The biggest issue I have with BP’s net zero ambitions vs. other E&P’s (using $CNQ as an example) is the reliance on corporate actions (A&D) to meet its emissions goals. $BP is targeting $25b in divestments between now and 2025. This capital needed to “advance its strategy”

Using e&p sale proceeds to fund low carbon investments. The sold assets won’t stop producing (or emitting GHG’s) they will just be owned by a less environmentally stringent operator (most likely NOC’s). On an absolute basis will the E&P reserves/production owned by BP TODAY be

Producing more or less GHG’s in 2030/2050? By selling the assets, BP is most certainly ensuring that the assets will have more GHG than if they had remained inside BP. Is the world better off with this action? This is just carbon leakage.

Contrasting that with CNQ (oil sands) who has set out a roadmap of tangible operational plans to get to net zero. Oil sands have made real improvements on its emission there is still lots of work to do. CNQ is advancing in-pit extraction, zero emissions on primary heavy

Etc. they are trying many different things on its very large reserve base. So looking forward I expect that CNQ will lower the GHG intensity (and absolutely) on its reserve/production which is what we need to happen. And BP will report net zero because they sold their assets?

We need absolute emissions reductions, not just moving them to a less stringent operator. We should be incentivizing GHG reductions from operators and not applauding moving them to someone else. Worth checking out some of the tech that CNQ is advancing https://www.cnrl.com/upload/media_element/1279/05/technology-and-innovation-case-studies-web.pdf