BP p.l.c. (BP) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

[Presentation] 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 for 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 but 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, Helge Lund. Helge is here. So great to see our Chairman here today, and it's been great working with Helge over the last few months, and as he challenges and pushes and supports me, and it's been fantastic. John Browne is here. Lord Browne, the 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. Georg Kell, where is George? Georg is here. Georg is the Founder and the former Executive Director of the UN Global Compact, the world's largest voluntary corporate sustainability initiative. I met Georg in New York some time ago, and he's been very helpful in my thinking, and I'm really appreciative of Georg being here. Steve Pacala -- 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 a 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 room and looking out for 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 nothing planned. So the hotel staff will guide us to the exits. The muster point is near St. James's Church or in St. James's Church. So when you exit the hotel, turn right towards Paddington Station and you'll be taken well care of. Now I'm going to speak for 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 lecture in 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 you today is a lot of detail on the next month or the next year or indeed the details over 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 lecture in here and get into some detail. So this is only week 2 for me in 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 BP. 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 lightly 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 being 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. Second, 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 we're 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 zero. 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, trillions of dollars are going to be invested in replumbing and rewiring the global energy system. Currently, around $300 billion a year is invested in new energies. To keep to a 2-degree temperature rise, that has to become $1 trillion. And for 1.5 degrees, it has to be $2.5 trillion. 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 3 things that are at the 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 million people taking to the airways every year for the next decade. And at the same time, the aviation sector is looking rightly to cut its carbon footprint in half by 2050. But 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 2050. 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 biojet 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 first large-scale gas-fired power station with carbon capture technology built in. Shared use by the local industry is part of those plans. 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 first U.S. steel mill powered this way, and 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 2050 or sooner and to help the world get to net zero. We have 5 aims to get BP to net zero as well as 5 more to help the world do so. So let me run through them one by one. Aim number one is to be net zero across our entire operations on an absolute basis by 2050 or sooner. Aim number two is to be net zero on an absolute basis across the carbon content of our upstream oil and gas production by 2050 or sooner, very important. Aim number three is to cut the carbon intensity of the products we sell by 50% by 2050 or sooner. Aim number four 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 five is to increase the proportion of investment we make into our nonoil 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 zero. The next 5 are to help the world get to net zero. Aim number six is to more actively advocate for policies that support net zero, 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 seven is to incentivize our global workforce to deliver on our aims and mobilize them to become advocates for net zero. This will include increasing the percentage of remuneration linked to emissions reductions. Aim number eight 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 our report later this month. Aim number nine is to be recognized as an industry leader for the transparency of our reporting. To date, 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 ten 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 3 aims, those specifically about reducing emissions. We are aiming to be net zero on our operations by 2050. We're also aiming to cut the carbon intensity of our products by 50% by 2050. 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 zero on an absolute basis across the carbon content of our upstream oil and gas production. We are aiming to make absolute reductions to net zero of around 415 million tonnes of emissions, 55 million from our operations, 360 million from the carbon in our upstream production. That is not far off the total emissions of the United Kingdom, the world's sixth largest economy and the second 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 -- Georg, 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 second 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 50-50 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 one 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 2050? Yes, very likely. Does that mean we'll be producing and refining less of them in 2050? Yes, almost certainly. And our aim is that any residual hydrocarbons will be decarbonized. And in a world that is serious about net zero, 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 nonoil 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 Jon 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 and 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 zero and there is no turning back. Now that brings me to my second 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 2050. We want to support Ursula von der Leyen 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 -- Gordon Birrell, first 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. Dev Sanyal 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 Eyton 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. Giulia Chierchia will lead that team. Guilia joins BP from McKinsey, where she is the global head -- or was the global head of the downstream practice and is our first 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 Lin. Trading and shipping will be run by Carol Howle 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 Nitcher; people and culture by Kerry Dryburgh; and communications and advocacy by Geoff Morrell. 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 2 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. First, 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 billion to $17 billion. 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 the 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 1 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 2050 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 Alix Steel to join me on stage. Some of you, no doubt, already know Alix. 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 Alix, over to you.

How do you feel? Do you feel all right?

I feel better. Let's hope that feeling continues, but...

So I just wanted to tell 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 at a CEO level. And companies are finally, I would say pretty recently, really taking it quite seriously. And 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 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 protests 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 Helge go 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. I'll 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."

Environmental Defense Fund?

Correct, thank you. They came back and said, "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, it doesn't physically measure it. So what you really need to do is measure." So we said, fair enough. That's why aim number four, 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 a 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 -- not to interrupt 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 Schapiro, 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 multi-dimension 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 at September. Is there a concern, though, that some 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? Because 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 to engage in real detail so that we own them. Every journey in our world of sat navs, 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 zero, 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. And we will come back with that. We want -- people say 2050 is ages away. If 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...

If it was Greenpeace, and no it was not. It was just sort of the idea that it's going to take a long time [I think, to my point.]

And that it's -- you're not going to deliver on it. I mean Helge early on in his role had an OpEd 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 and 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, and 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, one 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 -- have to not have growth in the next 10 years? That has 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 billion 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 nonoil 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 and months and years. We'll, certainly, as we head up to September, we'll be looking at that portfolio, for sure.

And I guess I asked 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 kind of like sluffing 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 zero. The second are about helping the world get to net zero. 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 zero as well as us getting to net zero. 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 zero carbon, then that has to be a positive thing.

But they used the word sluffing, I think, is the most important part of that question.

That's -- you're going to have to...

That's a new word, right? So...

What is it? I'm Irish, Alix. It's 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 and 2019, our exploration budget has come down by 66%. So it's already down by 2/3. Where we do explore, I think we'll be very, very focused on advantaged 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?

Yes, U.S.

Shale has 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 it -- is what you announced Scope 3 or not Scope 3 in reality? Because it's going to -- it still is big, 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...

This was not planned. I do not know what's happening right now.

Well, this is -- it was kind of 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 Kyte 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 2050, the world isn'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 million tonnes, and it's what's known as our Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. I think it's 55 million, is that right, guys? It's 55 million tonnes, Scope 1 and Scope 2. Some companies have come out and done that to say we'll get to net zero on 1 and 2. Today, we have said we will get to net zero on 1 and 2. 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 giga tonne or thereabouts. Now what's interesting about this number is that not all are 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 1 giga tonne. 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 2.6 million barrels a day of oil and gas, our Upstream business. We don't combust all of that. But when it is combusted, 360 million tonnes is added to the system. What we are seeing 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 2.6 million barrels per day, the carbon content is 360 million tonnes, and we are saying we will take that to net zero. 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 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 zero 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 zero. 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 seeing, 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? 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 and weeks and months and 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. Two founders 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 zero 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 to 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...

Did the drawing help?

Actually, it did. It had an eraser, though. That was very cool.

That wasn't supposed to be the cool part, but...

Oh, sorry. No, it was great. The drawing was really wonderful.

But we did practice that part.

Thank you. So then if you take a look at the portfolio, is the -- you're saying that 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?

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. And the more I understand about the company that we can and we'll do that. We have to prove that.

Like in a 25%-plus level? Or...

We have to prove that to investors. We really, really do. But Alix, if you think about it, there has to be opportunity here. The world is spending $300 billion a year today on new energies. It takes $1 billion -- $1 trillion to get to 2 degrees. It takes $2.5 trillion 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'd 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 business.

That is a good point. Many investors would say that. That is true.

Well, they would. I mean the numbers of 25% and 20% do get bandied 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 going 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 because...

I think Elon might struggle in 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 broader than me, answer why -- but just 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. We have 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...

Whether I'm Elon Musk or not?

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 Lightsource 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 Lightsource. We did a deal with BP that we become Lightsource BP just 2 years ago. So before that, we were asking ourselves exactly that question. At that point, we were called Lightsource. We were probably one of, if not the largest solar businesses 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 were -- we didn't have the financial wherewithal, the strength, et cetera, 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 maximize our potential? And we talked about tech. Is it a tech company? Is that the right partner for us? Is it utilities? Are they the right company -- 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, where -- 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 there also used to power markets, they're also used to energy markets, huge trading capability and the financial wherewithal to allow us 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 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 and 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 business' 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 noise. 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 we'll construct over the next 3 or 4 years, that has grown eightfold since doing the deal. But the number of territories that we operate in has trebled, and our headcount has doubled. In 2020, we will do -- reach 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, many different facets and many different reasons why that has worked so well. But if I may, I wouldn't mind just pointing out, too, 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 Lightsource, 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 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 are 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 a significant percentage of their electricity long into the future. And the one thing you 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 got 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 Lightsource'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 signs 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, yes?

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&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 EVs 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 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 ascribed 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, 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&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 to be 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 investors 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 when we'll know?

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 a little example from DiDi is an example, and there are many more.

Okay. So with that, there'll be some mics floating around. We got an 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.

Christyan Malek from JPMorgan, and thank you for an excellent Q&A and discussion by Alix. And also congratulations, Bernard. So the 2 questions I have, 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 oil company selling oil, the world has got too much of it. It's commoditized. Imagine a scenario where we go into, let's call it, another super cycle, and the world needs that oil, obviously needs everything else. 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 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.

FOMO, I know.

Fear of missing out on giving better dividends and buybacks.

Got it. Got it.

The second question is -- and it's sort of tipping on its head really is, the demographic of demand. You're solving -- providing more energy in a low-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 [ to 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?

Christyan, thank you. Thanks for coming. Thanks for 2 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 costs 25%, I mean, $15 billion 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 billion 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 I 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. Minister Mammadov in Azerbaijan talks about 27-gigawatt potential in renewable power in his country. If you've ever been to Baku, 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, ] somewhat 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 sixfold, [ Spencer ], over the next 20 years, I think, and it's still less cars in the United States. Sixfold. Still less than 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. It's what we're trying to turn on instead. That's a great question.

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 were flagging -- you were waving me down right there. So we'll do the guy who's waving.