So to offset this, the technical cost, you really have to look at it on the contract of contract basis. But I mean, that will not be solved, pessimistic to say that, of course I mean if you have higher technical costs, you cannot have a positive impact on your profits, but at the same time, it can be really reduced even some times missing, if it is part of a system where you recover all of the cost through cost cutting. So again, look at it in the sales, that is the only way. I always say this is what I am presenting the different figures between TOTAL and our peers, because it’s good to say that we are usually below them and it’s good and we have to continue holding this stream definitely climbing, but again look at it on a case by case basis, because it’s very different when it happens in the North…

For 100 will up about. Patrick de La Chevardière: As it moves to 120, it will be more, but that’s a good news. I mean for the producers. Lucas Herrmann – Deutsche Bank: It’s certainly more with West Frank. You’re clearly moving into a higher growth phase over the next few years, but one of your slide shows that the capital employed not in service, is falling back to more normal level by 2017. Is it fair to assume then that your growth rates will fall beyond that period? Thank you. Patrick de La Chevardière: Well, you remember first that, I mean as of today we are pleased with organic investment, which are relatively high. It’s based on the play that we had at the time to make certain acquisition and to have decreased investments, which are linked to it, because we were a little bit concerned by a certain drop in our at a time, 1Q reserves. That’s not the case anymore. We made the necessary acquisitions, which were not really acquisitions, that’s what we call the DRO, which as you buy non-developed resources and you ask them to change into reserves and then into developing reserves and then into production. So that’s why today we are pleased with organic investment, which are today higher than they were and higher than it will be in the longer-term. Why because we will go back to a more sustainable development planning of our investment. And it doesn’t mean that we will stop investing after 2017. TOTAL still consider that it’s top angle policy, the worse you can do in the industry, it has always been hurting those following these strategy, because I mean when the price of oil or gas moves, it will move at the time we wish. So that’s the contributive on the criteria you use for launching your projects and then you will – then on the longer-term but more and more we will be talking on after 2017. Today we’re focusing on the first part, because that has been the concern of our investors, but cash flow are we capable to we are, we deliver and then definitely we will have to say a little bit more about the future of our industry for the year 2020 plus, which is I insist to more. But when you talk about exploration, that’s exactly what you’re doing, the exploration of today, it doesn’t mean production at the best. At the best before 2020 plus.

Just to add one point, if you look beyond 2017 you will have projects like Canada, or Italy and keep in mind that our capital end flows will basically double from today to 2017. So the overall amount of cash available is great and the big project I was mentioning to you, but it was beyond 2017 production and project. Patrick de La Chevardière: And the last question. Sometimes it’s risky to be on the front line. Jason D. Gammel – Macquarie: Thanks, Jason Gammel of Macquarie. Just a couple around the LNG portfolio, first of all the level of flexibility we maintained in the existing portfolio is clearly been beneficial in the current spot pricing environment in Asia. But given that we’re in a pretty tight market right now, are you strategically looking to put more term structure around the portfolio, while prices are high. Second part of the question is you would look to be going beyond the 17 million tons per annum that have target in 2017, if you will get the project list. Would you be able to put any priority around Shtokman, Yemen, Brass LNG and perhaps even expansion trend in the LNG, just which have the best economics or which you see most likely to move forward?

Well it's not the easiest point, I mean using Brass LNG and Shtokman, I'd like to know what it is frankly on Brass in Nigeria for those of you who don't know, is a big question mark. What I mean as Patrick said, it's after 2017, before no chance and again you know it's place which is not very secured, safe but it's a strong wish of today's president, but no decision have been taken yet, you know that one partner have decided to quit and we don't know would be replacing it, so I mean no dates for Brass – no dates for Shtokman, I don’t know if you read the press recently, but they said it was a typo or something has been published in Russia, so the stock ban will start introducing in 2013, okay, that was in newspapers. When we called them, they said, no, it’s a typo, its 2019, strange typo error just to give you my feeling on those two projects. They are there, the results are there, they would be developed, but when it's impossible to say, but we don't having them for more than the longer term, it’s not part of our short-term or even medium-term target. The Yamal is different, the Yamal is really now moving, the (inaudible) is not yet taken, it should be taken before the year end and we got already a lot of good offshore to our requests. There are still a few missing as you know discussions with Gazprom (inaudible) sporting gas especially when it is LNG or if you know the subject you know things are moving in the right direction, which mean that the government ask Gazprom to discussion with Novatek and Yamal LNG and the country uses underway. So when will it be…

Okay, the next question. Theepan Jothilingam – Nomura: Yeah. Thank you. Theepan Jothilingam from Nomura. Just a question coming back to disposals, but since your earnings numbers last year were very resilient, just going forward though, could you talk about perhaps the impact of the disposal program? So looking at the 2014 cash flow number relative to 2012? And then sort of a follow-up question to that, I guess is that if perhaps the impact on earnings from the current disposal program is relatively muted, if you were to pursue a disposal program, would that be more interest sort of cash generating assets or not? Patrick de La Chevardière: Yeah. The impact on earning of the sale of assets, it’s already included in our forecast. If you take the example of CIGA, which will bring another whole enterprise value of €2.4 billion, TIGF provided an 20% return on capital employee of this regulated business is quite small. So all in all, the overall impact of asset sales program is not weak. The magnitude of it maybe $100 million in advocate something like this, either side.

As far as I told you, the most of the disposals we will be doing until 2014, it’s easy to say, how much it will represented in terms of reserves and production. It’s by definition limited, because we are targeting projects, which are I think a literal impact on production and reserves. But at the same time, it’s all including in our forecast, so could you say this because we cannot choose this as an excuse, if we cannot meet our targets to say, yes what we are selling, all that’s included and for what we present for instance the next to come. We already also have reserve part of this for, if we know the part of the 3 million. So to be very clear, we will not use as an excuse except if we go to additional sales. but today in the $20 billion, $25 billion sales program, it’s all included in our targets and forecasts. And when you have our internal presentation, I don’t know if we do this for everybody, we have detailed explanation of what are the plus and what are the minus compared with our budgets and planning. We have something, which we called (inaudible) and that is with okay, we sold or we acquired something. So we are putting those category as independent from what we call organic production coming from existing developments. Patrick de La Chevardière: We – to be precise enough we had no formal target of asset sale beyond 2015. We have no target but as I told you, not in terms of amounts but in terms of strategy.

I think the strategy which is to make your portfolio of assets moving will be continued. It makes sense to continue to not to keep in your portfolio assets when you consider that they don’t have real potential, but it will become more and more costly. And on the top, some people will make a better use of those assets that you’re offering when we sold in Cameroon, then nothing to do with balancing our cash. It was really based on, well Cameroon is a nice country. We stay in the marketing, but as far as oil reserves and production concern it can only be dropping. So companies will not having any concern about commitments on production. They continue to do it. For us it was becoming a burden, so disposal. And I think we need to continue to work on this, as been part of the way this company needs to be managed in a dynamic way, not to please but just because we consider that it is the best way to bring value to our shareholders, but without targets. Okay, as it’s at the end of the session. So he must be right. Well thank you for paying the time with us. Thank you for your attention. We really think that TOTAL is moving ahead in full transparency, meeting our targets, our commitments, while I wanted to say something very clear. It’s important to meet your target vis-à-vis, your shareholders, investors, financial analysts. What if we are doing it is because we trust in it as a long time strategy. So it’s not a strategy to please, it’s a strategy which has been supported, approved by the Board, that the management consider at the best opportunity to bring value to its shareholders and that the reason why we…