Energy Transition Now Podcast – Episode 6 with Clara Altobell

DL:   Hello, everyone. I’m your host, David Linden, the Head of Energy Transition for the Westwood Global Energy Group. And you’re listing to Energy Transition Now where we discuss what the transition really means for the oil and gas and the broader energy industry. A lot of the discussions we’ve had so far are focussed on larger IOCs, or IECs, as some of them prefer to be called. And so, what we wanted to do today is speak with a self-styled mid-tier upstream oil and gas company based in the UK to get a view of how they perceive and are working within the energy transition. And that company is Serica Energy. To guide us through what Serica are doing. I’m really pleased to have Clara Altobell, the VP for ESG and Business Innovation, here with me today. Clara has 25 years of experience in the oil and gas industry, and she initially worked globally on subsurface and engineering operations relating to exploration, development and production before joining Serica in 2008, where she worked on asset management and as VP for Technical. She’s now responsible for Serica’s environment, social and governance, ESG performance, as well as new technology, so effectively steering Serica through the energy transition. She’s also a great advocate for women in energy and was made a fellow of the Energy Institute just a few months ago. Clara, thanks for taking the time to come on the podcast.

CA:  Thanks for inviting me, David. Glad to be here.

DL:   If you don’t mind, it would be good to start with a question on your career, and you obviously have a very interesting background, how you’ve moved from what I would call a pure oil and gas technical role, maybe to incorporating ESG, sustainability, energy transition, which is really what a lot of people are currently trying to do. Can you maybe just start us off by talking about how did you make that transition in your career and why?

CA:  Yeah, so I’ll have a go. So, as you said, I’ve had 25 years in the industry and for 23 of those, I was a petroleum engineer. And, you know, when  asked, what do you do for a living, it was easy. I’m a petroleum engineer, but petroleum engineering does incorporate, you know, a lot of different aspects. The analytical side of it, studying the subsurface. There’s a commercial side, there’s working with governments. There’s providing training. So, I was very involved in, on when we had our Namibian assets. You know, I do the training with the local people, and I really got a buzz out of that. And then I was very involved with the SPE, Society of Petroleum Engineers, and involved in continuing education. So, I’ve always had a lot to do with the social side of things, the education side, and then dealing with governments on legislation and planning new developments and how you would work in a country. So, I was very aware of the ‘s’ side and also very involved in the ‘e’ side when writing development plans. I was doing well testings, and I was also the office nag. So, whenever a few of my colleagues loved to print everything out and you know they’d have piles of paper on the desk, do you need to print that? But now I have a licence to nag. It’s great. So Serica we’re mid-tier oil and gas company and that means we’re pretty small. We were a lot smaller, so now we’ve got about 160 employees. But still, compared to some of your previous speakers, you know, we’re a small, focussed company, so you get involved in everything. And I was, as a petroleum engineer and VP Technical, I was getting involved in the ESG side of things. So, as I had an interest in ESG as part of my VP Technical role, I also started getting involved in ESG. So, I was involved in writing our first ESG report in 2019. But my role was VP Technical. And then my boss, the CEO said, look, we need we need more of a focus on ESG. He’d been attending Oil Council events, you know, there’s Oil and Gas UK, he could see the direction of travel and that as an oil and gas company, we needed to be kept abreast of this and we needed to be proactive. And I said, oh, yeah, yeah, but it’s okay, I can still help and get someone part time and I’ll muck in. And he said, no, no, we need someone full time and I think it should be you. And so, I said, oh, so I thought about it. And, you know, it’s a big, big change when you’ve been doing technical work all your life and that’s the heart of it. And would this be fulfilling? Is this the direction? And I decided I was the right person for the job. I understand the business and  I’m personally invested in ESG. I believe in it. And I want, I want the industry to do the best it can. I want to present the right message. I’m not arrogant. You know, I’ve got integrity and I want that message, and I want to work with agencies and governments to deliver energy transition. So, I after mulling it over, I said yes and added on the business innovation side, because I think technology is really important to achieve net zero and to battle climate change. So, one thing I would say to people, because I know a lot of people are looking to make the change and, you know, a lot of people are saying, oh, should I  quit and do a course? I think stay in your current organisation, show that you’re interested, find out what your organisation is doing, volunteer, start getting involved, and then I think you’ll naturally move into this. And I think that is the best way to make the change, because if you quit, start reinventing yourself, do a course and then apply, if you haven’t got that experience, it’s much harder to get in. So, I think getting involved, joining you know, if you’re a G&G professional, join the SPE, the PESGB, the geological society, get involved in their special interest groups their webinars, and start learning and becoming a voice for it, and then then you’ll be recognised and you’re much more likely to get a role in ESG, than purely doing an academic qualification or just applying for jobs, if you haven’t got that experience. But there is a natural progression for people with that skill set, with analytical, we understand sub-surface, we understand big problems. And so, there’s a real need for people with that background. And also, with geothermal and carbon capture and storage. You need that subsurface understanding to help the industry moving in that direction.

DL:   OK, that’s a very positive way of looking at it. And I certainly agree that you kind of need to understand the industry to be able to change the industry as well in that sense. So that’s important. Now, you’ve used a few acronyms there and obviously the ESG one is the classic one. But there’s always a bit of confusion in my mind between what is ESG, what is the energy transition, what is sustainability? Are they the same thing, something different or not? So, I mean, we talked about what ESG physically stands for is the three letters, the environment, social and governance. How does it, what does it actually really encompass? And is that the energy transition or is it something slightly different?

CA : So as you said, your ESG is environment, social and governance. And writing an ESG report is a really good way of understanding your company and where it sits in the energy transition and in the world, basically. So, the ‘e’ side. So that’s environment, as an oil and gas industry, you look at your impact on the environment and what you can do to change it. So that is by measuring your carbon emissions, measuring your chemical usage, et cetera, and ensuring you’re measuring them correctly, you’re reporting them correctly, and you’re putting in place actions to actively reduce them. So, it’s very simple, but you need to do it and you need to understand the problem before you can solve it. So that’s why these ESG reports are really useful. They’re not just a burden. So, we signed up to the Global Reporting Initiative, GRI and SASB, which is another sort of, accounting, sustainable accounting board guidelines and the UN Global Compact. So, we’ve got the UN Sustainable Development Goals, which are good guidance on how to be a positive company. So, looking at the impact on the world that your company has. So, once you’ve, once you’ve got all these metrics in place and frameworks, you could start looking at your company, and that’s what we did in 2019. We were very, we just transformed. So, we’d gone from a very small, very focussed company with a handful of people. And we acquired the Bruce, Keith and Rhum fields so that we could have a large platform where 100% owners of the Bruce platforms and we’re a significant operator in the North Sea now. And so, as we transformed, doing that exercise, we could look at ourselves and say, what how are we performing? And what we noticed on the environment side, we were underperforming on our flaring. And so, we took steps to address that, and we introduced a flaring philosophy, flaring procedures, and we eliminated a lot of flaring from our activities. And it was purely by recognising that there was a problem, engaging with our engineers and our control room operators and our offshore staff and coming up, agreeing a set of guidelines on how we would operate, focussing on daily flare, and flaring when you have a shutdown. And then we reduced it by 65% in a year. And it’s just by looking at yourself and saying, what can we do to achieve it? So that the ‘e’ side is looking at your processes and saying, right, are we measuring everything? So, it’s not, so you start off with the platform and your scope one emissions and then you look wider at your scope three, which is your supply vessels, your rigs, your drillings, and make sure that you’re monitoring them and you’re talking to the contractors and sharing your ambitions with them. And then they get engaged and they see it’s important to you and then they communicate it to their people. And it’s a sort of a gradual process of just making a difference from inside. So that’s on the environment side, on the social and governance. I think the social side is, is making the company a nicer place to work and being proud of what you, what you are and what you do and, it’s great for sort of team building and having some pride in the company. So, we were doing a lot anyway, but we formalised it. So, we have a charity committee, a diversity and inclusion committee, an emissions reduction group, an education committee. So now we’re going out to schools and we’re also bringing in student placements, this year. We’ve got three students just starting at Serica. So, we’re giving opportunities to the students to get work experience that they haven’t had for the last year or so. And it’s, it is giving our people a sense of pride, they’re doing more than just their day jobs, they’re making a positive impact on the communities that they work in. And in addition to that, because we are in three different places, were in London, Aberdeen and offshore, trying to get some cohesion. So, we work together. So, we’ve got a cycle challenge at the moment. So, we’re virtually cycling around the UK and that’s home to London staff, Aberdeen staff, offshore staff, you know, some of them are doing a cycling in the gym and recording their miles that way. It’s sort of, a sense of collaboration. And we’ve we formed an offshore team called ESG Champions. And so, they meet, and they look at, and they look offshore practises and saying, what can we do to improve things? So, a lot of it on waste. So recycling, and there’s diesel usage. How can they cut diesel use? So little things, like every week you’d have to run a motor just to check it’s working, you know, your emergency generators et cetera. And instead of running them for two hours, which is what they’ve been doing for years, they questioned it and said, why do you need to run these for two hours? So, they’ve cut it down to one. And so, you save an hour’s worth of diesel. They’re tiny little things, but it’s just getting the mind set so that when you do something bigger, people are engaged, and they will see bigger changes that can be made. And the governance side, it’s I think it’s to gain people’s trust, so the oil industry has got a pretty bad reputation. And, you know, there’s been corruption, there’s been pollution, there’s been wars. And we want to show that we’ve got good governance. We’ve got transparent tendering process. We work with governments, and we follow legislation, and we do things properly. And we support our employees. We’re fair. And that that’s the kind of company I want to work for, that we want to be. And so, when you package it all together, why wouldn’t you do these things? And there’s the added incentive of now, you know, of the investment community. They won’t invest in a company that doesn’t have good ESG and the banks won’t lend you money if you’ve got, you know, poor reputation and you’re seen as poor so that, you know, it’s a perfect storm. It’s climate change. It’s the Paris Agreement. It’s the UN Sustainable Development Goals, COP 26. They’re all pushing companies like ours, like all heavy industries that they have to make a change and they have to do better. And it’s, you know, in conjunction with being a profitable, sustainable company, they also have to think about the wider impact on wider range of stakeholders.

DL:   OK, so thank you for running through all of that actually, that was really good to hear. Well, not just the macro, but the micro aspects of it, in that sense, it’s not what people often talk about, but it’s important to understand that. But if I was just there to listen to you there, is it’s not all driven by regulation in one way then. It is actually also driven by the fact that, as you said, why wouldn’t you do it? So, if I sort of, if I asked the question a bit more directly then, why is Serica doing this? Is it because, yes, there is a need to make sure that the industry has a good reputation, and you feel it’s the right thing to do? Or is it because the investment community is saying you need to do this, and it also feels good to do it?

CA:  I think it’s a bit of everything. So, I said we’re quite a small company, so we are driven by the personalities of the people involved. And so, our CEO is very engaged in this and is recognised that for the company to be sustainable, we want to be ahead of the game. And it’s something we can do to put ourselves ahead of the rest. My personality, I’m heavily invested in it, and I want I want to do it. And I think, our, you know, our other VPs and VP operations sees the benefit and sees it’s the right way to go. And it helps having the pressure from investors, having the pressure from government. Oil and Gas UK is very active and has been messaging this. It helps, it helps the company embed things. So, the board is hearing these things. So not only from me and from within the company, that they’re hearing it externally. So, when we, for example, talk about methane emissions and putting together a methane action plan, they’re also hearing it externally, that it’s something that the government is pushing and proposing. So, it works well. So, we you know, we’re already embedding that idea with our board and with our management. And then the government legislation comes in as well, rather than it being the other way round that you’re surprised and, you have to do it. So, we’re already thinking about it. And also, I think where Serica sits in the world, so we’re a mid-tier oil and gas company, but we’re fully focussed on the UK North Sea. So, we have the Bruce, Keith and Rhum assets which we operate, and we want to extend the life of them so that, you know, their life is in the next decade. You know, it’s a mature asset. But, you know, we could unlock it, there’s third party tiebacks that could extend it beyond 2030. And so, we need to be thinking about how do we, how do we exist post 2030? How do we make this asset part of the energy transition? What can we do? You know, what does it look like in 2030? We also have a development, the Columbus development, which is a sort of low impact subsea tieback. And we’re looking at exploration, which is North Egg, which could be a tie back to Bruce. And so how do we make that net zero? How do we make that relevant post 2030? But our big ambition is to grow, more dramatically, less organically, is through acquisitions. And so, acquisitions in the North Sea, I think Bernard Looney recently said, they’re looking to sell a lot of their oil and gas assets, you know, oil prices going up so they can sell their assets and invest more heavily into the greener technology. So, we are purely upstream, we’re purely oil and gas at the moment. We see that the UK demand for oil and gas greatly exceeds the UK supply of oil and gas. So, our place in in the world is to supply the UK with domestic oil and gas and to be a more responsible company doing that than its peers. So, when the larger companies want to sell their assets, rather than them just selling to the highest bidder to a company that that doesn’t commit to climate ambition, that they could see us and say, look, we’ve embedded in this. We’re working with government in the energy transition. We want to reduce emissions of these assets because the UK is, because the UK still has a need for oil and gas, and that’s what transition is. If we pull the plug on our assets are UK assets will be reliant on imports and imports have a higher carbon intensity. That’s emissions per barrel produced, than local ones. So, another driver for Serica is how can we how can we provide security of supply at lower carbon intensities and ensure that the UK is protected during this transition, that we don’t have fuel poverty, that we were not reliant on external forces, and we’re not creating more emissions elsewhere in providing the energy that we’re using until now, until we can replace it with an alternative energy supply.

DL:   OK, that’s an interesting debate that I’ve seen go on throughout the world, almost, where companies have better ESG credentials, let’s just say are divesting assets ultimately to either get rid of them because they’re end of life or they’re too high emissions intensive as well, and allowing other companies to take them over and run them into the ground, but without maybe the same ESG considerations. It’s an interesting ongoing debate, and I guess the UK’s in a similar sort of place. But when it comes to the UK specifically in OGA, so the Oil and Gas Authority, that sort of sits, I guess, between government and, you know, yourselves, the industry, it has this dual role of maximising economic recovery, but also net zero. Is that a compatible sort of strategy for them to have right now, does that make sense to you or can you marry the two together?

CA:  It’s a big challenge for them. And so that part of the reason for having a VP ESG is keeping up with all the changes and the new documentation that’s been released in the last year. So, there’s the energy white paper, there’s the new OGA strategy. And underneath the strategy, you have 12 stewardship expectations and then you have the North Sea transition deal. So, all these things are coming out and you need to keep track of them, and you need to see how they relate to you. And there are various clauses in there. There’s things like reasonable under the circumstances. So, you know, we want you to do this as long as it’s reasonable under the circumstances. So, where it will, where you’ll get the difficulty is when you know you have something, you have a development or a project that increases the economic return of the project but adds to emissions, and where is the balance there? But I think we just need to keep an eye on supply and demand of the UK, the UK needs to reduce its demand to reach its climate change targets or its net zero targets. If it doesn’t, then we need to be able to supply as much of that as possible. And the forecasts are that we won’t be able to supply anywhere near as much as the UK is forecasting to be using. And it’s you know, it’s in all heavy industries, it’s in all plastic productions, et cetera, that needs a shift. So, I think the way that the government is going, it’s protecting itself by saying if we put in place carbon capture and storage and hydrogen technology, we can continue to supply fossil fuels to meet our domestic energy demands until we can replace that with renewables. But we will decarbonise them. So, we will remove the CO2 from that gas production by converting it to hydrogen, or from refineries by reinjecting it into the ground. So, they’ve been very clear saying that is the direction they want to go in. They’re backing carbon capture utilisation and storage. They’re backing hydrogen. So, it, our energy transition, the UK’s energy transition is recognising that the economy relies on energy. And the forecast is that a lot of that energy will be supplied by oil and gas at the moment until a new technology can come in. The sort of the projection of wind farms and solar does not fill that gap yet. So, between now and 2050, that gap has to be filled. So, if we can keep our assets alive, keep them running, reduce their carbon intensity, reduce the emissions and tie into decarbonisation projects like CCUS and hydrogen. And that’s our licence to operate for now. But who knows, that there could be a new technology that could come in in the next five, 10 years that could tip that balance. But by the looks of it now, oil and gas in the UK is going to be required for sort of decades, decades to come. And that needs a pragmatic approach. Otherwise, you’re moving the problem elsewhere. Carbon leakage, as they call it.

DL:   Indeed, it’s an interesting dilemma, I do want to move on from this point, but I just have one last question on that. Around the UK specifically, you know, you’ve talked about Serica’s development, and you’ve talked about the fact there’s a shortfall in how much we supply versus what we could demand. I mean, I think really interpreting what the CCC, so the Committee for Climate Change is saying in the UK, does that therefore justify the UK government allowing for new development so new, well, simply put, drilling as such in offshore waters, which at the highest level, I guess, goes against what the latest IEA net zero report has said. Does that simply not suit what we’re trying to achieve in the UK?

CA:  I think, again, it’s carbon leakage. So, if there was not going to be a UK demand, so if that demand curve can change and they have an answer to that demand curve, if there is an answer to saying, OK, well, then we don’t need oil and gas, we’ve got the answer. You know, we can put in enough wind farms, enough nuclear, enough alternative energy that we don’t need that. Then, then there is the argument to stop drilling. But there isn’t, that demand is still there. And I don’t think any of the projections have solved that demand. So, if that demand is there, you may as well drill and keep your domestic supply going and incorporate decarbonisation solutions with it. But keep an eye on it. You know, if technology, they should still be working towards a way of reducing that demand. But as it sits now, the demand is there, and so the drilling should be allowed, but with strict legislation and strict ways of using new technology to reduce emissions to as low as reasonably possible. And yes, lining up with decarbonisation projects, these clusters. But it’s putting your head in the sand if you ban drilling and you’re going to import LNG, that that’s not the answer.

DL:   OK, so I know we’ve talked about the ‘s’ and ‘g’, and I know we spent a lot of time talking about ‘e’, but I guess it is the one thing that a lot of people are talking about now, because it has, I guess, the most significant impact in terms of the hydrocarbon business ultimately does and how its product is consumed and the impact on the climate. But some of the things people don’t talk about is really the practicalities to how you reduce those emissions. You talked a little bit about that. You just you need to understand them first to measure them, so you know what to do about them and achieve that. But there are also different mechanisms that are out in the market. And one of those is around carbon pricing. And I noticed also in your ESG report, you talk about scope one emissions of the subject to the EU ETS specifically, which I guess might not be the EU ETS this year, might be the UK ETS this year. But can you just maybe explain the distinction there, if there is a distinction at all between emissions of the subject to the EU ETS and practically what that means?

CA:  So, we are 100% operator of the Bruce asset. So, the Bruce asset is three platforms joined together where we process and export gas from the Rhum field, the Bruce field and the Keith field. And in order to do that, we have compressors and turbines that provide power and compression in order to process the volumes of oil and gas that come along the platform. And it’s quite energy intensive. The EU ETS, the emissions trading scheme would give industry allowances so that it would be agreed on a government level and then the government would allocate these allowances per asset, not just oil and gas, it’s steel, it’s refineries, agriculture, etc. But, you know, if you’re deemed, to be a large emitter, that you would get these allowances and it’s so that you wouldn’t be at a disadvantage from imports. But in order to incentivise people to reduce their emissions, the allowances have now reduced. So, the UK has left the EU emissions trading scheme and has started the UK emissions trading scheme. So, we have been allocated an allowance and it’s about 25 percent of our forecast emissions. And so, what you do, you take the allowance. So, you forecast your annual emissions. You subtract the allowance. And so, what you’re left with, you need to buy allowances. And that’s the trading part of things. And the UK is having auctions every two weeks and trading these allowances. So, an allowance of one tonne of CO2 is currently around forty three pounds. There’s a floor price, so it cannot go below 22 pounds. And there’s a ceiling mechanism now and that ceiling mechanism, is around two times the average price of the previous two years. So, you can try and do the maths in your head, but so the government could step in if the price exceeds that. And as the years go on, that goes from two times to two and a half times to three times. So, it allows the carbon price to potentially rise, but not to get out of control. So, but still, as you know, an energy intensive operation, these the carbon pricing is having a more significant effect than it used to. And so it is, it does come into your economics, your forecasting. And the OGA, every year you submit a survey and says, and if you apply for new developments, there’s a template, an economic template that you need to fill in and that they have changed that. And now there are columns for your emissions, your emissions trading and an estimated carbon price. And again, that is quite helpful because internally now you have to, you have to take carbon into account. You know, it’s not a choice. And so, it is getting into the mindset, you’re not just thinking. So, we’ve always had volatility on commodity price. This is an extra facet of that. So, you’ve got your carbon forecast. And again, it’s just like commodity price. You’ll have a lower medium and high and you’ll build that into your risk and your project evaluation. So, there’s a clear process.

DL:   OK, thanks for explaining that. I think it’s good to hear also about the transition from the EU to the UK and how we’re managing that. I mean, what was interesting to me was, is the EU one has been credited with, how do you say that, removing coal from the system more generally, although, of course, the UK also had a carbon floor, which helped even more. But back in the day or still does, I guess. Does the carbon price have the same level of impact in oil and gas, though, in that sense? So, it’s quite clear that you seen a switch happen between gas and coal in a power system. And I’m sure you can’t say the numbers, but in terms of order of magnitude through these carbon prices really have a significant impact on how you think about your operations, what you do, how you allocate resources, et cetera. Or is there a reminder really that you’re producing carbon and that you should do something about it?

CA:  I think it’s a bit of both, because if the carbon tax put you out of business, you know, if it was so high that you just put you out of business, that would not necessarily benefit the company, the country, because you would import LNG and your overall carbon emissions would go up. But what it does do is put a price on carbon and it does focus the mind and it does make you look at ways to reduce it, to reduce flaring, to change your operations, to look at, there’s new technology out there. We’re just about to bring something in the uses AI, it’s a programme and it takes your best day, when you had your lowest emissions, and everything run perfectly. And then it compares your days to the best day after that, and then it can use AI to say, oh, you know what, why have you varied, oh you’re using this using pump A instead of using pump B or it can even be, or this is a changeover day. You know, the shifts are changing over, or it sort of looks into things, uses the data to look into why. Why you may not be having your best day. So, you can get real improvements that way. It could highlight a really poor performing piece of equipment and that you would change out. And it does give an economic value to doing that work. So, I think it does, it does focus the mind and help you do what you can do because you could see the benefit of reducing your emissions. The big things, you know, changing out a compressor, changing, you know, electrifying that has a way to go because. increasing carbon pricing won’t necessarily unlock, you know, the major changes that could take place because you’re taxing the company more so less profits to be able to afford to spend money. And, you know, you’re talking big money to electrify platforms. And then there’s still the uncertainty on electricity pricing once you’ve done that. So, the incentive isn’t quite there, but there is industry engagement and there’s government engagement on the opportunities for doing that in the future, and for new developments potentially being electrified, making major changes in decarbonising. But I think yeah, I think the ETS does help, and it helps the conversation, and it helps getting it into the Finance Department’s mindset, the CFOs mindset, the board, rather than it being, oh, that’s you know, that’s the Environment Department. No, it’s out of the budget. It’s not important.

DL:   Now, that is an important distinction there, and I think what was interesting to me listening to you as well, is how many different facets there are, and we spent a lot of time talking about emissions, but of course, it’s a much broader range as well of things. And as we go forward, trying to get the balancing act right is important. Maybe sort of in closing then, you know, obviously as we go forward, more companies are hopefully adopting ESG strategies and taking the right approach. We’ve seen it elsewhere as well, which is great. Can you maybe just talk us through some of the lessons learnt or the issues that you think companies face in implementing these strategies and then see what they can do about that?

CA:  I’ll try I don’t have an answer to all of this.  Well, I think I just do it from the case of Serica. So, when I took on this role, I was clear that, and the CEO was clear, we didn’t want to just make bold statements, you know we will be net zero by 2050 on when I probably won’t be working, he won’t be working. So, you know, just making the bold statements with nothing to back it up. We want to reflect who we are, what we are and what we can do about it. So, we we’re upstream, purely upstream, so we can’t necessarily influence what petrol people buy or whether they convert to electric vehicles or on refining, whether they build a carbon capture and storage facility at the refinery. But we can do what we can for upstream. We can see that the supply and demand again and we can work, we can focus on our people and our assets to do the best we can. And as we grow. Where we’re looking, as I said we’re looking for acquisitions and we have to be opportunistic. So, if we had a fix that we will only buy this kind of asset in this in this part, the North Sea that does this, it doesn’t work like that. There needs to be the opportunities there. We need to look at what we can do as an innovative company, what technology is out there and how we can make it work. So, our strategy is to embed ESG in the mindset of our people, and that’s from the board to management to engineering, finance, offshore, you know, it’s getting everyone involved and these committees help that and the messaging. And as we get a new asset, and that could come with new people, we’ve already got that ethos, you know, where, you know, ESG is important to us. We’re looking for solutions. And depending on what the asset is, we will find the solutions to it. So, it’s not too prescriptive and then sort of, as a company, we’ve got the UN SDGs, we are aligning with them and focussing on the environment and climate change. So, it’s not prescriptive. It’s working with government in the environment we’re in and keeping ourselves innovative and agile, I suppose.

DL:   Perfect, thank you. Yes, it says about having the right mindset, so I know a culture, I guess.

CA:  Oh, and again, sorry, so there, it is now in our, one thing we have got that is concrete that were important is our key performance indicators. So, every person’s remuneration, so it’s their bonus, relies on emissions performance. So, you know, that is embedded now, and it’s not that I don’t think people think about that every day, and that’s the only reason they think about it, is to sort of prove that it’s important to us. And if we perform well, we will pay you more. Simple as that.

DL:   It’s both the mindset and the, and the carrot. To achieve that. OK, wonderful, OK. Thank you, Clara. I think we have, we have run out of time, but that was a fascinating sort of run through ESG I think more generally, and I know we focussed a lot on the ‘e’ part of the ESG., but, as we said earlier that it is a key determinant today. So, thank you for taking through that. And thank you for your time today. I really appreciate it.

CA:  Thanks. I enjoyed it.

DL :  Perfect. And thanks everyone else for listening as well. I hope you enjoy that as well. Please make sure you subscribe. Give us a great rating and share. Talk to you next time.

Copyright and Reproduction

This website contains material which is owned by or licensed to Westwood Global Energy Group. This material includes, but is not limited to, the design, layout, look, appearance and graphics. You may not modify, reproduce or distribute the content, design or layout of the Website, or individual sections of the content, design or layout of the Website, without our express prior written permission. For media enquiries, please contact [email protected]