<article><p class="lead">Bob Dudley, the chairman of the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) that groups 12 leading oil firms accounting for 30pc of global oil and gas output, spoke to Argus' Stephen Cunningham at the World Petroleum Congress on 6 December.</p><p class="lead">What does the OGCI see as the most positive aims declared in the Glasgow climate pact?</p><p class="lead">There are several. One of them is the emphasis on the requirement to reduce methane. The OGCI is investing in some of the satellite technology, so there will be nowhere to hide anything going forward. Second is an emphasis on a value for carbon. Unless something has a price or a value, you don't change behaviours.</p><p class="lead">And what does OGCI see as the most negative aims of the Glasgow pact?</p><p class="lead">Some of it is quite undefined, the language is a little loose. In an ideal world, you would have the commitment to eliminate coal. Countries have different starting points. And so it probably would have been impossible to get an accord if it had stayed with language that was black and white.</p><p class="lead">How will the Glasgow pact affect policy and investor pressure on oil and gas producers, and how will OGCI act to anticipate that pressure?</p><p class="lead">The pressure is already on, it has been for several years. You can see it rising across the European oil and gas firms, and the US ones. We've seen what's happened with activist investors and that's going to continue. For the OGCI, we were hoping to be more involved in the Glasgow meetings, because I don't think the world can get there [to net zero] without the technical capabilities of the big energy companies.</p><p class="lead">What demand-side energy policies does OGCI want from governments?</p><p class="lead">Number one would be natural gas — driving the reduction in leakages or flaring. Enabling certain policies like CCUS [carbon capture, utilisation and storage], which will need help. A little bit more involvement from industry on policy making, because bad policy does happen sometimes.</p><p class="lead">How do you answer critics that suggest that by grouping companies with such disparate climate goals at an individual level, OGCI is taking a "lowest common denominator" approach to tackling climate change?</p><p class="lead">This is an industry that generally in the past didn't necessarily co-operate very much. Working collectively is better than working individually. We don't come down to the lowest common denominator — firms are working at different paces.</p><p class="lead">What would it take to narrow the gap between European and US companies in terms of emissions reduction targets?</p><p class="lead">They're fast coming together. US companies were a little bit more reluctant and wanted to be clear on what was the path to getting to net zero before committing.</p><p class="lead">What about shareholder pressure on oil companies?</p><p class="lead">You have to have sensible shareholder pressure, because if shareholders wanted to break these companies up and split them up and not be involved in the energy industry — I don't think that helps the world at all.</p><p class="lead">Does the pandemic strengthen the case for the energy transition?</p><p class="lead">We're all struggling with what are the real implications of the pandemic. It's not an easy question to answer.</p></article>
