Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Eni's 2025 Third Quarter Results Conference Call hosted by Mr. Francesco Gattei, Chief Transition and Official Officer. I’m now handing you over to your host to begin today's conference. Thank you.

Thank you, and good afternoon. Welcome to our Q3 2025 results call. Our results are a further confirmation of the successful execution of our distinctive and consistent strategy and innovative business model. We continue to generate growth and value, both from our traditional energy activity, such as exploration and production, and also from emerging opportunities in the evolving energy market. In particular, the 8.5% year-on-year growth in production results directly from our consistent long-term focus and investment in exploration and production. We are delivering material progress against ambitious strategic objectives, and Q3 was further proof of tangible momentum in this respect. I will comment on our financial results in a little more detail shortly. However, it is very pleasing we have positive news to report from each of our main operating segments. Combining the excellent financial and operating performances and the ongoing progress in valorizing our businesses, we're also able to announce a further improvement of our balance sheet and a higher share buyback. Focusing on a few strategic highlights, I would especially pick out: At the beginning of August, Azule Energy, our business combination with BP in Angola and Namibia, began production from its operated Agogo West Hub development with the FPSO coming on stream only 29 months after the Final Investment Decision, almost a year ahead of our plan. Indeed, this quarter was notable for the contribution from our upstream satellite start-ups with Vår reaching 400,000 barrel per day production, with significant incremental production from the operated Balder X development that started up at the end of Q2 and Johan Castberg ramp-up, driving 45% year-over-year production growth. In October, we announced a joint venture Final Investment Decision on our Coral North floating LNG offshore Mozambique, with startup expected in 2028. This leverages our successful Coral South development, in production since 2022, with a remarkable 99.4% availability. Together with the two vessels in Congo, it will reinforce our leadership in this technology. I would also flag the progress we are making with YPF towards Final Investment Decision on Argentina LNG, employing the exact competencies I discussed regarding floating LNG in Mozambique and Congo to access a material new integrated resource opportunity. A further successful example of Eni's skills and strategy is in Ivory Coast, where in September, we completed the sale of a 30% stake of our operated Baleine field to Vitol, in line with our dual exploration approach. The world-class Baleine field was only discovered in 2021, but has already reached over 70,000 barrels per day from the first two phases with a planned Phase 3 to take gross production to over 200,000 barrels per day. Coral North, Argentina LNG, and Baleine Phase 3 are just part of a deep hopper of high-quality projects in our development and pre-Final Investment Decision portfolio. In the quarter, we signed an agreement with GIP, a strategic partner in relation to a 49.99% stake in any CCUS holding, our consolidated global CCUS operation, confirming the significant growth and value creation potential in this transition business, unlocked by a further example of a version of our satellite model. Finally, in September, Eni received approval for its application to convert part of our Sannazzaro refinery into a biorefinery. This will add, along with three sites in operation and three under construction, to the targeted tripling of biofuel production capacity by 2030. This emphasizes the meaningful growth in diversified income streams our transition segment is delivering. Turning now to our results. Q3 reflects remarkable progress in our key businesses and another excellent financial outcome. Pro forma adjusted EBIT of EUR 3 billion was 12% higher than Q2 and just minus 6% down year-on-year in U.S. dollar terms, despite the 14% fall in crude oil prices. In the Upstream, production was 1.76 million barrels per day, up 6% year-on-year on a reported basis and 8.5% on an underlying basis, supported by a new start-up and ramp-ups, good regularity, and production optimization in the base. Pro forma EBIT of EUR 2.6 billion was consistent with the prevailing scenario, with an EBIT split reflecting the rise in production I highlighted at the Vår and Azule segments. In exploration, we have already added over 800 million barrels of new resources year-to-date. GGP reported another good quarter at EUR 279 million in pro forma EBIT in a quarter that is usually quieter, remaining focused on maximizing value and optimizing the gas and LNG portfolio. Our significantly reconstructed midstream business has become a highly consistent deliverer of financial performance. In our transition activities, Enilive reported EUR 233 million of pro forma EBIT, corresponding to EUR 317 million of EBITDA, around 23% up year-on-year in a quarter that is typically our best for marketing, but also where we saw a recovery in bio margin to pre-2024 levels. Plenitude pro forma EBIT of EUR 98 million was softer year-on-year, reflecting the effect of some of the retail incentives coming off, but partially offset by strong growth in renewable capacity. In transformation, refining returned to profit, helped by better industry margin and improved utilization, while chemicals, despite the continuing weak scenario, began to show some benefit from the restructuring now underway, albeit it is very early days. Adjusted net income of EUR 1.25 billion, effectively in line year-on-year, came despite the $10 barrel fall in crude price and weaker U.S. dollar. That is a testimony to the growth and performance improvement in the business and a more efficient tax rate at 42% that reflects the impact of high-grading upstream production mix, the transition towards a more sustainable diversified overall income mix, and the benefit of our restructuring and performance improvement initiatives. Cash flow from operations once again reflects efficient conversion of our earnings into cash, and we saw a Q3 working capital draw, reflecting our focus on efficient use of the balance sheet. Indeed, we have already realized a EUR 2.1 billion benefit to the balance sheet through prompt cash initiatives in response to the weaker scenario. Gross CapEx in the quarter was EUR 2 billion, taking us to EUR 5.9 billion year-to-date. Net CapEx has totaled less than EUR 1 billion year-to-date. Outstanding agreed valorization yet to close primarily related to the agreed Ares investment into Plenitude for which we have completed all the condition precedent and with closing expected in early November, the sell-down in Congo and the GIP stake in CCUS, totaling almost EUR 3.4 billion. After EUR 560 million in share buyback and paying the Q3 dividend, net debt was EUR 9.9 billion, down again quarter-on-quarter, and leverage stood at 19%. Taking into account the still outstanding announced portfolio action, pro forma leverage was 12%, equivalent to 11% gearing, a level at the minimum of the industry range. Looking ahead towards the full year, we are able to further improve some of our targets. We now expect full-year production to be between 1.71 million and 1.72 million barrels per day, up from 1.7 million barrels per day, a 3% underlying increase versus 2024. We expect GGP pro forma EBIT for the full year to be over EUR 1 billion. We expect cash initiatives and self-help to deliver around EUR 4 billion benefit, up from EUR 3 billion previously. We confirm gross CapEx below EUR 8.5 billion, but we expect net CapEx on a pro forma basis to be less than EUR 5 billion, down from the EUR 6.5 billion to EUR 7 billion that we previously guided to. And we are raising expected cash flow from operation pre-working capital to EUR 12 billion from EUR 11.5 billion previously, representing an underlying EUR 1.3 billion improvement versus our initial guidance for the year, while we are narrowing our expectation of year-end pro forma leverage to 15%-18%. Reflecting the strong underlying business performance, the balance sheet metrics, and the proven capability of the company to execute its strategy in a very accretive way, we are raising the 2025 share buyback to EUR 1.8 billion from EUR 1.5 billion, of which EUR 840 million has been completed as of the end of September and around EUR 1 billion to date. This, as we have already done since 2022, effectively shares the upside in financial performance we have generated in the year, preserves a conservative position in response to the uncertainty ahead, and ensures our ability to invest consistently over the cycle for growth and shareholder value. In fact, Q3 represents all the major elements of our distinctive strategy in action in one place. We are competitively growing our key businesses. We are launching new projects while also securing further opportunities through our industry-leading exploration and technological know-how in the upstream and opening up new opportunities in the transition. Meanwhile, we are managing risk-reward, realizing value through our dual exploration satellite strategy, allowing us to bring down debt and share upside with shareholders. And with that, I am ready, along with Eni top management here on the call, to reply to your questions.

Thank you, Francesco. Hello, everybody. We've got a queue of questions. And we're going to start with the first question that comes from Biraj at RBC.

I have two, please. The first one is in the Upstream. One of the surprises today was the really strong production figure. According to my model, that's the highest figure you reported since the pandemic. Could you just unpack the moving parts there quarter-on-quarter outside of the strong performance from Vår? In particular, I believe there was a TSC adjustment this quarter. Wondering whether you could quantify that and tell us if there's any sort of follow-through into Q4 and '26? The second question is on Chemicals. Just noted no improvement in the sort of underlying results despite the crackers being shut down. So what should we expect going forward? Should those losses start to reduce from Q4? Or are there additional shutdown costs coming through?

Okay. I leave the answer about production and comparison versus previous quarter to Guido Brusco and clearly, the Versalis to Adriano Alfani.

So the increase quarter-to-quarter, both sequentially and year-on-year are due to, as you rightly pointed out to Norway, Johan Castberg and Balder X, but also the accelerated startup in Angola with Agogo and better performance in the ramp-up of our project in Mexico, Ghana, Nigeria, and also overperformance in Ivory Coast. This, along with strong operational continuity in all geographies and an optimized major turnaround plan, particularly in North Africa. So the combination of all these three elements resulted in this remarkable performance.

Now Adriano.

Yes, Francesco. First, thanks for the question. About the shutdown of the chemical plant, as we previously stated in different investor calls, the benefits of the shutdown of the cracker start to be materialized fully after more or less 9 to 12 months that we shut down the crackers. So considering that we have stopped Brindisi at the end of Q1 and Priolo at the beginning of Q3, we expect to see some benefits starting from the second half of 2025, which is in the ballpark of EUR 40 million to EUR 50 million compared to the first half of 2025. Most of the improvement we will start to see from the significant improvement in the second half of 2026, which will materialize in more than EUR 200 million on a yearly basis. That said, the scenario remains very weak, and this is also the reason why despite the improvement in our cost base due to the restructuring, we are not seeing a major improvement in our results quarter-on-quarter because what we are saving from restructuring is compensating for the lower scenario.

Thanks, Biraj. We're going to move to Santander and Alejandro Vigil. Alejandro?

Congratulations for the strong results. The first question is about the outlook in terms of production for the coming quarters because we are seeing a very strong exit rate of about 1.8 million barrels per day. If this could be a good indication of the level for 2026 of volumes? The second question is about the LNG business. You are very active in new capacity in terms of LNG, in Argentina, Mozambique, and the joint venture in Indonesia. Just if you can elaborate about your view about the potential risk of overcapacity and how you're managing your portfolio of contracts?

I will give it to Guido to answer.

Yes, clearly, our exit rate is strong. We are envisaging an exit rate in the quarter between 1.78 million and 1.80 million. We still have quite a strong and visible pipeline of high-quality projects. We still have 2 start-ups coming by the end of the year. One is the Congo LNG and also we have a gas project in Angola operated by Azule. We also have projects already in execution, as mentioned by Francesco, Coral North and others in the UAE, Hail and Ghasha and some in North Africa, along with projects coming in Indonesia, but those are, of course, in the planning period and not in 2026. As far as the LNG portfolio, we have a target of 20 million tonnes per annum, and this target, we want to combine with a very diversified portfolio of opportunity. Currently, we have LNG assets in Indonesia. We will have soon in Mozambique with Coral North. We have in Congo and we'll expand it in Nigeria and Angola. We are complementing this portfolio with the U.S. Recently, you may recall, we've signed a 2 million tonnes per annum contract with Venture Global. And of course, last but not least, Argentina. Argentina is a 12 million tonnes per annum project in the second largest world-class asset, which is Vaca Muerta. We are doing it with YPF and we are targeting to have a Final Investment Decision sometime next year.

We’re now going to move to Alessandro Pozzi, Mediobanca.

I have two questions. First, regarding production, I understand that guidance for next year will be provided with the full-year results. Given the strong exit rate and the additional start-ups planned for 2026, should we expect a further increase from Q4 into 2026, not including the new joint venture with Petronas? Additionally, could we get an update on the status of negotiations with Petronas?

Yes, you can imagine there are a lot of moving parts, but we can confirm what we said at the last capital market update. We have an underlying growth of 3%, which, of course, we confirm over the plan. Sometimes, this isn't a progressive growth because projects come over cycles, but we can confirm that growth. As far as the Petronas deal, we are in very advanced negotiations, and we are planning quite soon to sign binding documents for the joint venture.

Can you confirm the contribution to production for next year?

This is part of the underlying 3% growth year-on-year. As I said, there are many moving parts. There are new projects, new entries like the JV with Petronas. There are also some further M&A operations. Of course, there is also the decline of the field. So overall, we confirm the 3% underlying.

Thanks, Alessandro. We are going to move back to London now with Josh Stone at UBS. Josh?

Two questions, please. Firstly, on the buyback. Can you just talk about the factors that went into your decision to lift it this quarter? Because clearly, your business has been performing better. But at least until recently, oil prices are on a declining trend. So was there any consideration made about maybe holding back some buyback for next year to conserve cash? And to what extent was that factored into your new buyback level of EUR 1.8 billion? The second question, Namibia. Just hoping to get some latest thoughts there after your recent well results at the land finding gas condensate. Maybe if you could share your latest learnings about the asset and what potential next steps could be in terms of appraisal and whether this could be a potential fast-track development in your view?

I will answer about the buyback and then give the floor to Guido for the Namibia questions. On buyback, you have seen that the policy that Eni has already confirmed for a number of years is substantially to start with a buyback announcement during the Capital Market Day and then a policy of driving or sharing the upside in different forms. The upside relates to the scenario increasing the Cash Flow From Operations, but also the upside related to the capability to perform the strategy faster to benefit from more valuable M&A and deleveraging. Actually, this has occurred three times in the last four years. Many of these cases were not related to the improvement of the scenario that actually declined, but to the capability to do better in terms of execution. This year, we already announced in July, if you remember, this potential improvement. It's a unique position in the market. Nobody is able to raise its distribution in this time and keep reducing debt during the same period while executing a fully effective strategy in terms of project and growth in different parts of the business. So we are extremely pleased to share this opportunity and value creation with our shareholders. We think that the EUR 300 million was a fair evaluation of the improvement. This also proves that we are quite confident in the capability to manage any kind of downturn or soft price in the next year. And then I'll leave it back to Guido.

Yes. On Namibia, as you know, we drilled three wells, which were very successful. The first one, Sagittarius, discovered hydrocarbon with no observed water contact. The second, Capricornus, we've tested, and we were surface constrained with a flow rate of in excess of 10,000 barrels per day. The third one, Volans, showed a high condensate-to-gas ratio, and we found 26 meters of net pay of rich gas condensate. So three successful wells, which not only found significant hydrocarbons, but they are also located at a very short distance from each other, in conventional deepwater, less than 1,500 meters. So clearly, they offer an excellent prospect for future development.

We're going to move to Al Syme at Citi. Al?

Argentina LNG Phase 3, one of the big changes in Argentina has been this incentive regime for large investments or RIGI. What do you think this legislation does to improve profitability? Would the project work without that legislation? Secondly, I just wanted to ask, given you've done this big asset transaction, Baleine and Congo FLNG for what I think is $2.65 billion. I'm wondering what the invested capital is that you're essentially selling and what multiple of invested capital you have been able to sell this asset at?

On Argentina, I give the question to Guido, then I will answer.

In Argentina, investments in shale have been made for more than 10 years. The investment cycle started in Argentina in 2013, and this was far before the RIGI legislation. RIGI legislation, of course, is a big enabler, particularly for the export of LNG. We are confident with this legislation and this framework to make an investment decision in the country.

About the Congo LNG, as you know from the other transactions that we have already completed with Vitol. This is based on an effective date that is 1/1/2024. Therefore, there are investments in the meantime, but we do not provide this kind of level of detail that will clearly also be part of the final settlement at the closing time.

Thanks, Al. We're going to move to Irene Himona at Bernstein. Irene?

My first question is on Enilive, where clearly, you're seeing very strong biofuel margins, improvements in your throughput and utilization. Can you give us a sense of how those are evolving in Q4, please? If you can split the marketing versus biorefining contribution to EBIT in the quarter? My second question, going back to tax, but not the P&L tax, more the cash paid tax, which fell almost halved sequentially. Is there any guidance at all on that? Are we likely to see a reduction in that cash tax rate aligned with the P&L reduction?

About the... I will answer about the tax, and then I will give to Stefano Ballista for Enilive. You've seen that in the last years, there is an improvement in the tax rate, both clearly the reported tax rate and the cash tax rate. This improvement is mainly related to a transformation of the company with the contribution of different geography in the upstream. Therefore, the capability of having more production and more results coming from lower tax regimes in this segment. Clearly, the contribution from the transition business, the possibility of the increased return in Italy related to the fact that there is a transformation activity going on with the possibility to recover the deferred tax effects, and the contribution from satellites that are cash neutral from this point of view. All this constitutes a structural change that impacted both the nominal tax rate and the cash tax rate. We are expecting an improvement versus what we originally thought. We are moving in the range between 46% and 48%. The cash tax rate is around the 28% to 29%. Now Stefano.

Irene, thanks for the question. Yes, the strong result of Enilive in this quarter has been driven mainly by the significant improvement of the biofuel scenario, coupled with a very good asset performance capturing this increased value. In terms of value, we can consider an 80-20 split in terms of overall contribution. Deep diving into biorefinery and looking at the scenario, there’s a progressive rebalancing of the supply-demand dynamics. This is fully in line with the direction we expected. There are some key structural reasons for the demand improvement. In Europe, we see above 6 million tonnes on a yearly basis compared to the 4.5 million last year. This improvement has been concentrated in the second half of the year. The reason is related to sustainable aviation fuel. We mentioned in a previous call the need for getting logistics in place in order to deliver SAF to customers. This is exactly what's going on. On top, there is also a drive of extra demand coming from the expectation of the deployment in several countries of the Renewable Energy Directive #3. Example: a key example is Germany. It has to be approved, but the proposal is very relevant. The most relevant thing is the proposed ban of double counting, which means above 1 million tons of extra demand next year. These are the two key structural reasons. On the supply side, I want to mention another structural reason. It has been confirmed the duties for sustainable aviation fuel coming from the U.S. This was a doubt in the first half of the year, and these duties will also apply to SAF. This is another reason strengthening the market.

Very good. Thanks, Irene. We're going to move to Peter Low at Redburn. Peter?

Maybe the first, just on disposals. Can you just confirm the expected timeline for the remaining ones, so kind of Congo to Vitol and then the Plenitude stake sale. Beyond that, should we think of those as being the end of large disposals? Or are there other positions across the portfolio you're working to monetize? On the net CapEx guidance, you've lowered it for the full year, but it looks like gross CapEx is broadly unchanged. Can you perhaps walk through the moving parts that have allowed you to lower that net CapEx guidance?

Yes. About the portfolio, we confirm we are very close to cash in the EUR 2 billion related to Ares acquisition of a 20% in Plenitude. All the condition precedents were completed. We do expect to have this contribution in a period of weeks. This will imply a benefit on our leverage in the range of more than 4%. On the other side, we are still clearly waiting for all the natural process authorizations for the other transaction related to Congo, which takes some more time. This is still ongoing, but it is a process that is maturing progressively. About the contribution for next year, clearly, this year was extremely rich in terms of opportunity. We benefited from disbursements that we matured last year in terms of closing, which we completed for the cash this year. We were also able to fast track some of our disposals within the year. This acceleration also contributed to the improvement in net CapEx results. You're right that gross CapEx is substantially in line with expectation. They were revised down during the first quarter when we announced the first estimate for the cash initiative that includes also the CapEx reduction. The future for disposal is that the dual exploration model is a living model. It continues to generate opportunities. We explore with high stakes, and there are results already emerging in different geographies. In Indonesia, we have a 10% disposal on assets that will not be included in the business combination. We're also evaluating other opportunities that could come in terms of valorizing our portfolio and aligning capital. Another element that will be cashed in by the end of the year is the contribution of the CCUS, the deal from GIP.

Thanks, Peter. We're going to move to Michele Della Vigna at Goldman Sachs.

And again, congratulations on the very strong results. Two questions if I may. First, I wanted to start with biofuels. Very clear comment on RD. I was just wondering on SAF if the mandatory blending does not increase from 2% until 2030, don’t you see the risk that with new capacity coming online the market could soften over the next couple of years? I was wondering if you could give us perhaps a bit more visibility on what drives that EUR 1 billion upgrade in the cash initiative. In case the macro deteriorates in 2026, how much flexibility do you see on your CapEx budget? Where do you think you could potentially cut some of your net investments?

Stefano for the biofuel.

Yes, Michele, thanks for the question. On SAF, for sure, it’s driven by the mandatory mandates, given the penalties — underlying penalties. This is a given. On top of Europe now at 2%, we have a higher target in the U.K. already in place. Clearly, an increase sort of step-up of the target along the timeline is going to help demand on SAF. This is something that could be addressed. There are demand drivers like in Japan, which has approved 10% by 2030. There are discussions in other countries to get SAF mandatory at defined percentages; given it’s the only way to decarbonize the aviation sector. On top, some signs of voluntary demand will be driven also by supportive incentives that at specific levels will be put in place. An example is Heathrow Airport, where half of the gap between jet biojet and jet is supported by institutions. This approach will support demand. Lastly, the CORSIA program must be fulfilled by all ICAO countries participating in ICAO. Up to now, it’s just voluntary but is going to be mandatory from 2027, driving extra demand in countries without obligations. In terms of overall demand-supply dynamics, a biorefinery that can produce HVO can also produce SAF. So, flexibility is a core lever to address market evolution. We don’t know the exact growth of SAF demand, but clear mandates on overall HVO growth and current projects combined with the existing trajectory of overall biofuel, HVO, and SAF suggest a tight market in the medium term.

For the difference related to the estimate on the cash initiative for 2025, the previous one was EUR 3 billion, now it's EUR 4 billion, which is substantially a mix of different factors. We derisked some of the actions that we risked in the first half. You have to consider that we have a way to optimize or evaluate substantially our storage activity on oil and our trading activity. We have some additional value coming from the swap of bonds from fixed to variable, et cetera. More than EUR 400 million that is related to the derisking of the previous cash initiative. So almost EUR 800 million is related to these three different items. About next year, I can tell you that the flexibility, the plan is still under preparation. Generally, we work with flexibility of 20%-25%. So we’re speaking on a gross CapEx of something in the range of EUR 2 billion.

Thanks, Michele. We're going to move to Henry Tarr at Berenberg. Henry?

I had one really, which was around the GGP business and the consistency of profits there. We've seen much better profitability through the summer and consistent upgrades over the last couple of years. Do you think this is a durable level of profit for this business? Or do you think it's related to structural changes post the change in your supply makeup that mean that this is a more durable stream of profits?

Cristian Signoretto will answer.

Yes, you're right. The third quarter has been a good quarter. I would say the major driver of performance was what I would call the locational spreads. In Europe, but also globally, we have taken advantage of premium market vis-a-vis the flexibility that we have in our assets in order to move gas and LNG where the premium was higher. As Francesco said at the beginning, we have reengineered the business. The lack of the Russian gas and our development of new gas projects and LNG projects upstream have really changed the shape of our portfolio. We tend to be much more attentive to create enough optionality and flexibility in our portfolio to ensure that the new volatility environment we are facing, and will face in the future will structurally create headroom and opportunities for us to capture. I’d say this is a trend that we will see continuing in the future.

Thanks, Henry. We're going to move to Martijn Rats at Morgan Stanley.

Yes. A lot has been discussed, but I have two questions. I noticed that Rosneft holds a 30% stake in Zohr. Could you share whether that affects you as the project operator? Perhaps it doesn’t, but I wanted to bring it up. Additionally, I want to ask about your European gas sales volume, which decreased about 15% this quarter compared to last year. European gas demand isn't particularly strong, but it's not extremely weak either. Is this decrease related to the portfolio changes you mentioned, or is there another specific reason for the decline?

Cristian, if you would like to answer, and then I will go back to the sanctions.

Well, the drop in European sales this year has fundamental reasons linked to the termination of the contract with which we were selling gas to BOTAS in Turkey via the Blue Stream. This was linked to, let’s say, the pipeline itself. We are trying to unwind this business in terms of participation in the pipeline. This is the biggest contributor to the drop in sales in Europe. On the other hand, as I told you before, the demand in Europe is shrinking. We are adjusting our portfolio to the new reality. We are much more focused on creating more value from each individual molecule than clearly getting more molecules into the market.

Regarding the impact of the new sanctions introduced by the U.S. administration, it's still very early because there are details that have to be analyzed, and the full impact needs to be completely assessed. What we can clearly say is that we will ensure full compliance with the sanctions. We have to also consider that we have a very limited interaction with these two companies regarding our assets, generally speaking about minority stakes and non-operated stakes. We believe that, in the end, there shouldn't be any material impact on ongoing operations due to this sanction activity.

Thanks, Francesco. Thanks, Martijn. We're going to move now to Mark Wilson at Jefferies.

You talk about how this quarter really sees strategic initiatives coming through, particularly with the satellites in Norway and the U.K. So I'd like to ask about what appears to be another strategic angle: the use of floating LNG. I would argue you appear to be the leader in that concept now with the second Coral vessel sanctioned, with Congo FLNG coming on stream just 33 months in Argentina. Initial development is two vessels of an even larger capacity. We know there are certain security benefits and clearly, speed if Congo FLNG is anything to go by. But could you speak to the CapEx, OpEx, and emissions intensity benefits versus production of FLNG versus onshore? Any improvements expected between the two Coral vessels? I did note in the previous answer, you spoke to getting more value out of a single gas molecule. I think that relates to it.

Yes, Guido can provide all the details.

Clearly, we have built a technological hedge on floating LNG. We are currently the largest operator of floating LNG, and results, both in terms of delivery and performance, are outstanding. Just naming a few of them. On Coral South, we delivered the project on time, on cost, despite COVID, and the uptime of the floating LNG is outstanding, as mentioned by Francesco in his speech, at 99-plus percent. In Congo, we have two — one in operations and another coming, and we've just sanctioned Coral North recently with startup expected in 2028. In terms of security, it’s advantageous to disconnect from any turbulence onshore. We see the successful choice made in Mozambique. In terms of costs, we are at the steep part of the learning curve. Comparing the cost from the first floating LNG and the costs for future projects in Argentina and current projects in Coral North, the reduction is significant. The industry is making substantial progress driving down costs to the point we are reaching levels comparable, if not better in some regions compared to the onshore LNG plant on a million tonnes per annum basis. In terms of emissions, we are applying the best available technology. In Angola, on the FPSO Agogo, we are capturing CO2 and reinjecting CO2 into the reservoir through gas injection used for gas recovery. We are making significant progress in driving down emissions on a unit production basis.

I will also add that it is an opportunity to exploit associated gas reserves in certain conditional fields where this gas potential cannot be recovered. This potentially could become a cap on oil production, which is exactly the case in Congo. It’s not just a matter of cost; it’s about the value of the opportunities and the optionality that this technology adds to your capability to exploit resources.

Thanks very much, Mark. I think a subject we'll end up returning to. We're going to move from Mark to Italy to Massimo Bonisoli at Equita. Massimo, are you still there?

Two questions left on Enilive. The first on the new Sannazzaro biorefinery. Can you explain how the configuration, feedstock, and product profile differ from your existing biorefineries like Venezia or Livorno? The second one is on the antitrust fine on Italian biofuel distribution. If you could elaborate on any potential impact this ruling may have on the profitability and competitive positioning of your fuel distribution business following the fine?

I will ask Pino to answer to the first, and then I will answer to the second one.

Thank you, Francesco. About Sannazzaro, Sannazzaro is a brownfield biorefinery because we will recover an existing hydrocracker unit very recently realized in Sannazzaro in 2010, very high pressure. Because of the high pressure and good configuration, we will be able to maximize the flexibility to produce SAF. Production of SAF in Sannazzaro is an upside because there is a direct pipeline connection to Malpensa airport, a major hub for Central Europe. The flexibility of feedstock will be the same as Livorno or the other refineries, a mix of western residue and vegetable oil from non-competitive food areas, including our agri-business. The logistics system will provide different channels of supply of feedstock and distribution of products to maintain the flexibility. The unit is expected to be completed by 2028 to be in production by then.

About the fine proposed by the AGCM on biofuels, we can say that we are appealing against this decision, which we consider incorrect. The biocomponent pricing is aligned, and there’s a very limited number of feedstocks, creating a small market. This aligns the cost for all operators. Everything is happening very transparently, and the cost obligations for all players are similar. The changes in information considered in breach of competitive rules were legitimate changes between parties on fuel supply agreements that require quarterly communication. This matter is crucial because the market is growing, and capacity is key. We’re working on developing our own agri-hub, which is a mechanism to derisk both quantity and value for our internal production.

Thanks very much for that question, Massimo. We're going to move now to Nash at Barclays. Nash, are you there?

Two questions from me, if that's okay. The first is around technology. I was very impressed at your Technology Day in Milan earlier this year. I just wonder if you can talk about your progress there, your deployment of technology, AI, and how this adds momentum for your operation and financial performance into next year and beyond? The next question is on working capital movement. Given some of the volatilities we have seen, I wonder if you can give us a bit of color on working capital in Q4 and Q1, please?

I leave to Lorenzo Fiorillo, Head of our R&D Technology Group business, to answer about artificial intelligence, and I will come back for the working capital.

Thank you for the question. What I can say is that we use AI effectively; it’s not just in the last years. Internally, we are developing more than 200 use cases. We found numerous advantages in using AI applications within the company in optimization, finding solutions, and creating better scenarios. The use of a large number of data and significant technology with our digital competencies internally, along with high-performance computing, provides a fantastic habitat for us to develop tools that are instrumental for our operations. Our progress is focused on agentic models for AI, which is the way we will develop in the next years.

About the last quarter and the next quarter, we expect a very limited drawdown in working capital. This quarter was substantially aligned and neutral. Overall, in the full year, we have a positive working capital in the range of EUR 2 billion. Next year, we clearly have to assess all working capital activity based on the new plan that requires a definition of the scenario first and clearly, all activities we perform across different businesses.

Thanks, Nash. We’re going to go to the last three questions now. The first of those is Bertrand Hodee. Bertrand, are you there?

Yes. I have two very short questions left. The first one is on Coral North. You just took FID in September. Looking at the annual report 2024, you already booked 329 million barrels of equivalent of proved reserves. Even if your share has risen from 25% to 50% in the project, as Exxon pulled out, it looks to me that you've already booked the full reserve of Coral North in '24. The second question, EUR 1.8 billion of buyback for fiscal year ‘25, EUR 0.8 billion has been already bought back. So there's EUR 1 billion left. How should we split those EUR 1 billion between the remainder of the year '25 and '26, please?

I leave the answer to Coral North to Guido.

Yes, of course. Yes, you are right. We booked last year. This year is the JV FID, and in terms of share, as you rightly pointed out, it is a bit disproportionate compared to our share of the project, which is 25%, because we've reached a swap agreement with one of our partners between the onshore and the offshore molecules.

About the buyback, we generally do not provide guidance in terms of weekly or next or planning buybacks because clearly, this is a sensitive matter. We clearly publish every week the amount that we have bought, and you have seen, I would say, some steps or the pace of this buyback activity. As you correctly stated, there is still EUR 1 billion to be bought in front of us. We have three months of 2025 and then four months in 2026. I think that there are different combinations, but will not change too much.

Thanks, Bertrand. We're going to move to Chris Kuplent at Bank of America. Chris?

I've got one question remaining, Francesco, and it's quite a high-level one. I remember you often arguing why go over and beyond on a CFFO payout promise when you have so many great opportunities to invest. I just wanted to double-check where you are on that theme, particularly because if I add up the dividend, the new buyback, I end up in sort of plus 40% territory. Are you signaling something into the coming years that you are now more comfortable being in that 40% plus range than you were previously?

First of all, the percentage you're referring to, the 41% to 40%, I think is substantially the same number because we have a quite positive expectation on the quarter that is coming. So I don't think this is a concern. On the other side, as you've seen, we are able to find solution opportunities or value inside the organization that allows us to raise on a quarterly basis. I refer specifically in this case to the cash initiative related to the capability to execute the strategy on production performance. Generally, I see more upside. Therefore, I confirm that we are moving within the 35% to 40% range. I confirm that we continue to be selective in opportunities. A long list of opportunities allows us to select the best ones at the right time. I think that we are able to tick all the different boxes to reach our goals and confirm an attractive distribution plan for our shareholders without modifying our view on the right amount of distribution to ensure growth and capability to defend our balance sheet.

Great. Thanks, Chris. We're going to move to the last question now. If anybody has more questions, we can deal with those directly afterwards, but I'm conscious we've moved over the hour. So the last question is Matt Lofting at JPMorgan.

Apologies for being late joining. I wanted to come back on the strength of cash flow generation by the company this year. I think you sort of stated this morning that the underlying improvement or upgrade versus the original plan at the beginning of the year is close to EUR 1.5 billion. It struck me that it was a higher proportion of the original plan start point. Could you break down what some of the key wins have been from that perspective? Secondly, if we take a step back and put it in the context of full-year plan cash flow expectations, I'm interested in the extent to which you see that underlying improvement is running ahead of your four-year plan baseline or whether it is sitting within the four-year plan but has accelerated the delivery of that cash?

Sorry, but I should ask you to make the second question again because the line was extremely noisy. So if you can repeat the second question, please?

Yes. Francesco. I am interested in the extent to which that EUR 1.3 billion underlying improvement represents an upside or an incremental delivery of cash flow compared to your four-year plan baseline or whether you’re delivering cash flow faster within that four-year plan.

Okay. Thank you. The performance improvement related to the underlying is clearly taking into account the scenario impacting this EUR 1.3 billion. We have practically EUR 500 million related to the Upstream. Clearly, upstream is a result of the improvement in production you are referring to, capability substantially to have a different mix generating more value. There’s GGP. GGP, we revised the guidance during the year, which clearly is transferring value from EBIT to cash generation. We’re in the range of EUR 300 million. On Enilive, there’s again EUR 300 million. This EUR 300 million of Enilive is split between improvement in marketing and biofuels related to our biorefineries. There’s also a small improvement in terms of Versalis because, clearly, unfortunately, Versalis is seeing the negative side, but this is because it’s a scenario hiding the contribution gained through the shutdown. Overall, these are the key elements showing improvement. What we can say about next year is still early. Production enhancement and the upgrading of E&P are continuous. GGP performance is subject to volatility but also the capability to have a larger optionality in different contracts in different assets. So this is another element that should help capture upside also next year. On Enilive, we expect continuous improvement, with a better scenario we would like to capture through the budget. We expect, clearly, on Versalis, a more visible recovery reflecting the new configuration of assets. I think these are the elements.

Thanks very much. That's bringing to an end the conference call. I'm conscious we have run a bit late, but I wanted to include as many people as possible. Those who weren't able to ask a question, please do get in contact with the team here, and we'll be delighted to help. That's it. Have a great weekend, and thanks for joining us.

Thank you.