But we have over dimension in that project. And again, on the security side, I would say there have been a lot of things. The security in Northern, the Cabo Delgado is okay. There is no incidents, no events. It’s well controlled. We will meet — I will meet soon, President Nyusi from Mozambique to review it with himself. And so I would say on the southern part of Cabo Delgado, it’s quite far from where we are. There have been some incidents. But there again, they are redeploying some forces. And by the way, again, that part is first, I would say people are asking me, will you lift the force majeure. But the first thing to be done by the State of Mozambique, which is in charge of the sovereignty and security, to tell us if we could lift it before I decide.
Let’s do it in the right order. I would say don’t try to ask privately owned companies to decide about something which is not fully in our hand, security of that vision. It’s the first duty, it is the duty of the State of Mozambique, and we are working with them. So I would say we are — so it’s not a matter of cost, this one. It’s more a matter of having the right conditions to lift the force majeure and to move on progressively, probably because it has to be done. To restart, we’ll try — we have to — want to — remobilizing this stuff will take time. So — but it’s not a cost. So, yes, P&G was, of course, disciplined, frankly, and it’s not there is not really a redesign. It’s more, I think we made as we tried to explain, I will tell you is limited to our traditional engineering firms, partners, Western one.
I think what is new is that Western contractors have not so much appetite for many. It’s like us. It’s value of a volume. So we have a lot of — plenty of projects in the U.S. probably easier to execute. And so what we think is that and we have begun to work with some Asian engineering firms, which are able to — which are also able to deliver upstream — good upstream projects, and we observe it. In Uganda, most of the contractors who are working in Uganda, half of them are coming from Asian countries and the execution is very smooth. And they respect the cost budget. So we are happy with them. So I think it’s more — we went to the traditional players. We want to open the tender. It will take time. And I’m optimistic that we can put this project back on track.
But again, as I answered before, within our portfolio, we have many options. And that’s good to have many options. No, we are not discussing a lot of Marsa LNG. We have it. We introduced it. We know we might have another option, which is called ’24 in Rio Grande LNG projects, which might be more efficient than ever. So I prefer to have more option and then to organize the planning and to be able to resist to cost increase to keep the discipline. While we will be able, despite this, to deliver the LNG growth we anticipate for 2028. So that’s where we are. And again, we’ll monitor the project one by one. And we’ll see in Suriname, clearly, we have good costs. probably benefiting somewhere from synergies for some contractors with all the projects in Guyana.
That’s clear. So there is a synergy somewhere. And contractors who are working on Guyana, they propose to come with us in Suriname because for them, it’s just next. And so they can capitalize on what they’ve done. We’ll see in Namibia, which is a new province will be for me. The next, I would say, frontier from this perspective is how do we establish an efficient oil and gas industry in terms of servicing, et cetera, in Namibia.
Operator: The next question is from Kim Fustier with HSBC.
Kim Fustier: I’ve got two on LNG, please. First one is on U.S. LNG integration. I think your intention to extend into the upstream in U.S. gas has been well telegraphed for a while. And now you’ve made a first step with the Lewis Energy deal. Are you able to say roughly what proportion of your U.S. LNG offtake you’d like to cover in the medium term? And secondly, you mentioned good appetite for new oil-linked LNG contracts from Asian customers. Are you able to say or give any color on the slopes embedded in these new contracts? And also, what share of your contracted LNG sales is up for renegotiation over the next few years?
Patrick Pouyanne: Okay. On the first one, I think I’ve been clear. We want to protect or to hedge, I would say, our cost of production by having some gas, some equity in gas production in the U.S. So it’s around 1 Bcfe, which we could target more or less. But then again, no rush. Today, it’s a right time, [indiscernible] is low. So we’ve seen some dry gas producers quite keen to open the doors, so we try to jump in. So it will not be a big acquisition, probably it will be a sum of assets and like we do, you observe probably prefer to do that than rushing to make big M&A, which are expensive, and so we have an opportunity to do it and dry gas window, Eagle Ford is perfectly located next to Rio Grande. That was one of the advantage of Rio Grande Energy.
And you know there are not much appetite for these dry gas Eagle Ford basin. So there are opportunities there to deploy, to develop a position on the long term. That’s what we target. And the cost of acquisition is quite good. It’s quite good, in fact. In particular, today, because it’s countercyclical. It’s always what I think, to make good is when it comes to cyclical, and this is typically what we should do today. And — but 1.5 or 2 is a good opportunity for us to advance. So if people are listening to me, they can come. Then on the LNG contracts, no, I cannot give you some commercial discussions on the slopes. It’s protective. By the way, in most of my contracts, it’s written that I cannot disclose it. So I cannot do that. If we sign it because it’s fitting with our expectations, that’s all what I can tell you.
But no, I cannot do that. And we renegotiate contracts. In most of the long-term contracts, we have a close, which is, I would say, either 5 or 10 years. It depends. So I think it’s more a 7 years than an average. So every year, I would say, as we have a large portfolio where we have 30 million tonnes of LNG contracts. We have 1/7, I would say, more or less of these volumes, we are being renegotiated. But a negotiation for us, it’s also positive because the opportunity sometimes to have longer contracts. So it’s a permanent. It’s an exchange a bit in pricing and duration and volumes and optionalities. So in fact, when we are reopening this contract 5 years, there are many parameters, which are on the table. It’s not just the pricing. And then you exchange okay, maybe more optionality to redirect some volumes in favor of the seller or of the buyer.
So that’s pointing to, I think, this negotiations. So I would say we will negotiate more or less. Again, you can take it as a whole at time [indiscernible] 30 million tonnes is what we are accustomed to do it. But it’s also — I was in China recently, we also discussed new contracts with the people. So it’s a permanent give and take and that’s part of this — of commerce, I would say, it’s commerce, it’s a business, trade.
Operator: The next question is from Alastair Syme with Citi.
Alastair Syme: Can you talk about how much of your integrated power business earnings comes out of Spain? I think you’ve got a lot of the flexible generation combined cycle capacity. I’m really just interested in how current low Spanish power prices will eventually feed through into earnings if they’ll be at any point? And then my other question just back on Namibia. I mean I think in the press earlier in the week, you’ve got 10 down to suggest that it might hold similar potential to Guyana. You talked about 180,000 barrel a day development, which is something there’s not a huge — I’m just sort of interested in what makes you connect the dots to something like Guyana size to the basin?
Patrick Pouyanne: But again, on the second point, there are 2 differences. One is each development. You know how much is the size of 1 development. And again, is dimensioned fundamentally by the facilities on the top side on the FPSO. Because including the GOR, you cannot oversize the gas handling facilities on the top side on the FPSO. And that governs generally quite a lot of oil production. So I told you, again, the question will be how many can we do it. And when I see my comments that I’ve done, is just what when I observe. It’s not only — it will not be like in Vienna when 1 JV will cover the full discoveries, it’s not the case. So will not have, I would say, from these processes, the same efficiency to have 1 JV in charge of deploying the full resources while it is the case for our friends in Vienna.
In Namibia, you have different operators who are discovering oil and hydrocarbons or sell, share, gulp. So that means, but when I’m adding what we know about it, I’m adding it. I think the perspective to have 6, 7 FPSOs or I don’t know, is perfectly possible on the whole Orange Basin, and we’re just at the beginning of the exploration including on our block, including I mentioned the Orange Basin on the South African side. So honestly, it will not be as efficient in terms of [indiscernible] because it’s on 1 JV, but several JVs could cover, I mean, the potential of this area seems to be quite attractive. So again, you have different operators, different exploration programs to be executed. So that’s the second part. On the first one, Spain is — around 2025, out of the 35 gigawatts, it will represent, I think, something I want 1 to 2 gigawatts.
So it’s not a major country. It’s the one we started quickly because it was easy to have access to some solar projects next to France. But it appears — yes, you’re right. But it’s quite — it’s not an easy country because a lot of competition comprise electricity is quite low. You have a lot of — but again — and you have some curtailment. So you have to be careful about the project. It was an early mover to renewable. So there is a lot of process there. But I would say in the plan, I would say, by 2030, we could target something like 4 gigawatts of 100, so 4%, 5%. So it’s not — in Europe, for me, it’s not the #1 country to deploy in terms of Integrated Power. Germany has more interest and even, I would say, U.K. Because, again, for us, the driver will be where do we see the best combination between gas and renewables.
Alastair Syme: Okay. My question, which is really on today. I get a lot of your earnings Integrated Power coming out of a combined cycle in the gas in Spain.
Patrick Pouyanne: Spain is quite low. You don’t use much of this combined cycle today, honestly.
Operator: The next question is from Bertrand Hodee with Kepler Cheuvreux.
Bertrand Hodee: Yes. Two questions. The first one is on the U.S. offshore wind. There were recently your project attentive energy that was canceled. Can you share with us the reason of that cancellation? Because I understood there were — there should have been a one-off, I would say, indexation close linked to the cost. And so I’m struggling to really understand. And do you still see a way forward in U.S. offshore wind? And then the second question is on — is LNG related. You said in your introductory remarks that you’ve asked your team to sign long-term LNG contracts with Asian buyers in the coming years. Do you have a volume in mind?
Patrick Pouyanne: The first question, in fact, Bertrand, I answered previously, I explained that. So one of the key contractor, which is making a lot of local content that certainly increase its costs, probably trying to push the limits, reach the limit. And in fact, it’s, I would say, you have to wait and see the follow-up. But I cannot disclose it because again, we have some contracts with the city and the State of New York. So I prefer not to comment it. The state of New York is managing these, I mean, contracts. Their intent is yet to have the projects, and so they will probably, like they’ve done for the 2 old contracts with 2 competitors that will re-tender it in the conditions, which will allow us to launch a project.
But let’s — you need to have a little more time and you will understand. On the second one, I would say, it’s not — I don’t want to put a target officially today in front — publicly with my teams. We know that we have some volumes available in our portfolio. So this volume might be marketed and it has to be marketed. When we took in Rio Grande the commitment of 5 million tonnes, we don’t want to market all of it, but part of it clearly has to be marketed. It’s clear. It’s part of the strategy. We have — our balance sheet is strong enough and we are trusting our teams enough to do it without having the contracts. But at the same time, it’s good to deliver the contracts. So it’s less than 5%, but it’s not 0. So you find the objective. It’s not like that.
Again, at the end, it’s a question of negotiation, discussion and having the right contracts in terms of value.
Operator: The next question is from Paul Cheng with Scotiabank.
Paul Cheng: Patrick, you did a small deal buying 20% of the RED. With your LNG exposure in the Gulf Coast, is that sufficient or that you are seeking additional asset in the U.S.?
