But that’s the reality. I mean, you have $3 per kilogram. Having said that, the question is not to make projects if you have no demand. So the rush to infrastructure is good, but we need to find the demand. And I would like to be sure that the demand will follow beyond what is obvious. And I think — because you have 2 types of demand for hydrogen, green hydrogen or blue hydrogen, whatever it is. It is, I would say the industry, the refining industry, the local industry where we need to make local projects because we have local customers, where there is a market for decarbonization. This one, I understand, and we’ll look to that. And we are investing, and we have less assets in the U.S., but we could — we are looking with Bernard to see if we could benefit from it for decarbonizing , for example, it’s obvious.
And then you have the export market, so it’s a massive market, which does not exist for the time being. So I would like to see where it is before to speak about it. Having said that, we begin to see if we could leverage the IRA. For example, we are looking to make sense to make e-methane projects in the U.S. in order to export synthetic methane in the future for liquefaction plans. That could be a nice answer to have these long-term investments, and the U.S. might be the place to make some e-methane. So that type of things that we are working. We are working at CCS. There is another point. Makes sense to look if there are some projects. I think the direct capture projects today, obviously, is to try to test this technology in the U.S., thanks to this IRA.
So it’s part of the technology investments we need to do to coping with our ambition of net zero. What I hope, by the way, is that Europe, instead of complaining, should do the same. That’s all. We need to have — if we are serious about global net zero ambition of the world to make this type of support to invest in green infrastructure all over the world. That’s the answer to do. So I think — so I took it as a comfort to not only our, I would say, electricity strategy, but also, of course, to develop the new molecules. You’ve seen in our budget, it’s coming upwards. I didn’t mention, of course, the sustainable aviation fuel, which is the obvious market that everybody is rushing to, to the point that there were too many projects but — because there is not an infinite demand.
The question, honestly, is not only demand is demand, not only in volume, but also an affordable demand, accepting to pay more, and regulations will be necessary for that. Exposure to spot LNG, you — we gave you some sensitivity on our — but it’s more of the upstream asset. I don’t — I’m not sure you have the LNG sensitivity in the figure we gave. Do we have it?
Jean-Pierre Sbraire: Yes.
Patrick Pouyanne: Okay. So Jean-Pierre will answer to that.
Jean-Pierre Sbraire: The figures we gave for the sensitivity is a global sensitivity. So on oil portfolio, but the impact on the LNG portfolio as well, the portion that is linked to oil and the same for NBP. So the gas pipe, plus the portion of the LNG sold on NANDEX gas.
Patrick Pouyanne: In another way, what we hedged, let’s keep. You take the 48 billion tonnes. You deduct the amount of 4 million tonnes. You deduct the 13 million tones spot. So it makes 30 million tonnes. So if I’m not wrong, I see Stephane. We have hedged more or less this 30 million tonnes of LNG, which we have a long-term supply, either from the assets or from the long-term supply agreements, the contracts in the U.S. The rest is not hedged. So this is why I made a comment on Yamal. Yamal is sensitive to TTF minus Brent.
