Hi, everyone. I think the video sort of sums up much of why we're all here today. And let me start by just acknowledging everybody and welcoming everybody and thanking you all being here. Along with everyone that we have in the audience here today, we the number keeps going up. I think it's real, but there's 19,000 people joining us online now from China to Brazil, and Bloomberg are live streaming the event as well.
So a large number of people joining us to see what we've got to say. Now my team always tells me that my first 2 or 3 minutes of a talk are a bit stilted, so they said get out on stage, loosen up a little bit. So this is actually what I'm doing right now. So just bear with me a little bit. I also want to acknowledge, of course, it's not just people online with a huge amount of BP people, some in the audience here today, but a lot of people from around the world that are joining us online and it's these are the people that run BP and it's wonderful to have you all join us.
The event is carbon neutral, so all of your travel has been offset, and our thanks to the BP Carbon Neutral team for doing that. I do want to extend just a few personal welcomes, if I can. You're all important, obviously, but we do have our Chairman here, my boss, where is Helga? Helga is here. So great to see our Chairman here today, and it's been great working with Helga over the last few months and as he challenges and pushes and supports me and has been fantastic.
John Brown is here. Lord Brown, former Chief Executive of BP needs no introduction, a great friend and a great mentor, and I appreciate John's time and his presence here today. George Kell, where is George? George is here. George is the Founder and the former Executive Director of the UN Global Compact, the world's largest voluntary corporate sustainability initiative.
I met George in New York some time ago, and he's been very helpful in my thinking, and I'm really appreciative of George being here. Steve Pekala, where is Steve? Steve is here. Steve is one of the world's preeminent climate scientists. He's a professor at Princeton, and he is also Director of the Climate Mitigation Initiative, which BP has been partnering with Steve, and he's stuck with us for 2 decades.
So I really appreciate you being here as well. Will Day, where is Will? Will is here. Thank you, Will. Will is a fellow at the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, and he's a leading thinker on sustainability advising companies and governments around the world.
And we've talked and we've had lunch together and been pushing me. And then online, we have Fred Krupp joining us online. Fred, thank you for joining us. He's the President of the Environmental Defense Fund and the EDF is one of the most influential, I think, environmental organizations working every day to protect our planet. And we very much appreciate Fred and his team taking time.
Now at BP, we start every meeting with a safety moment, and I will do the same here today. Safety is about taking care of each other and for this it's this room and looking after each other. There is no alarm planned. So if there is an alarm, it's a real one. It might also be a protest, but so far so good.
But no nothing planned. So the hotel staff will guide us to the exits. The muster point is near St. James' Church or in St. James' Church.
So when you exit the hotel, between 40 to 45 minutes. Now John, you would have told me that's far too long and you're probably right. But there is a lot of ground that we wish to cover. So I'm going to speak at the lecturing here in a little bit and then we will have time for questions and answers. Now I want to say at the very beginning to manage expectations that today is about a vision.
It is about a direction of travel. As everybody or somebody said, every journey has to begin with a destination. And that destination for BP is a thriving, sustainable energy company, a force for good in what we hope will be a net zero world, and that's our destination. What I'm not going to talk to today is a lot of detail on the next month or the next year or indeed the details of the next 5 years. That comes later.
We will have a Capital Markets Day in September. And in many ways, that is just the beginning of a longer term conversation about details that will emerge over time. So just wanted to set that up. So with that, I'm going to head to the lectern here and get into some detail. So this is only week 2 for me and the job.
So it is really early days I think in anybody's books, but I have been thinking about today for quite some time and about what we need to do as VP. And I've been working with my team, planning, challenging, testing ideas, testing concepts. And we've been spending a lot of time on the road over the last 4 months in India, China, Egypt, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Oman. We've been to Russia. We've been to Germany, around the United States.
Yesterday, I was in Cairo and of course, here in the United Kingdom. And we've been listening to investors, many of you represented here in the room, partners, policymakers, NGOs, academics, the media and of course, our colleagues at BP. And everywhere I have been, inside BP as well as outside BP, I have come away with one inescapable conclusion, and that is that we have got to change. Now I do not say that likely because as many of you will have heard me say, I love this company. Since leaving Ireland in 1991 and joining BP, I have met and worked with some truly remarkable people, many of you in the room and John included.
I joined as an entry level engineer and have had a variety of different roles around the world. And I've seen the positive impact that BP can have on communities. And I have been given chances to learn and to grow and to develop and been given opportunities that I could never have imagined growing up. And I owe everything to my mother's unshakable belief in education and to BP's belief in meritocracy, and that's why I love this company. But we have got to change and change profoundly.
We have to because the world is changing fast and so are society's expectations of us. But it is more than having to change. We want to change. We want to change because it's the right thing for the world and it's a tremendous business opportunity for BP. And that is what I would like to talk with you today about.
First, I'm going to share how we intend to reimagine energy. 2nd, I will explain how we will reinvent BP in order to do that, in order to reimagine energy and third, I will make clear our commitment to perform and deliver as we fundamentally transform the company. That's the frame for today, reimagining energy, reinventing BP, performing while transforming. But first, let me start by explaining why we need to change and why we want to change. Now it so happens that I'm taking on this role at the beginning of a new decade and the turn of the calendar has added significance for BP.
We've just closed out a decade of epic challenge. The Deepwater Horizon tragedy in 2010 tested us to the core. And a few years later, the oil price correction rocked the whole industry. Bob Dudley's steady hand saw BP through both of those challenges. We recovered, we returned to growth, And through it all, we remained true to our values.
10 years on, we're a safer, stronger and more disciplined company, and we learned some hard lessons that we will never forget. We learned that we don't always have all the answers. We learned that we don't always get it right. We learned that we can't do everything on our own. Relationships, partnerships, friends really matter.
And we remember those lessons in this new decade where the big challenge for BP is the one that the world faces, and that is climate change. But the reality is we are seen by many as a source of the problem and worse still an obstacle to solving it. On my first day last week, protesters forced us to shut down our headquarters and they're not the only ones who believe we are out of step with society. Some investors do as well and some of our own staff also. And that's an uncomfortable place to be, and let me be very clear today that I get it.
The world does have a carbon budget. It is finite, and it is running out fast and we need a rapid transition to net 0. Society has got to deliver on the Paris goals. So I get the huge frustration. I get the anxiety.
I get the anger, and I get that people want cleaner energy. I hear that everywhere I go in the world. Yes, it has to be reliable, of course, and it's got to be affordable, of course, but it also has to be cleaner. And at the end
of the
day, we all want and need that same thing. Now some see that as a threat, a threat to our existence. I see it differently. I see opportunity. I see huge opportunity for BP to demonstrate that we are a force for good in the world and to grow and to thrive.
And over the next few decades, 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars are going to be invested in replumbing and rewiring the global energy system. Currently, around $300,000,000,000 a year is invested in new energies. To keep to a 2 degree temperature rise, that has to become $1,000,000,000,000 and for 1.5 degrees, it has to be $2,500,000,000,000 So as I said, the opportunity in providing the world with what it wants and needs is enormous. So that brings me to the first of those three things that are at heart of what I have to say today. Providing the world with clean, reliable, affordable energy will require nothing less than reimagining energy.
And today, that becomes BP's new purpose, reimagining energy for people and our planet. Now beyond what many may call a grand statement, what might reimagining the global energy system actually look like in practice. Now let's think about air travel for a moment. Over 80% of the world have never been on an airplane, 80%. Passenger numbers could double over the next 20 years, 100,000,000 people taking to the Airways every year for the next decade.
And at the same time, the aviation sector is looking to cut carbon footprint in half by 2,050. Or what about cities all over the world? As Will told us, there is a mass migration to urban areas. 70% of the world will be living in cities by 2,050. And you have city mayors desperate for help cleaning up the air, electrifying transport systems and dealing with waste.
Now imagine turning that waste into bio jet fuel for the planes that fly in and fly out of those cities. Growing cities need new homes, shops, offices, but cement production is responsible for up to 7% of carbon dioxide emissions. What if you could build that new infrastructure with concrete that locks up carbon instead of emitting it? Or how about capturing the carbon from big emitting industries like cement, steel or chemicals? That is already a possibility.
Planning is underway on Teesside here in the United Kingdom for the world's 1st large scale gas fired power station with carbon capture technology built in. Shared use by the local industry is part of those plants. Here's another one. Our solar joint venture, LightSource BP, is going to provide the power for a steel mill in Colorado. It will be the 1st U.
S. Steel mill powered this way, it's going to save 1,000 jobs in the process at the mill and create 300 more building the solar facility. These are all amazing opportunities if they can be done at scale, and they are just a few examples of what we're already working on to reimagine energy. But how do we turn that purpose into reality? We do it today by announcing a bold new ambition, an ambition which is underpinned with 10 aims.
So our ambition is to become a net zero company by 2,050 or sooner and to help the world get to net 0. We have 5 aims to get BP to net 0 as well as 5 more to help the world do so. So let me run through them 1 by 1. Aim number 1 is to be net 0 across our entire operations on an absolute basis by 2,050 or sooner. Aim number 2 is to be net 0 on an absolute basis across the carbon content of our upstream oil and gas production by 2,050 or sooner.
Very important. Aim number 3 is to cut the carbon intensity of the products we sell by 50% by 2,050 or sooner. Aim number 4 is to install methane measurement at all our existing major oil and gas processing sites by 2023, publish the data and then drive a 50% reduction in the intensity, the methane intensity of our operations. And we will work to influence our joint ventures to set their own methane intensity targets of 0.2%. Aim number 5 is to increase the proportion of investment we make into our non oil and gas businesses.
Over time, as investment goes up in low and no carbon, we see it going down in oil and gas. So those first 5 are about getting BP to net 0. The next 5 are to help the world get to net 0. Aim number 6 is to more actively advocate for policies that support net 0, including carbon pricing. That will include stopping corporate reputation advertising, like the Possibilities Everywhere campaign, and redirecting the resources to promote net zero policies, ideas, actions, collaborations and our own net zero ambition.
Aim number 7 is to incentivize our global workforce to deliver on our aims and mobilize them to become advocates for net 0. This will include increasing the percentage of remuneration linked to emissions reductions. Aim number 8 is to set new expectations for our relationships with trade associations around the globe. We will make the case for our views on climate change within the associations we belong to, and we will be transparent where we differ. And where we can't reach alignment, we will be prepared to leave.
And we have more to say on this when we publish a report later this month. Aim number 9 is to be recognized as an industry leader for the transparency of our reporting. Today, we are declaring our support for the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures. We intend to work constructively with the TCFD and others such as the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board to develop good practices and standards for transparency. Aim number 10 is to launch a new team to create integrated clean energy and mobility solutions.
The team will help countries, cities and corporations around the world decarbonize. We believe these 10 aims taken together as a package set out a path that is consistent with the Paris goals and our new purpose. But let me just focus for a moment on the significance of our first three aims, those specifically about reducing emissions. We are aiming to be net 0 on our operations by 2,050. We're also aiming to cut the carbon intensity of our products by 50% by 2,050.
And we're not the only energy company aiming to do those things. Yet we and those we have spoken with do not believe that is enough. So we intend to go much, much further with our aim to be net 0 on an absolute basis across the carbon content of our upstream oil and gas production. We are aiming to make absolute reductions to net 0 of around 415,000,000 tonnes of emissions, 55,000,000 from our operations, 360,000,000 from the carbon in our Upstream production. That is not far off the total emissions of the United Kingdom, the world's 6th largest economy and the 2nd biggest national economy so far to set a net zero aim.
Now it's not a like for like comparison, but purely in terms of scale, it gives you some idea of what we are taking on. And we believe it is the right thing to do, the right thing for the following reasons. It is what the world needs most of all, absolute reductions in the carbon content of fossil fuels. It is simple to understand, or at least we thought it was. I think we have some more work to do to explain, but it is aiming to reduce and neutralize the carbon in the oil and gas that we dig out of the ground.
And it is logical. If this were to happen, George, you and I discussed this, to every barrel of oil and gas produced, the emissions problem for our sector would be solved. But of course, the world is not that simple. We understand that. The whole energy system has to be transformed and everyone has a contribution to make, producers, sellers of energy, policymakers and everyone who uses energy.
And that's why we are aiming to help people reduce their emissions by cutting the carbon intensity of what we sell in half. And we'll do that by offering people more and better choices of low and no carbon products. And in that regard, BP is not starting from scratch. We own the biggest EV charging network in the U. K.
We are an equal partner in the world's 2nd largest sustainable sugarcane bioethanol producer. We have built up a significant wind business in the United States over the past 12 years, and we are fifty-fifty partners in LightSource BP, the solar developer I mentioned a few minutes ago. It's an extraordinary business. And I'm delighted that the CEO, Nick Boyle, is here today. Thank you, Nick, for joining us.
Now let me introduce a bit of a reality check maybe at this point. I have no doubt, no doubt that the pace and the direction of travel we are setting out, as significant as it is, will be insufficient for some. And I know many doubt our intentions based on seeming inconsistencies between what we say and what we do in areas like lobbying on carbon pricing and methane regulations. Many question our motives in supporting the arts. I get that.
We are taking steps to more firmly and visibly align our intentions with our actions and become much more transparent. And we won't get everything right immediately. I know that. So if anyone sees BP acting in a way that is counter to what I say here today, then I want to hear about it. Because I believe that earning back people's trust is essential if we are to stand a chance of fulfilling our purpose.
And that starts being completely frank with each other with admitting when we've got it wrong or don't know the answers. And those of you who know me know this is true. I, for 1, will not have all the answers. But it might be helpful if I try to anticipate some of the questions that you might have. So first, the big one.
Does this mean that BP is getting out of oil and gas? What I can tell you is we will increasingly focus our investments on the highest quality barrels and drive returns and cash flow, not production volumes. And with that, you can expect oil and gas production to decline gradually over time. Does that mean we'll be producing and refining hydrocarbons in 2,050? Yes, very likely.
Does that mean we'll be producing and refining less of them in 2,050? Yes, almost certainly. And our aim is that any residual hydrocarbons will be decarbonized. And in a world that is serious about net 0, they will have to be. But we can only reimagine energy if we are financially strong, able to pay the dividend our owners depend on and generate the cash needed to invest in new and low and no carbon businesses.
Next question. Are we committing more capital to non oil and gas activities? Yes, we will over time. But I think we'd all agree the goal is not just to spend more money. It is to invest wisely into businesses that will make a difference to the world, businesses that we can develop at scale, in areas where we have unique capabilities, something that we can add and where we can deliver competitive returns.
We don't plan to commit to an arbitrary or preset number. But make no mistake, we aim to invest more and more in low carbon businesses over time and by consequence, less and less in oil and gas. And we'll come back and I know there'll be questions. We'll come back to what those businesses might look like in September. And that brings me to one more question for now.
Where are the near term targets to back up our long term ambition? I think John Rigby was asking this very valid question. Where are the near term targets? And I appreciate you want more than a vision. You want to see milestones.
You want to see near term targets. You want to see ways to measure. And as I said at the start, we don't have those for you today, but we will have more to say on this in September and in the months years ahead. And I'll say this now, we don't expect progress to be a straight line. But make no mistake, the direction is set.
We're heading to net 0 and there is no turning back. Now that brings me to my 2nd core theme for today, reinventing BP. Why would we ever why would we do that arguably when we're in our best shape ever? We're performing more safely, more reliably, more efficiently than ever. The strategic choices and the investments we have made over the past decade are paying off.
And as a result, we're heading into a period of increasing growing free cash flow. We're in great shape, and we need to be. The demands on us are greater than ever. People are demanding more choice, more convenience, more flexibility. The demands of our investors are changing as well as they increasingly prioritize sustainability alongside performance.
We heard that from Larry Fink of BlackRock in his latest letter to CEOs. BlackRock is putting sustainability at the center of its investment approach, as are many of our big shareholders. The demands of governments are also changing as they look to energy companies to help deliver their own net zero agendas. And we want to support Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his government here in the U. K.
With its net zero target by 2,050. We want to support Ursula van der Laerne and the EU Commission as they work through the detail of their ambitious European Green Deal. COP26 is fast approaching, and we want to support governments and industry sectors all around the world as they come to Glasgow with new low carbon aspirations. And we asked ourselves if we have the right model for the changing demands of consumers, investors and governments. And the answer was no.
So after many decades, it's actually 110 years, we will be retiring the upstream, downstream model that has served us so well, and we will replace it with one that is more focused, more integrated and faces the transition head on. We will focus on 4 core capabilities: operations, customers, low carbon and innovation. The Cust Gordon Burrell, 1st of all, will head up production and operations. It will be the operational heart of BP, bringing BP's operations together in one place to focus on driving safety, efficiency and value growth. The Customers and Products Business Group will focus on customers as the driving force for the energy products and services of the future.
Emma Delaney will head up the business and focus on customer experience and expansion in rapidly changing markets. Our new gas and low carbon energy business will unite various energy teams currently dispersed around BP to create focused low carbon solutions. It will also pursue the development of decarbonization technologies and potential moves into new value chains such as hydrogen and CCUS. Dave Sagnal will lead that business. Innovation and engineering will bring added momentum and transparency to our venturing and Launchpad investments and be a catalyst for creating value from disruptive opportunities such as digital.
It will also house our engineering discipline and a safety and operational risk team focused on assurance. David Eiten will lead that team. These 4 highly focused business groups will work with 3 integrators, which we are elevating importance to facilitate collaboration and unlock value. Strategy and sustainability will ensure that sustainability is embedded at the top of the organization and will form a single group wide approach to strategy and capital allocation. Julia Szirtier will lead that team.
Julia joins BP for Mackenzie, where she is the global head or was the global head of the downstream practice and is our 1st external hire at this level in over a decade. And I strongly believe that fresh thinking from the outside will help us. Regions, Cities and Solutions, as the name suggests, will build relationships with regions, cities and large corporations looking to develop the integrated energy and carbon solutions that can bring emissions down at scale. Leading that team will be William Linn. Trading and Shipping will be run by Carol Howell and will harness the deep expertise we already have in our existing trading and shipping businesses.
These are areas where BP already has world leading expertise in the integration of businesses, customers and markets. By elevating its position to the top of our new structure, it can more effectively help the whole organization capture new commercial opportunities and add value. And finally, 4 teams will serve as enablers of business delivery. Finance will be headed by Murray Auchincloss. Legal will be led by Eric Knitzer.
People and Culture by Kerry Dreibera and Communications and Advocacy by Jeff Morell. Together, the leaders of each of these 11 teams will form the new BP leadership team, and they're all here today. These are all, in my mind and I hope in yours exceptional purpose driven people, and it has been a privilege to work alongside them on the ambitious goals that we are laying out here today. Their immediate job over the next two quarters is to establish their teams and develop our new strategy. And I'm confident that our new leadership team, along with all our people, have the skill and the will to ensure BP grows and prospers and competes and wins on a way to a net zero world.
Now I recognize that we are taking a lot on, and we need to be very thoughtful as we work through this. And that is why at the start, alongside reimagining energy and alongside reinventing BP, I gave equal emphasis to BP performing while transforming. I want to reassure you that as committed as I am to this transformation, I am equally committed to some fundamental principles that have served us well. 1st, our commitment to safe and reliable operations remains unchanged. Safety will always be our core value, and I believe our new structure will strengthen safety performance.
And second, our investor proposition remains unchanged and will remain unchanged in September when we lay out more detail on our near term plans. This includes our commitment to growing sustainable free cash flow and distributions to shareholders over the long term. This includes maintaining a strong financial frame, including the focus on deleveraging the balance sheet and capital staying within a disciplined frame of €15,000,000,000 to €17,000,000,000 It includes delivering on our 2021 free cash flow targets, and it includes staying focused on costs, driving waste out of the system and pursuing efficiencies. A lot of work has gone into this to date, but we have a lot more to do, obviously. There will be change, and many of you will want to hear more.
Where are the nearer term milestones? Where are or what are the businesses you are going to grow? How competitive are they? How big can they be and at what pace. And as I said earlier, we will share more with you over time with the next installment being in September.
This is a multiyear journey and today is just beginning. To sum up then, this is, we believe, a big moment in BP's history. We are changing, and I hope I have conveyed some of the excitement that we have about that. We'll still be an energy company, but a very different kind of energy company, leaner, faster moving, lower carbon and more valuable. On the way, we are aiming to earn back the trust of society to be wanted, not just needed.
We're aiming to be valued by our shareholders as a force for good as well as a provider of competitive returns. And we're aiming to be a motivating, inspiring place to work for all the exceptional people in our company and the generations that will come after them. And this isn't going to be easy, but nothing worthwhile ever is. We are better because of your challenge, your willingness to engage, your beliefs. Dialogue matters.
It's about solutions, not about positions. And that is what the world needs more than ever. My mother, who you can tell I was very fond of, told me that we were given 2 ears and one mouth, and we should use them in that proportion. Maybe it was very personal advice, I'm not sure. But apart from so apart from a very brief recap, let me try to follow her good advice.
And from all I have said, there are 3 things that I hope you take away from today. First, BP is setting out to be a net zero company by 2,050 or sooner as well as helping the world to get there. Secondly, we are taking on a fundamental reorganization of the company, possibly the most wide ranging in over a century. And finally, we commit to performing while transforming, operating safely and reliably as well as delivering on the promises we have made to our shareholders. So thank you all for listening.
I really appreciate it. Now I'd like to ask Alex Steele to join me on stage. Some of you no doubt already know Alex. She covers our industry for Bloomberg. She's kindly agreed, I think, to put me on the spot for questions and then moderate a session for your questions.
So Alex, over to you.
How do
you feel? You feel all right?
I feel better. Let's hope that feeling continues.
So I just want to tell you a little bit why I'm here so you could also have some water. Typically, first of all, I should say I'm not being paid by BP. I don't own BP stock. I'm not employed by BP. It's unusual for an anchor reporter to do this.
One of the reasons why I was very interested in it is because I've covered commodities for 15 years and I talk to CEOs and analysts all the time as well as investors. And the takeaway is that no one really knows how to deal with climate change, whether in an investor portfolio or on a CEO level. And companies are finally, I would say pretty recently, really taking it quite seriously. It's not just a fad it's going to sustain and making that transition is quite difficult. So I was interested in having that conversation and I think everyone's trying to figure it out as we go.
So that is why I'm here. To that point, congratulations.
Thank you.
You're welcome. So big news, yes. Let's say some naysayers might say, are you just capitulating to the protesters? You're just placating everything. It's not just about the pressure.
It's not real. What do you say?
I think there are and will be people who say that. And that's not why we're doing this. I guess in many ways, I feel like I have had the privilege actually over the last 4 months to have had an opportunity to step back and to get out on the road and meet with people and listen to people. And this isn't meeting our friends in the industry. This is meeting all sorts of different people, people who may not be on the same side of the road as us, people who challenged me, pushed me, gave me some really hard hitting feedback about our company and our industry.
And that's the reason that we have laid out what we have laid out today because of people who've engaged with us and have shaped our thinking. There's a woman in the room here today who I won't name. I don't think she would ever work for a company like ours because of her beliefs, but she has shaped my thinking more than any protest might ever do. And she has pushed, challenged. She said, I go to your AGM.
It looks like you're a renewables company. Why don't you have a picture of an oil and gas facility? You say you have no influence, but I see Helga walking down the red carpet with on his way to see the President in London, don't tell me you don't have influence. She pushed and others pushed on some real hard truths, and that shapes us. Give you an example.
Fred Krupp is on the line from EDF. We're trying to figure out what to do in this space. In my usual management leadership style, I went to Gordon and I said, let's figure out let's cut our methane intensity target in half. Let's cut it in half. He said, well, let's talk to EDF.
They are who we work with in this space.
In Rheinmetall Defense Fund.
Correct. Thank you. They came back and said, no, no, no, no. Don't talk to me about more cuts in your targets. We actually don't believe a lot of your numbers because the industry estimates methane emissions doesn't physically measure it.
So what you really need to do is measure. So we said, fair enough. That's why aim number 4, I guess, is that we'd already said we'll put measurement on our new facilities. Now we're saying today that on all of our major oil and gas facilities existing worldwide, by 2023, we will have measurement of methane in place, we'll publish the data and we'll take that number and cut it in half. That's what dialogue does.
Dialogue gets us in a place where we can be shaped.
So to that point, imagine after you, but when you went around and talked to everybody, did you kind of have an idea of what you wanted to do? Or did this really originate from these conversations?
A lot of it. I had a belief that I had a belief around 2 things. One is that we have to run a successful business. We have to run a good business. That's core to any you have to be healthy to do something different.
And the second belief I had is that we had to change. But to say that I had those 10 aims or that our team as they've worked on it had those 10 aims, absolutely not. Those 10 aims are the result of dialogue. And it's not just from NGOs and activists and I've met Mary Shapiro, I've met Conservation International, met all sorts of people. We spend a lot of time with investors, a lot of time with investors.
So it's not just one dimension, it is a multidimension that has so it's not the pressure in London that has brought this about. It is the consequence of dialogue and engagement. And that, I think, is very helpful.
So I'm just surmising that I know for the journalists, a lot of us are going to have issues with the lack of clarity on targets. And I know you keep saying we're going to get there. It's September. It's September. Is there a concern though that of this will be looked at as greenwashing and the targets will get pushed down the road, pushed down the road, external things might happen that might push off these targets and there's nothing to kind of measure it by?
So I feel like that's what investors struggle with. There's no metric to say, okay, check, I can go buy BP stock because check, it'll fit in my ESG portfolio.
I understand that. And I think it would be premature for us to come out with a set of targets and milestones that this new team hasn't had a chance engage in, in real detail so that we own them. Every journey in our world of satnavs, the first thing we do is type in a destination. Every journey has to begin with a destination. That's today's job.
We're setting out a destination. Details have to come. You have to judge us by actions, not my words here today. Totally get that. But I simply want to make the point that without a direction, in this case, an ambition, an ambition to get to net 0, not just on our operational emissions, but on the carbon content of our production.
We don't know how to fill in those near term milestones. We'll come back with that. We want people say 2,050 is ages away. It's someone said today, he's leaving it for the next CEO to deliver on it or whatever. I don't know if that is a prediction on my tenure, but
It was Greenpeace. No, it was not. It seems like it was just sort of the idea that it's going to take a long time.
And that it's you're not going to deliver on it. I mean, Helga early on in his role had an op ed in the paper here in London that talked about we want a rapid transition, A transition that is delayed and suddenly is a right angle change that disrupts the world. It will be destructive to our company. We want a rapid transition. There is a finite carbon budget.
This woman that I talked to, she said there's a carbon budget. It's running out. Every day you dig oil and gas out of the ground, you're taking from that budget. So we're starting with a destination. The details will come.
We understand that. We'll be judged by that. We get that. But we did have to lay out where we are headed.
So to that point, it was Greenpeace 1 of the writers who said that your successor will make all the changes. They also said that there's a battle to protect our climate will be won or lost in 10 years, not 20, not longer, but in 10. So does that mean that you're looking at an oil business that's going to be half to not have growth in the next 10 years?
Does that
have to be the case?
So the way I would address the question of oil and gas is as follows. BP is going to be in the oil and gas business for a very long time. That's a fact. Why? Multiple reasons.
Multiple reasons. We pay an $8,000,000,000 dividend every year. Not paying that is one way to make sure that we're not around to enable the transition, which we want to. We have commitments to governments that we must keep. And one way to generate the cash to enable us to invest in those new businesses is through that core business.
Now having said that, we will focus on cash, on returns, on margins. On margins, we want to have the highest quality portfolio possible. And as I said, we will invest more in non oil and gas and less in oil and gas. And the summation of all of that is that over time, you can expect the volume inside our Upstream business to decline. And whatever hydrocarbons are left will be decarbonized through various means, through carbon capture, through hydrogen, through natural climate solutions, there are tools in the toolbox.
But that's what we are saying about oil and gas.
So does that mean that you sell assets that don't fit into that?
Portfolio will be a part of this. Part of the work that we are doing over the coming weeks months years. Well, certainly as we head up to September, we'll be looking at that portfolio for sure.
And I guess I ask that because you could then make the argument, well, if you just sell something that you don't think you're going to be able to really produce well or has too much oil, it's too expensive or whatever, someone else is going to do it dirtier than you. So isn't that just kind of like sloughing off the opportunity?
Well, I obviously have heard that argument as well. And I would just say 2 things on that point. The first is that we have 10 aims. The first are about helping BP get to net 0. The second are about helping the world get to net 0.
So we're not just talking today about if we sell an asset that we're done, so to speak. We're saying our ambition is to help the world get to net 0 as well as us getting to net 0. So that's one point I would make. And the second thing that I would say on that is that if we take some of that money and redirect it to growing new businesses that are low to 0 carbon, then that has to be a positive thing.
But if they use the word schleffing, I think is the most important part of that question.
That's you're going to have
to wear. You're going to have
to wear. What is I'm Irish. Does that mean
Alex was an American.
We have funny words. So does that mean that you would still want to explore for oil and gas then?
Well, I
think the exploration question is a real one. I would draw people's attention to the fact that between 2013 2019, our exploration budget has come down by 66%. So it's already down by twothree. Where we do explore, I think we'll be very, very focused on Advantage Resource. But there's no question that we have to look at our exploration strategy, and we will update the market on what that revised exploration strategy looks like when we come back in September.
How does shale fit into that?
Shale? Shale has the potential. We believe we obviously did the acquisition of the BHP assets many, many years ago. This comes back to the question of advantaged resource, margin resource. And that's where we've been working hard.
And I think Dave Lawler is here today, the person that runs the BPX business, driving the cost structure down so that it's a more resilient business. And obviously, I know people have obviously written about flaring and the flaring performance of that business on a relative basis, on a percentage basis, it's the highest, I think, in the Permian. And that's not an excuse, but that's a reality that we bought old assets that we need to develop into our new way of working, which will bring that number down. I have asked Dave, and we discussed it on Friday, to look at how we can accelerate that. And he is working on that.
And I think over the coming couple of months, we may be able to announce something on that.
So that kind of moves us to the Scope 3. Is what you announced Scope 3 or not Scope 3 in reality? Because it's going to it still is vague, at least for me.
I'm going to try something a little different. I'm going to draw. Is that okay? Can we? Okay.
If it's
This was not planned.
Well, this is it kind of was planned because this is here, so it didn't show up.
I did not know about this.
That's okay, Scott. Transparency and honesty is important. But this is a drawing that I have made over in many meetings. I've probably drawn this 50 times. People with people like Rachel Kite at Tufts and when I do it, she says, this really is different.
Now it's a simple drawing, so and it's working. So I'll just think about it in 3 ways. And the first thing to say on Scope 3 is, in 2,050, the world ain't going to be arguing about Scope 3 or not. They're going to be arguing about whether we reduced our emissions or not. Definitional arguments are interesting, but what matters is emissions and emissions reduction.
But nonetheless, let's look at some numbers. The first number for BP is 50,000,000 tonnes, and it's what's known as our Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. I think it's 55,000,000 tonnes. Is that right, guys? It's 55,000,000.
Tonnes. Scope 1 and Scope 2. Some companies have come out and done that to say we'll get to net 0 on 12. Today, we have said we will get to net 0 on 12. But of course, the real issue is that it's the carbon content of the product when it's combusted is the issue.
People say, interesting, you take care of your operating emissions. What I'm really interested in is what happens when the product is combusted. That's about 85% of energy emissions is when the carbon is combusted. So you get to the question of Scope 3. And let me address Scope 3.
So the classic definition of Scope 3 is as follows. It's the gas, natural gas and the gasoline that we sell at a petrol pump, a petrol station or a gas pump in America. And this is for BP about 1 gigaton or thereabouts. Now what's interesting about this number is that's not all our own products, right? We're buying products from many other companies, and we end up selling much more products than we actually dig out of the ground.
Now some of the product comes from BP, but as I said, we're also buying much more. So we have a number of about a gigaton. And what we have said today is we're going to take the efficiency and intensity of that down by 50%. What really matters is the carbon that is dug out of the ground through oil and gas production. Every year, BP produces 2,600,000 barrels a day of oil and gas, our upstream business.
We don't combust all of that, but when it is combusted, 360,000,000 tonnes is added to the system. What we are saying today so this is about product combustion, which is what the whole Scope 3 argument is about. What happens when your product is combusted? The oil and gas that is dug out of the ground that results in 2,600,000 barrels per day, the carbon content is 360,000,000 tonnes, And we are saying we will take that to net 0. If every barrel of oil and gas in the world was treated this way, the climate part, the energy part of the climate problem would be solved.
It's absolute reductions of the carbon that's added to the atmosphere through production is what we firmly believe matters. And when I have spoken to anybody, people say intensity, interesting, absolute reduction, that's what the world needs. And not on your Scope 1 and 2 emissions because that's interesting, but 85% of the problem is from your production. When I showed that to Rachel and to other people, they said, now I get it and I know the drawing is not the best. Nick's looking more confused than ever.
When I show that to people, they say, right, now I understand. So we can take the drawing away, but that's what we're trying to show.
So when you get to that net zero for production, does that mean that you then offset it by buying a wind farm? Or is it literally getting better at producing that oil, I. E. Like flaring less, for example?
So again, this is where it's really important. On the intensity metric, you can improve it by buying a wind farm and generating energy with 0 carbon. But for the metric that we say really matters to the world, the one in the middle, you can't do that. You have to take that number on absolute terms to net 0. And the only way you can do that is to either let the business get smaller over time, which is what we have said we will let happen today.
And any remaining production has to have its carbon offset or captured throughout a CCUS Hydrogen Natural Climate Solutions. So there is no way of adding a wind farm to get your intensity down. That's in the very bottom metric. The one that matters is how do we take absolute emissions on the carbon content of oil and gas actually down. And that's what we're saying, and it's different.
And it's quite significant, I think, for what has traditionally been an oil and gas company to say that.
What about the product emissions though?
Yes.
Because they're your products. So how don't you take responsibility for that in some capacity?
Well, responsibility of course is a wonderful term that lawyers would argue about definitionally for days weeks months years and make a lot of money in doing that. It's a so I'm not going to talk about who's responsible or not. This is a complex system. I mean, I think anyone will accept that. But rather than sit here and debate responsibility, what we're trying to say is we're going to be taking responsible action.
And that's what the aims are about. They're about action that drive us to a different place. And the carbon intensity of those customer products, we will make better. We make it better with better fuels. Tufan is here today.
He and his team have done an extraordinary job. We make it better by building out a charging network around the world. We make it better through better lubricants or providing coolants for EVs. We make it better by building a business in Dev's area that is low or 0 carbon. We make it better by putting tallow into refining system in the United States.
There are all sorts of ways where we can make the carbon intensity of our products better. We will do that. We will do that through the 50%. It matters. It matters hugely.
The big point, I think, is the piece in the middle, which is absolute reduction in the carbon content.
So when you walk forward, actually it did. It had an eraser though. That was very cool.
That wasn't supposed to be the cool part.
Oh, sorry. No, it was great. The drawing was really wonderful.
But we didn't practice that part.
Thank you. So then if you take a look at the portfolio is that you're saying the oil and gas or the oil portion will get smaller. I mean that's where you get your returns, right? I mean you have returns for oil and gas investments that can be plus 25%. For renewable investing, you're looking at 8% to 10%.
You need the cash flow from the oil and gas to fund the transition. You have to then sell that to investors. What about those who believe you're not going to be able to really generate the returns that you need to say to get the investors to believe you?
Well, I think there's clearly a lot of questions around that. I think, first of all, I have a belief. I believe that we can and will generate competitive returns. So I have a strong belief in the more I understand about the company that we can and will do that. We have to prove that.
Like on a 25% plus level or
We have to prove that to investors. We really, really do. But Alex, if you think about it, there has to be opportunity here. The world is spending $300,000,000,000 a year today on new energies. It takes $1,000,000,000,000 to get to 2 degrees.
It takes 2.5 $1,000,000,000,000 to get to 1.5 degrees. The problems are and the challenges are integrated in nature. They're integrated problems. They're not a single problem that can be solved with a single solution. They're integrated.
We have 6,000 engineers, 2,500 scientists. We have one of the world's largest trading organizations. We have a marketing company. We build massive projects. We operate plant.
We're in 78 countries. We can solve big integrated problems. So for those that say, can you make a competitive return? I say, I believe, yes. We'll give details on what those businesses will look like later in the year.
I believe the problems are integrated, and we are one of the companies that can help solve those problems. And I think equally, if we're being honest, a lot of people would look at returns in the oil and gas sector over the last decade and say they don't seem all that attractive in themselves. So I think there's a real case here for opportunity in this sense.
That is a good point. Many investors would say that. So that is true.
Well, they would. I mean, the numbers of 25% and 20% do get bamboozled around. And of course, we have our own hurdles for our oil and gas business. But I think many investors here in the room today are looking at their portfolios and looking at any portfolio of any oil and gas company over the last decade and saying something's got to change, and I see opportunity.
Why is this not better left to like Google, Amazon and Tesla?
To do
To change. Because for a company that has the cash flow that doesn't come from like an oil and gas that can do all the cool new energy things in transition, And at least in Tesla's case, have the ability to think out of the box in a particular way and not moving a company around that's 110 years old. Why are you not Elon Musk?
We are I struggle enough being who I am, but
I think Elon might struggle on that too.
Maybe I'll give Nick a heads up. Maybe we can get Nick a microphone, just give him a little time to think, maybe rather than me answer why, but just a filibuster for him for a minute. I mean, I do think we have energy in our blood. I mean, we have been at it 110 years, and that tells you something, and it does mean that it's in our DNA. And we have a lot to learn, of course, a huge amount to learn.
But we equally have a lot to bring to the table. So Nick, you've been asked this question a few times. So but
Well, whether I'm Elon Musk
Why are you not Elon Musk?
He is Elon Musk. So Thank you, Bernard. No pressure. Good afternoon, everyone. For those of you who don't know me, I am Nick Boyle.
I'm the Founder and CEO of Light Source BP. And I suppose to answer the question, it's probably appropriate that I maybe go back 2 years or so whenever we were just light source. We did a deal with BP to become Light Source BP just 2 years ago. So before that, we were asking ourselves exactly that question. At that point, we were called Light Source.
We were probably one of, if not the largest solar business is in Europe. I'm sure many of you are not aware of that. But we had exactly the same question. We had aspirations to build a global business. We knew that in our own right, we weren't we didn't have the financial wherewithal, the strength, etcetera, to move into these new markets.
And therefore, partnering with a large institution that was in the right place and could offer us that growth was something that was front and center. So as a Board, we sat down and we asked ourselves the question, what is the right industry that we should align ourselves with in order to make sure that we companies? And certainly, from our perspective, what
we were left with, is it a tech company? Is it a tech company?
Is that the right partner for us? Is it utilities? Are they the right companies? And certainly, from our perspective, what we were left with was a decision that, without doubt, the best company for us to align ourselves with or the best sector was oil and gas. Oil and gas companies have powered the world for the last 100 years.
And certainly, from our perspective, we believe that they are therefore in a perfect position to continue to power the world for the next 100 years. Oil and Gas companies build large engineering projects, which at the end of the day, without that, we're, how are we going to have this whole energy transition? They're used to doing that in remote places, in their case, significantly more remote even than the ones that we did. But they're also used to power markets. They're also used to energy markets, huge trading capability and the financial wherewithal to Lars to actually deliver.
So from our perspective, the decision that we made prior to going to the market was that an oil and gas company was definitely our preferred partner. So we went to the market. Luckily enough, the timing was good and we had a significant number of interested parties to buy into LightSource. And luckily for us, given my last statement, a fair percentage of those, in fact, the majority of those were actually oil and gas companies. So I suppose the next question is why BP?
From our perspective, from the very first meeting with some of Dev Sanyal's team in Alternative Energy, not only did we click with them, but there was a firm realization, an instant realization that these guys just got it. They got that the world was changing. They got that they wanted to be part of, a significant part of this whole energy transition, but they also realized, maturely, that it was different from the way that they had built their business thus far. And they saw that there was an advantage in aligning themselves with businesses, sector champions like ourselves to learn from us. I don't say that lightly, but I suppose if we were able to deliver on our potential, BP then in turn was able to deliver on their huge potential going forward.
So we did the deal 2 years ago, as I said. Now it's still early days, but the world loves numbers. I am able to give some numbers, September for BP, but I can give you some now. So what's happened since we did the deal just over 2 years ago? First of all, our pipeline.
Pipeline is business that we haven't yet started construction, but will construct over the 3 or 4 years. That has grown 8 fold since doing the deal. The number of territories that we operate in has tripled and our headcount has doubled. In 2020, we will do which financial close on the same number of gigawatts as we had done in the entire 8 years that we had prior to doing the deal with BP as part of LightSource. So certainly from our perspective, we're extremely happy with how that's going.
If you were to ask me what I would attribute that to, there are many, many different facets and many different reasons why this works so well. But if I may, I wouldn't mind just pointing out 2 that certainly for us are the ones that are top of the list. The first one is the brand. Now we knew or assumed that the BP brand had massive value. Compared to Light Source, clearly, it was going to have massive value.
That's why we pushed so hard, although we were pushing against an open door, to become LightSource BP. We figured that, that would afford us a level of gravitas that we clearly wouldn't have been able to have on our own. However, we underestimated the value of the BP brand a 100 fold. I mean, in every single area of our business, it has had a positive effect, but I'll give one example. As you're all probably aware, in recent years in particular, there's been a huge growth in the concept of power purchase agreements, PPAs.
And PPAs are where large electricity users and by sort of inference, they're large corporates are choosing to enter into agreements because of price and because of the green nature of what we produce and enter into long dated arrangements with businesses such as ours for us to deliver all or significant percentage of their electricity long into the future. And the one thing you've got to be aware of is that this creates risk for these companies. It's extremely important they choose the right company to do these deals with. There's an old saying that no one ever fired for bringing an IBM solution to the board. And the LightSource BP solution, as long as we're there on price, is exactly that.
These large corporates time and time again have chosen to do deals with us on power purchase agreements because of Light Source's track record in terms of I hope, in terms of our ability to deliver solar. But I believe far more importantly that BP name, that financial strength, that 100 year plus history that simply metamorphoses the proposition that we have for them. The other area, I think, very quickly is the people, which sounds a bit naff. But we, if I'm being honest, had expected a level of arrogance almost. That's what we had expected that we would get.
You guys are solar business and we're the big oil and gas. We were established. And I have to say, we could not have been further from the truth. Every single department, no matter where which area that was in, and indeed, every single level of seniority has welcomed us with open arms. And every single one of those people has taken a can do and a productive and a supportive attitude to what we are, if you like, there to basically do and to help BP do.
So I have to say, these guys, I certainly am a big fan. I think it was the right decision for us. And I'll end by saying, if ever there was an illustration that change is coming, the solar guy has the tie on and the oil and gas guy doesn't. Thank you.
So what he said? Jan?
I think well, Nick is very passionate about this obviously, and it's one of the reasons we asked him here today. But I have another example, and I know you want to move on to Q and A from the audience or whatever. But Tufan has done a deal in China with Didi, who are the kind of Chinese Uber. And I love this story because it's not what you would think. So Didi owns 25% of the world's electric vehicles, not 25% of DEVs in China, 25% of the world's electric vehicles.
And they have chosen BP to be their charging partner as we build out as they build out a charging network. And I said to the team, why did they choose BP? And they said, well, we have a history of building out retail networks. So building out charging networks makes sense. Okay.
I can kind of see that. Then they said, and of course, we're the largest charger in the U. K. And I said, well, let's be honest, we recently bought that company, so it's not like it's deeply in our DNA yet. But what's really interesting is what happened when Didi came and started working with us.
Didi said, Oh, you have an operating management system. And we said, Of course, we have an operating management system. It's what it's how we run our operations. And they said, but we don't have a safety management system for our driving fleet, and we really want what you've got. Here is a capability that we had that we ascribe 0 value to that we basically take for granted.
And this other company is going, this is the greatest gift you could ever possibly give me. I think it's an extraordinary story, which speaks to, and I hope not in an arrogant way, but the capability of some of these companies, ourselves included, and with the right attitude and the right will, can be a massive force for good in this new world. And that's what we're trying to set out to do.
So I'll ask one more question, and we can get to the Q and A because I hear that a lot from different energy oil companies that want to be energy companies. They either leverage their existing businesses and then use that pipeline to help them get other businesses or they do something completely different to diversify. And that's I think why when people are looking at your plan and looking for targets of how much money you're going to spend in alternative investments, I know you don't want to give a target, but then how do we believe it? And what are those assets going to be? Like, is it going to be wind or is it going to be solar?
Is it going something else that's going to generate the kind of returns that you need? And why not put a target on it?
Because the ambition is not to spend money, I don't think. It's a simple way for people to judge. I got that. But what we have to do for our shareholders and I believe for society ultimately is invest in businesses where, A, the business will actually make a difference in the world B, we can see scale C, we add something unique because otherwise the investor should go and buy it themselves and C, can generate a competitive return or D, can generate a competitive return. That's what we're about.
And some years, you might want to spend a lot because of an opportunity and the following year, maybe not as much. So it's very attractive to have a number X percent of your annual budget is being spent. I get that. I understand that that's an attractive way to measure. What we have said today is the number will go up over time.
And as it goes up, the investment in oil and gas will come down. And we'll come back later in the year and in the years thereafter and talk
to them.
So then we have to judge it by the return of those investments when you make them? Is that what we mean now?
You'll have to look at many, many things. The tests that I used earlier are I think the tests that matter to our shareholders. Are we adding something unique? You have to add something unique, otherwise people can go and buy the stock themselves. I believe we can add unique things.
If there's an offshore wind business and we can couple that with gas, gas that's decarbonized, couple it with a trading business, put it on a digital platform, that's the type of thing that we can do. That's distinct from just being in the wind business, pure play. We can add lots of things together. That's where we can make incremental return. So has it got scale potential?
Because this is a large company, it has to generate large numbers in terms of sums of money. So it has to have scale potential. It's got to be competitive returns. And we have got to demonstrate that we add something unique to the equation. And in answer to the question, do you think you can do that, I fundamentally believe we can do that.
And I hope Nick's little example and it's a big example obviously is a way of describing that. And I hope the little example from Didi is an example and there are many more.
Okay. So with that, there'll be some mics floating around. Again, early hand wave right there, right in the front. And then we also have some questions from the people who are watching online. Yes, right there.
Christian Majek from JPMorgan. And thank you for an excellent Q and A and reception by Alex and also congratulations about it. So the two questions I have and sort of trying to work through this 30 year horizon that you've painted. And the first is, at this point in time, the world's got too much oil. So you're an old company selling oil, and the world has got too much of it.
It's commoditized. Imagine a scenario where we go into a, let's call it, another super cycle, and the world needs that oil, obviously needs everything else. And in that scenario, I want to understand better how you frame your capital frame in terms of resisting the temptation to invest more, not less in oil because at that point, surely, every oil company out there is going to be looking for the best barrels, the best returns and giving the best dividends out there. So you're competing in the financial markets. Is there a scenario in a bull market for oil, God forbid, that we go back into an upcycle, where you have FOMO?
That's the first question.
For more, I know.
Fear of missing out on giving better dividends and buybacks.
Got it.
The second question is, and sort of tipping it on its head really, is the demographic of demand. You're solving for providing more energy in a lower cost environment, yet most of the incremental energy is coming from countries in the world that can't afford renewables, wind. I'm originally from Egypt. Tell them to go long renewables when they're trying to fund they're trying to fix poverty. So how do you solve for that in terms of being able to provide low cost energy in a world that is screaming for it, but in large chunks of the world where most of the incremental demand for energy is coming from, they can't afford anything but the very thing that you produce, which is oil and gas.
Christian, thank you. Thanks for coming. Thanks for two thoughtful questions. I'll try because I know you want to get through questions here. I guess the first thing I would say is that FOMO is costly.
So the fear of missing out is a costly endeavor. And I think our industry has learned that the very hard way over the last decade. So chasing price with more investment doesn't end up very well. It's not a good story. So if we have learned anything as an industry over the last decade, and BP certainly has, it is that capital discipline is at the absolute core of attaining and maintaining our shareholders' trust.
And therefore, if there is a cycle, you will not see us chase it with more investment. That is exactly what we should not and will not do. So that's the first thing that I would say. And to that capital productivity and the need to drive efficiency into the system where we can do more with less as we have done. Our projects that we laid out in 2016, 35 of them, today cost 25%, I think $15,000,000,000 less, Murray, than they did when we laid that out in 2016.
And we are not done. We should drive that further. So that's the first thing. On energy, I was in Cairo yesterday. I have been to Azerbaijan.
I have again, in listening as I've gone out, people have said, you know this argument about 2,000,000,000 people in Africa, they need the energy, therefore that's your license to continue to do what you do. People have said that doesn't actually ring very good for us, some of the people that I talked to. Because they said, these are the people who, in many cases, stand to be most impacted by climate change. And why is it that they can't leapfrog to some of the new stuff. And I am very encouraged by Minister Pradhan in India, Minister Mammadov in Azerbaijan.
Mr. Mammadov in Azerbaijan talks about 27 gigawatt potential in renewable power in his country. If you've ever been to Bakugou, I think you have, it's a windy place, but it's not just wind, it's solar. They have enormous resources. So sometimes there's a feeling that these countries are sort of left behind.
When I'm in Mauritania, I was at the U. K.-Africa Summit 2 weeks ago and I signed a memorandum of understanding with the President. And the purpose of the memorandum of understanding was to ensure that the discovery that we made called Orca would be developed with renewable energy and that we would explore that. So these countries care. Yes, they need energy to lift themselves as they should.
India, our forecast says that the number of cars in India will grow 6 fold, Spencer, over the next 20 years, I think. And it's still less cars in the United States. Six fold, still less in the United States. So these countries have every right to the energy that they want. Our job is to help provide it to them in a way which is least damaging to the environment.
And it's the end and the opportunity in that rather than the here's why we have to keep doing what we're doing is what we're trying to turn on this head.
So it's
a great question.
So it
seems like still selling oil and gas to India to places like that, like Egypt?
They will need it. The question is can we decarbonize it? Can we make it more resilient? Can we offer them better products? That's what we have to try and do.
Okay. You're flagging me. You're waving me down right there. So we'll do the guy who's waving.
Thank you very much. My name is Leo Hickman. I edit a website called Carbon Brief, which reports on both climate science and energy and climate policy. My question for you is around so 4 years ago, the world's nations in Paris agreed to keep or limit global warming to well below 2 degrees C and aspire to 1.5 degrees C. That translated in the IPCC 1.5 report that came out a year ago or a bit more than a year ago said that globally emissions this decade 2020 is into 4 by 45%.
Translate into oil and gas, that's about roughly the same in terms of what those emissions from oil and gas sector mean. What you've laid out today doesn't
is not compatible with that scenario.
Is BP and with that scenario. Is BP in a year admitting to the world now that we're going to miss 1.5 and we're not even going to really meet the 2 degree goal agreed in by all the world's nations in Paris 4 years ago?
Leo, thanks for the question. So first of all, you shouldn't read that into what we've said today because we've said nothing about a 2,030 target. So I don't quite know how you can draw that conclusion. What we've said today is that we will be net 0 in the carbon content of our oil and gas production and our scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2,050. Paris, as you quite rightly said, calls for well below 2 degrees and an aspiration to get to 1.5 degrees, which results in net 0 in the second half of the next century of this century, second half of this century.
We're saying 2,050. And instead, we're actually going beyond that, and we're saying or sooner. And we will be advocating in those second five points for that to be accelerated as quickly as possible. And the second thing I said is that we will come back with near term milestones to which we will no doubt talk about 2025 and 2030 and Leo is quite right. The challenge on what those numbers look like and will they
be consistent with some of the numbers
that he said and that's for later in the year And this is a quite interesting actually. This comes from
I can't read that far. You love it. I And this is a quite interesting actually. This comes from I can't read that far. You love interesting questions.
From University of St. Andrews, Asking about the BP work culture and how workers are responding to that, because it does seem like you're going to have to this is my own editorial, you have to change your workforce or at trim it down or something or change who's working for you in this transition. How do you sell it? What do you tell them? What are you hearing from them?
Well, I think if you may if I may, I should address our team because they are all hearing this at pretty much exactly the same time as everyone in the room. And I there is enormous anticipation of today inside the company and I think enormous excitement about what's coming. And to those of you around the world who work for BP, I'm, 1st of all, incredibly grateful for the support that I have got as we have led up to this. It has been nothing short of overwhelming. This is a lot of change.
I mean, today, we have talked about a new purpose, a new ambition, a new organization, a new leadership team. And of course, we haven't even talked about ways of working, which over time we will want to continue to change. So I think in the organization, and they will tell me because we're all wired up on Yammer, There will be excitement about this, but equally, there will be angst and nervousness, and I understand that. So we will be doing a lot of engagement and a lot of communicating over the coming days weeks to hear from the organization, to hear what's on their mind. Mental health is something that I have spoken about.
It's very important to me. And I am anxious about people's mental health in this time of change because it does affect different people differently, and I want people to be able to talk, talk openly, share what's on their minds. But now this is a bit random, but we have people in the room today who are hearing from BP, who are hearing some of this for the first time, some of these have you heard of One Young World? Well, they will tell you about it. But is there anybody here who's one of our delegates to One Young World?
There's looks like there's a One Young World camp back here. And just whoever they'll tell you. It's a
They're not linked.
Who wants to take the
go for it.
There we go.
Just tell folks who your name is and Hello, everyone.
My name is Rishi Dorai, and I work in Group Strategy as a Carbon Management Analyst with BP. And it's a pleasure to have co led our 1 Young World program for the company for the last couple of years. So 1 Young World is a it's a U. K.-based charity that runs annual summits in different parts of the world every year to bring together young people who try to come together to solve some of the world's most pressing issues in line with the U. N.
Sustainable Development Goals. Now I think companies like BP have shown huge commitment to sending young leaders in the company to attend summits like this and engage in real conversations to bring about lasting and impactful change. And I think some of the folks we have in the room here today are part of that delegation. And actually, many of the things that you've heard about today come in principle from some of the lessons that we've learned from others through some of these really impactful conversations, not least of which is the purpose statement, which was actually one of the key inspiring moments of 1 of our
1 Young World activities a few years ago. So I think the key
thing for us is our young We really want to see the companies we work for have an impact. We really want to see the companies we work for have an impact in a social sense, in a societal sense. And I think seeing some of the changes we've seen today, it's deeply motivating and deeply energizing as we look ahead to the future.
What's it like to be a BP delegate in the past at One Young World?
It's not always been easy. I think you're often in a very young and progressive audience, and there's a lot of pressure coming representing oil and gas. People are very much thinking that's the future, as we've seen with London as the epicenter of our climate activist agenda. It's not always easy coming with a BP logo behind you, but I think having the real conversations we've had, showing the impacts we've made in the societies in which we operate. And I think today, 1st and foremost, we'll have a really lasting agenda as we go forward.
Thank you.
Impressive. Yes, right there. Blue shirt, yes.
Thanks. And thanks, Manav.
You have kind of
ripped up the rule book a little bit today with that upstream, downstream change in terms of the structure.
Could you just give us your name and
Sorry, it's Lydia Rainforth from Barclays.
Almost everyone knows Lydia, but not all of Lydia.
I'm from New York, man.
And just in terms of that new structure, what is it you actually want to get out of it specifically? Is it about driving returns? Is it about being able to accelerate the energy transition? Or do you think you need that new organization to be able to do both of those? And thank you for addressing that, the impact that you think it can have on the staff.
But you talked about in the past that look and feel of do you want to change the way it looks and feels of working for BP? Can you just talk us through a little bit more of that and what you want to see?
Very good. Thank you, Lydia. So in terms of the reorganization, we wanted to focus the company on the things that we believe matter and that in the long run that will be good for shareholders and society. And the first of that is the Production and Operations business group. And this is all about operating excellence, and no better person to lead that than Gordon.
But at the core of our company is the operations of the company and will now be in one place, one place driving safety, driving reliability, driving efficiency, productivity. That is what that is about. The gas and low carbon is about growing a new low to 0 carbon business. That is what society wants. That is where there is growth potential.
Dev's job is to figure out how we do that in the best possible way, and he will do that. Emma is running customers and products. It is looking more and more. We talk a lot in our company about governments, government relationships. We need to talk as much about customers and customer relationships in the future as we have governments.
And Emma's role would be to find out what our customers want and how we can grow business in that area. And then finally, is innovation being led by David Eitan. It is about innovation. It is about figuring out how we can actually create new businesses from technologies that might have one day only been applicable or that were discovered in oil and gas. So we have something called lit or light, Lamar, which is about fiber optics.
You have seen it in our wells in Azerbaijan, but imagine that being a sensing company. These are the types of things that the innovation arm will look at. So they are what we're trying to focus on, customers, operations, low carbon and innovation, 4 separate things. And in terms of the look and feel of the company, we've talked in the past about we'd love to be a cool company and people say I'm too old to be cool. You're an industry.
Well, that's definitely interesting, so to speak. But
I'm barely an instrument.
But someone said, well, what does cool look like? And cool for us and the look and feel that we want the company to feel much more like. A cool company is inclusive. People come to work today and they feel included regardless of their ethnicity, age, sexuality, whatever, they feel included. A cool company is agile.
It doesn't have layers and layers and layers of bureaucracy and decisions that take months. That's not what a cool company is. A cool company is digital. It looks digital. It feels digital.
It acts digital. So these are the types of things, a more agile and more inclusive. And that's why we're saying we've gone from 2 segments, upstream, downstream. We're not going to 3 or 4. We're going to 1.
It's BP. We want it to be inclusive. We want to make it more agile with time. And increasingly, digital will be both disruptive, I think, and an enormous opportunity for us, and we intend to double down in that space.
I'd just like to circle back to the climate question that you've had before because I think it's really important for people to understand how much of an endgame goal the primary new goal here is to decarbonize your production and go all the way to net 0. So a good rule of thumb and it's a correct rule of thumb still for all the climate modeling and science that's taking place is that the world to get to 1.5 degrees would have to decarbonize, hit net 0 at about mid century, about 2,050. And to get to 2 degrees, you're going to have 30 years or so more, 2,080 or so. And so BP is a global company. And if everyone does what BP has just committed to do, then the oil and gas sector will hit net 0 in 2,050, sort of full stop.
And for those people who are still sort of who are suspicious greens and with some cause, right, The thing is that a little over a year ago, BP made a methane announcement that was similar, 0.2%. And if you do the calculation, that basically takes oil and gas methane out of the climate budget. No negligible impact on global warming. And because of the way the organization is structured with so many outside partnerships, you saw the repeated communications even during the meeting to Fred Krupp, who is only aligned with getting the climate in order. They have all kinds of oversight that they've built into the interaction.
And so when they got it right, everybody said they got it right. And when they got it wrong, everybody screamed and they've taken corrective action. And these are competitive people. And they've made a hard target now. And the sort of scary competence and competitiveness that have worried people, since that's sort of aligned with the green interest.
And so I think this is a profound change, this announcement, especially the one headliner.
So to piggyback off that real fast. So to point them, if everyone did this, it would fix the problem. But what if everyone doesn't do this? Like you operate in Iraq, Russia, you mentioned Azerbaijan, like I can't imagine Russia being super pumped about this or how do you deal with that? Like it's great you're doing it, but what about everybody else?
Well,
I think it is important to look at facts on many of these things because I think there is sometimes, and I'm not suggesting that people in this room have this view, but there is sometimes a feeling that it's only the people in our part of the world that care and the people in other parts of the world don't really care. And I have to be honest that, that is not my experience. Now we all may have different starting points. I get that. But to suggest that this doesn't matter to Azerbaijan is wrong.
We just did not win their first solar and wind contract in Azerbaijan where they have, I think, taken 425 Megawatt of Renewable Power. They have a big agenda. Russia, we have a long and deep partnership with Rosneft. That is very clear. I would encourage people to look at some facts.
First of all, Russia is a signatory to the Paris Agreement and is from what I'm told on track to meet its INDCs. Rosneft published its 1st sustainability report in 2006. I would encourage people to look at the evolution of those sustainability reports for every year right up to last year. They have just formed a subcommittee on climate and sustainability. We have just seconded Tyrone Kalpi, an environmental expert from BP into Rosneft to focus exclusively on carbon and sustainability.
They dropped their methane intensity down by 48% in 2018. So we may have different starting points, but I would not be of the view based on experience that it's only us in the West here who care. Angola has some of the stringent most stringent offshore water regulations that we operate in, the same Gordon is true in Azerbaijan. So I think we look at facts, we engage in dialogue, People Rosneft has signed up to the methane guiding principles as has SOKAR in Azerbaijan. So these countries and these companies care.
It may not be the popular thing to write in the media, but and they may have a different starting position. But what we do is we try to help and we try to influence. And I think by being in and being part of the dialogue, we would argue we can have a greater impact than if we're not. That's what we're trying to do.
To add on to that and then I will also dovetail with a question from online. With Rosneft like you have that stake, you can't affect change, you can't make them do anything though with it. So how open do you think they are in listening? And if not, do you sell it?
We have 2 Board seats on Rosneft. We don't control Rosneft. But they are absolutely and remember, this is a two way street. To think that the learning just goes from BP to Rosneft is not right. This is a company that's drilling thousands of wells a year operating in some extreme conditions.
We can actually learn a lot from them too. We have 2 Board seats. They want our input, particularly on matters like this. And they are very I was in Russia last week or the week before, I was in Moscow. They joined.
They turn up. They participate. They want to be part. They're like any one of us. People want to be included and part of the dialogue.
And I think all too often, there is a sense of others being wrong and we, whoever we are, being right. And as I said in my talk, I don't think this is a time to be entrenched in positions. I'm in this position, you're in that position. We are here today because of dialogue with people in this room that has made us better. Dialogue matters.
And that's where business interests and commercial interests coming together can have a real impact.
So that dovetails with a question here. Thank you for making this bigger for me. So Carlos Thorn is VP at Location USA. He asks how can we influence customers of our products like the automotive industry, air travel to get on board with these ambitions? Thank you.
Same kind of question. How do you influence that part of it?
Well, I think, 1st of all, we can, of course, influence customers. Customers have to make their own choices, but we have an ability to have a big impact. I was in Germany last week. We have 2,000,000 customers per day in Germany. I was shocked.
2,000,000 people every day come to a Narao station that is owned by BP, a deal that John did many, many years ago. I think we have 100 of billions of touch points with customers every year in the world. So we can influence. And what I would like us to do is to more and more encourage well, first of all, I think it starts with sometimes some education and transparency on our products, on the carbon content, on how you can reduce your carbon traveled and so on and so forth. I think we can do a lot.
I don't subscribe and somebody said that's in this room that I would hate to be in an oil and gas company's marketing department because it sounds like they think they don't have any influence on their customers. Of course, we have influence on our customers. And I want that influence to be a good influence and a force for good influence. And I believe we can do that through further transparency and through offering people better products. We were in I was in Gelsenkirchen, one of the 2nd largest refining and chemical complex in Germany.
And they are looking at how to make, A, their refinery a net 0 refinery and B, how they can deliver fuels which are far more environmentally efficient, whether it's through co processing, e fuels, blending, all sorts of solutions, hydrogen, Linge, one of our other refineries in Germany, has hydrogen being developed from So these are the types of things that I need to learn much more about. But we can influence, and I do want that influence to be a force for good influence and that's what we'll set out to do. So it's a great question.
Well, you're like standing up, so okay. Go ahead.
I think it's not the only one.
Simon Jack, BBC News. Would you be prepared to cut the dividend to hit some of these targets? And if not, why not given that people like the world's biggest asset manager, Larry Fink, said there are some things that are more important than shareholder returns in the short term?
So it's Simon? Is that right?
Hi, Jack.
I
was waiting for the dividend question.
The question on the dividend, I think, is very, very simple. I have met many, many investors over the last several months. Helga has met with many, many shareholders over the last several months. Every conversation that we have had with the owners of our company comes to 3 subjects typically: get your gearing down, get it back in range, make sure that dividend is protected and sustained, and please do something in the energy transition. Now depending on where you are in the world and depending on who you're talking to, the order of importance varies.
Sometimes people want, 1st and foremost, to be on the energy transition. Sometimes people only want a dividend. But in almost every conversation, Simon, all 3 have been present. And our job is to deliver on all 3. That's what the owners of the company are asking us to do.
I do not believe, as some people may subscribe, that it is an unsolvable problem. I believe it is entirely solvable. So BP will get its gearing into the range that we have set out. BP will, as I have said today, commit and remain committed to its distributions policy. And we will partake fully and wholly in the energy transition.
And that is what we have laid out here today. So that's how I would answer that question.
Can you promise them that you'll never cut the dividend?
Promises, promises. I'm very clear with what we said today. We said that when we come back later in the year, that our commitment to our distribution policy, our commitment to capital discipline, our commitment to gearing, our commitment to cost and waste and digitization does not change.
So that's not a yes or a no. He's like, can you wrap this up now? But I'm asking because if you take a look at what happened to Shell when they made all these commitments and then they had to dial back their buyback growth because they're trying to do everything at the same time, how do you not do that?
People, I think, 1st of all, BP is in excellent shape. We have invested a lot of money over the last several years in 35 major projects, 23, I think, of which are online and 12 to come online. We have major 2021 free cash flow targets, which drives the breakeven of this company down to around $40 This is a very resilient business. We will run that business resiliently. We'll run it well.
We will pay that dividend. We will get that gearing down, and we will take part in the transition. People, I think, think that investing in the transition means more capital on top of what you're already spending. What I've said today is the following. Our capital frame remains unchanged.
We will increase our investment in low to 0 carbon. And as we do that, by definition from the first statement, our investment in oil and gas will over time come down. That is how we solve that equation.
Okay. Feel a lot of pressure right now to pick all of you. In the back, it's a sweater. You, right there.
Thank you. It's Emily Gosselin from The Times. You said Bernard that you'll still be producing oil and gas in 2,050, albeit less than today. Could it still be millions of barrels a day that you'll be producing in 2,050? And do you think you could produce that kind of level and still credibly hope to meet these targets?
And there's obviously a finite amount of offsetting that it's possible to do. So can you give any sense of how you would credibly decarbonize millions of barrels a day of production?
Emily, thanks for your question. And I will delay some of it to later in the year. I'm not going to get drawn into how much oil we're going to be producing in 30 years' time. Sometimes it's hard to judge what we're going to be producing next year sometime. So and I'm not trying to be cute with my answer, but it is a long way away.
What I have said today is that we will be producing less oil and gas in 2,050 than today. I think that's almost inevitable. There are a number of scenarios as to what that volume will be, and there are a lot of decisions that we will take over the weeks months years ahead. But what I have said today is that if we are and whatever amount that amount is in 2,050, it will have to be decarbonized, Not just because we have said that we're going to be net 0 in 2,050, but if the world has any chance of meeting its net 0 targets, it will have to be decarbonized. And that is what we will do.
How will we do it? We will do it with things like carbon capture. Yes, people say you as an industry have talked about this for a very long time, and it's never gone anywhere. I get that. I do believe the technology exists.
I am very excited about net 0 T side, very excited about creating, I think, the 1st gas powered power station, Pratima will correct me if I'm wrong, that we will decarbonize. And I have a bigger hope and dream that we can actually build an X0 Industrial Park in Teesside, which may have carbon being taken from local steel manufacturing, which may have cement being manufactured there, which takes carbon out of the atmosphere. Why not? Now is the time with the government's ambition here in the U. K.
For us to lean into this. And this is the sort of thing that we have to do to prove to people like Emily and her readers that we are actually serious about doing this. And it's not just carbon capture, natural climate solutions. I am far from an expert. People within the NGO community have a lot of differing views on this.
I spoke to Conservation International. They actually think that this can be a really good thing. I speak to other people. They're less sure about it. They see it as an excuse to continue to do what you want to do.
From what I understand, they are an absolute tool in the toolbox. They have to be high quality. And I'm particularly interested in the impact on local communities where these natural climate solutions or offsets or whatever are taking place because we have to make sure that there is a net positive impact there. So no number for production in 2,050 because it is 30 years away. It will be less than it is today.
And whatever number it is, because of what we said, we will decarbonize it. And we have that journey to go on.
But you can see then why people get worried about the dividend or that you're going to spend more to do it?
I have been really, really clear. I hope that we have some objectives to do. We have our gearing to get into range. We have a dividend that needs to get paid, and we have an energy transition to invest in. The last thing that I would want is for people to think that that's the singular focus of what we're trying to do.
That's been the focus of today's conversation as in our 2,050 goals, perform while transform. It is there for a reason. It is there to reassure people that we, as a leadership team that has been announced today, are as committed to delivering on those commitments and promises that we have made to our shareholders as we are on delivering that energy transition and that net zero space. And I do not believe that they need to be incompatible. I do not and the team does not believe that they need to be incompatible.
So that's what we will do.
Thank you. Paul Kelsoff, Sky News. Bernard, you're an oil man your entire career. When did you have the realization the stuff that devoted your life to digging out of the ground was the problem that the world needed to address?
And if
I could ask you again personally, you talk about the priorities of the people you speak to. But personally, which number matters more to you, hitting these carbon targets or the dividend?
So remind me of your first name? It's Paul. Paul, thanks. So the first thing I would say is that John is here with us and John is here for many reasons, but he is credited with many as being the 1st leader in our sector to acknowledge climate change in 1997 at Stanford University where he gave a great speech. And I have had the privilege, as have many of us in the room, of working with John for many years after that.
So this is not an epiphany that has somehow happened overnight. We, in many ways, take our leadership from John many, many years ago. There is no question that the expectations of society are changing and have changed incredibly fast, particularly over recent years, and I would say even over recent months. And my ability to go out and to listen and engage has been a huge part in me getting to the place where today we lay out these ambitions. On your second question, of which is more important, it's a great question to ask.
It's also an easy question to answer. They're all important. And in many ways, they serve each other. BP is not financially viable. I mean, if you start from a place, Paul, if you start from a place, and it's for everyone to form their own view, and some people do not have this view, but if you start from a place that we can be a force for good to help make this transition happen.
And actually, the people I speak with do actually think that. They actually think that a company like ours, assuming it has the right attitude, has to be a part of the solution. If you assume that we are a force for good in the transition and can help make that transition happen, then by definition, we have to be financially strong because that is how we will make that transition. And for us today, the 2021 cash flow targets, the commitment to our distribution policy, the commitment to the balance sheet, the commitment to capital discipline, the commitment to cost structure, these are the things that represent a strong, healthy company. And that is why my team and I will be working incredibly hard to drive that home.
So it's not like there's some massive conflict. It is that in many ways they reinforce each other and that's how we will manage it. So thanks for your question, Paul.
We have time for just 1 or 2 more. I'd love to hear from a shareholder, if a shareholder has a question. No. Okay. Yes.
Did you pick 1? No. Thank
you. Ron Wilson of Reuters. You're a
shareholder, Ron?
Trick me.
I'm not a shareholder.
My question is, what is your message to your peers
today? I'm thinking not only the European ones, but also the Exxon
and Chevron who seem
to lag a little bit in
the pace when it comes to the transition.
Thanks very much. Well, I'm a week in my job, so or 2 weeks or whatever it is. And I am not one to certainly give anybody any advice. And I have a lot to learn, I think, from the other companies. These are all great companies.
We have a lot of respect for the companies that we compete against and oftentimes we partner and we bump into them all over the world. I will learn from their approaches. I'm very open to learning from what they're doing, the things that have worked, the things that haven't worked, and we should do that just as much as we learn from our own learning. So for me, Ron, this is not a space for competition. We've long said in safety that safety is not a source of competitive advantage.
Safety, hurting people. So we share, we share incidents, we share learnings, we share, we help each other. We go and meet with each other in industry forums. And my hope is that trying to help the planet meet its goals and its aspirations, we should think about the same way, which is who doesn't want to try and help the world do what the world clearly needs and what society wants. So I hope we don't I hope we can work together, and I think we are working together like that, but it's not for me to give them any advice.
They're great companies. I have a lot of admiration for them, and I will learn a lot from them over the coming months years.
Such a diplomatic answer from the CEO. However, I will pivot off of that and say, but I think that the idea behind it is a good one in that there is a big divide between U. S. Companies and European companies and how they're treating climate change. And BP straddles that since there's so many of your shareholders in the U.
S. So it's like how do you talk to your Houston employees? How do you deal with that in a way that, say, Total and Shell don't have to in the same way?
Shell has a huge organization in the United States. So I don't think they're any different
for us. Yes, the
shareholder base has a huge presence in the U. S.
We have shareholders in the United States. And again, I just think it's, I guess, one of my own learnings in life and in leadership is that it's just very dangerous to generalize. I really believe that. I was in Boston in January and Craig is here, where is Craig Marshall? We met 4 or 5 investors.
Craig is the Head of Investor Relations for BP. We met 4 investors in the morning. And in the afternoon, we went to the Kennedy School of Management and we went to Tuftside Academy. But those investors, they had different views. I had I met investors that day that were as focused on the transition as any shareholder based here in London.
So I don't think that we can say it's U. K. Or it's Europe, United States. I genuinely believe that there is much more common ground than people might think. Were our employees in America 3 years ago as anxious about this subject as maybe people in Europe?
In general terms, probably not. Has that shifted in the last 3 years? I can absolutely guarantee you that is a fact. So we think of our stakeholders as staff or employees, shareholders and society. And the reality is, is that in this moment in the world's history, those wants and needs are coming together, not drifting apart.
Shareholders, Matt is here, shareholders want a competitive return. They also want to invest in a company that's doing good in the world. Why wouldn't they? Society wants BP to be a net add to the world, our staff, our shareholders and members of society. So in many ways, this is converging.
And it's easy to paint a picture of the U. S. And Europe and so on, but you really have to get into the detail, I think. And I think things are coming together more than people might imagine. I think we're
Are you calling it? No. Is he calling it? He's calling it.
Jeff calling. One more.
One more.
One more.
One more. Oh, gosh. It's so stressful. Okay. You're in the middle.
Hello. Veronique Dupont from AFP. In the wake of the last few questions, you said you would stop investing in corporate reputation. Will you also stop or invest less in lobbying to influence regulations?
Veronique, thank you. So it's a great question. And I guess one of the things that has taken me a little bit by surprise is the feeling in civil society that we say one thing in public and behind the scenes we're lobbying to prevent some of the things that we say in public. And because I've been with the company for 28 years and that sort of duplicity is not something that I experience in our company, I initially struggled with that because it wasn't it's not who we are. Nonetheless, when you look at evidence and you put yourself in other people's shoes, as we always should, I think, I can see why people might feel like that.
So we said we're pro a carbon price, but then people saw us in Washington State lobbying hard against a price on carbon. Now it was with good reason. We believed, and I don't think we were wrong, that the particular proposal had major flaws and that it was excluding certain industries when the whole point is to create a level playing field. But I can understand how someone would say, hold on, you said that, and you're lobbying against that. Methane regulation in the United States, Angelie is here.
She reported on that. She said, well, on one hand, you say you're pro methane deregulation in this case and on the other hand, you seem at least to be lobbying against it. So that has been one of the things that I think we have taken very strongly on board. We are making it very clear here today that we want to make sure, and in fact, one of the first calls that we will have with the entire organization will be in a week or 2 where we sort of in the nicest possible way lay down the law, which says that in our company we have a very clear corporate position. And if you are lobbying or asking for help or providing input on policy or whatever the language is locally, you need to make sure as a country head or whatever that it is consistent with the position of the company.
And importantly, if in doubt, you call. And we talk about it. And that will be one of the things that we will do because if we are to rebuild trust, and trust transparency is the currency for trust, if we are to rebuild trust, we cannot be seen to say one thing and do something else. So this is something that we're very, very, very focused on. And that's why I said, Veronique, in my remarks that I have no doubt that we won't get this right because we have to make sure that everyone now gets lined up.
And if you see an example where we said one thing today, call us out on it. Tell us. We're up for that. And what we said with Jeff is that we will shut down our major reputation advertising programs like possibilities everywhere, which I have had a lot of feedback on and redirect that money to advocating for policy that promotes the transition. And the great thing about this is that as we describe the new businesses that we can get into, charging being a great example.
Charging is a great example. So on the one hand, we can look at regulation or policy, which is designed to accelerate charging build out, electrification. Could be seen as a threat to our fuels business, right? Of course, understandable. But if we're also in the charging business, which we increasingly are over time, then there's an opportunity of how we can build that quickly and build that network.
So in answer to your question, we are absolutely very clear on the position on lobbying where we want to make sure that our lobbying that we're doing is in support of the goals that we lay out today. The devil is always in the detail because not all regulation is good regulation. Not all policy is good policy. And you have to get into details and you have to be willing, all of us, to understand and have a dialogue, which is what I come back to maybe as a main theme, which is as long as we can talk about these issues and challenge each other, I have a hope and a belief that we can do some of these things. But when we become entrenched in positions, that's when I think we really have a problem.
So
So for the Q and A part, thank you very much for hosting me. I appreciate all the conversation. And I will turn it back to you.
Very good. Well, Alex, thank you all very, very much for your time. Alex, I think, did an absolutely brilliant job. We should give her a round of applause. The return is I now have to do a 30 minute live interview on Bloomberg TV and
13 minutes of the time.
13 minutes, this will be very, very interesting. It's not my favorite thing I have to say. But anyway, what's I'm not sure we'll be sending out a link to that one, but Alex, thank you. I just want to thank my entire team, the people who have produced this great event today obviously, but people have worked night and day to do what we've had to do over the last several months. And there isn't a chance that I could name everybody, but I can assure you that there are people in their company who have put their heart and soul into this, heart and soul.
And this is what people in our company want. And I just want to thank the team that has helped to pull this together and actually roll this out today. They've done an extraordinary job, and I'm very, very grateful to them all. I want to thank you all for coming and taking your time. And some of you have traveled, which I really it means a lot to me and to us, and I really want to acknowledge that.
Thank everybody for watching online. It's an extraordinary number of people, but you've taken your time. The BP employees that are on the web, as I know, there are in probably every center around the world. I really appreciate what you all do, and I'm very much looking forward to hearing your feedback. We have 2 live webcasts tomorrow, 1 in the morning, 1 in the evening, where we will listen now to your feedback.
And I look forward to getting out and working with you and getting to know those of you that I don't know, and that will all come in the weeks months ahead. We are on LinkedIn, Instagram, Yammer, so you can connect in that way and provide your views. I want to wish everybody a safe journey home. And as in the spirit of the day, we do have a 1 minute video to close it out. And with that, I'll leave you all go.
So thank you very much. We'll play the video.