Oil boss Vicki Hollub is selling 'net-zero oil'. Do you buy it?

One oil company that wants to be a part of that solution is Occidental Petroleum better known as OXY, and since twenty sixteen, it has been led by Vicki Hollab, who is responsible for setting the first science based climate target for a US oil company. Typically, when oil companies have set climate targets, it has meant a push for renewables and maybe even a promise to cut oil production.

In the few BP is building wind turbines, Shell is investing heavily in hydrogen, and Total is pouring money into lithium ion batteries. VIKI and Oxy are making a different bed. I think that anybody who says that we can go one hundred percent renewable today is speaking from emotion and passion and not logic. VIKI sees oil and gas consumption rising well into the future, and wants to meet Oxy's climate targets by capturing the emissions from the fossil fuels

It extracts. What Oxy wants to sell, as unbelievable as it might sound, is net zero oil. If that sounds like greenwashing, your instinct is right, because green washing is rife in the oil industry, and that is exactly why the bar is high for any oil company now saying

they want to go green. Given the oil industries heft in the global economy, it's important to hear from those in the seats of power about how they are thinking of acting on the climate crisis, and it is rare to be able to sit down with someone like Wiki, who leads one of the world's biggest oil companies and

is willing to take all my questions. Before we get into the conversation, it's worth knowing that carbon capture, the main technology that Wiki is relying on, has a long and well documented history of failure, especially when it comes to its use for climate purposes. Oxy says it can overcome those hurdles. There are two technical terms you should

also know going into this interview. We talk a lot about enhanced oil recovery or e R, which is a process where carbon dioxide is injected into reservoirs to help produce more oil. We also focus on direct air capture, a technology that extracts carbon dioxide from the air so that it can be permanently stored away. I wanted to hear from Wiki about Oxy's push to build direct air capture facilities, how she plans to pay for all this, and why she's chosen this path as Oxy's response to

climate change. Wiggy, Welcome to Zero. Thank you, it's great to be here now. As CEO of Oxy, you have made Oxy the first usl company that has set a net zero by twenty fifty goal. You were there before your competitors in the US at least, and that covers all emissions, so emissions you produce in your own assets, but also emissions that would be produced by consumers burning oil and gas that you produce. Typically, when these goals are to be met by an oil company, they are

through moving towards renewables. You are not doing that. You are betting that the world is going to continue to use oil and gas for quite some time. Yeah. I'll start with the reason we're doing it this way. We've been using CEO two for an hastall recovery for about fifty years and we're the largest user of CO two for enhanced or recovery in the world. So it's our core competence. And as you said, some companies are moving

toward building and distributing renewables. We're not doing that because that's not our core competence. And we feel like our contribution to the world can be a differentiated approach where we will continue to actually grow our oil and gas production, but we'll grow it in a way that gives us the opportunity to generate net zero carbon oil. Now we'll touch upon different aspects of that answer, but maybe let's

just start a bid. The motivation to do it. Was there a moment in your time at Oxy, maybe even before you was CEO, that you thought this is the

route that the company must take. Yes. I became general manager of our Permian EOAR operations back in two thousand and eleven, and we did a review of all of our oil and gas conventional assets and the Iermian basin and realized we didn't have enough CO two to fully develop the resources that we had, so we started looking at other sources to get the CO two one was anthropogenic. All Wiki is talking about here is the carbon dioxide that comes from burning fossil peels, you know, the one

that's causing all that problems. Later she also talks about organic CO two. Might sound weird, but if you can find natural gas underground, then it's not shocking that there is also carbon dioxide in the same places. And all companies have been extracting that cootwo well for increasing oil production. The Permian Basin is one of the best sources in the world for mining COO two. So getting CO two from points sources industrial sites was a way that we

could continue generating incremental world production. But what we've realized as we went along that something we didn't know was that there was fifty percent more CO two in the atmosphere than in pre industrial times. And so what became very evident to us was that we can not only generate net zero carbon oil with the use of CO two.

If we extract it from the air or take it from point source industrial sites, we could do that and help the world while we generate net zero carbon oil for the hard to decarbonize industries and create value for our shareholders. So we have a way to help facilitate the climate transition because, as you know and many know, the transition is going to be very costly, and if you can do it in a way that still produces lower cost fuel and energy for the world, that's the

best way to do the transition. So how exactly do you think you will make net zero oil? We will produce net zero oil by injecting CO two in our oil reservoirs wherever they may be, starting first in the Permian, then our other areas oil and gas areas around the world. And the way it happens is it takes more CO two injected into the reservoir to produce the oil than what the oil generated will emit when used. That's fundamentally

what makes it in that zero carbon. And technically, the way it works in the reservoir is that there's specific parts of the reservoir that have such a small permeability and porosity. They're like micropores where the oil is trapped. Water is sometimes use water flooding to get more oil out of the reservoir, but the residual oil cannot be moved with the water because the water molecules are too big to get into micropores. So CO two is a

smaller molecule, it can become miscible in the oil. And when it becomes miscible in the oil, even in these small micropores, it increases the oil molecule, makes it less fiscus, and it pops out of the micropor. Well, there has to be something that goes into that micropor. What goes into that MicroPort is COO two. So that's how CO two gets sequestered in oil reservoirs. Yeah, it was interesting for me to think about how to explain this to people.

And when I was talking to editors, it's like, there isn't a tank underground where you just haven't. If you look at the rock where you have oil, it looks like granite, like you will not be able to see that there is oil in there with your naked eyes, but there is all in those little pores. And I think that picture helps a little maybe to understand what exactly is happening down there. Because it's so deep. You use one billion cubic feet of carbon dioxide a day

to be able to do enhance oil recovery. Now some of the carbon dioxide that you inject comes back up with the oil if it stays in the ground. Right. However, almost all of the carbon dioxide that you use today comes from actually being mined underground. You call it organic COO two, and you want to transfer that to using

anthropogenic or human created carbon dioxide. That's correct. So if we look at this decade by decade plan to become a carbon management company, is the first decade essentially cleaning up your own operation, going from using organic COO two to using human created COO two. That's correct. We will start to convert from organic to atmospheric and athropogenic in the first phase of our operations, and then beyond that we'll start developing the incremental resources. And combon capture as

a technology is not new. It's got a fifty year history. You've been doing it for two decades, that's correct. Well, well, actually longer than that when you consider the fact that capturing carbon two can be the process of separating the CO two from the methane when it comes out of the reservoir. So the technology that can do that has been used for fifty years. Yeah. So initially, when cambon capture began as a technology. It wasn't really for climate purposes.

It was to make sure that when you were mining gas, if there was any associated carbon dioxide, which typically there is, you would separate it out so that when you supply the fuel, people only get the fuel and don't get carbon dioxide alongside it. That's correct. Yes, we started using carbon capture technology for climate purposes in the nineties. Norway was the first country to build a large facility that just captured carbon dioxide from an oil and gas facility

and sunk it deep underground. But most of its use currently, as you explained, is for enhanced rail recovery. But we also have to look at recent examples of carbon capture being used for climate purposes. The largest facility to do it on a coal power plant was in the US called Petronova, ran for a few years and it's now multipled. Why do you think oxy will succeed are doing this

for climate purposes? The reality is that when you're developing technologies that are used for a different purpose, even if they may be used elsewhere the technology for different purposes, there has to be a sufficient volume of development for the technology to be improved. For example, you look at wind and solar. How many wind and solar facilities had to be built to reduce that cost by eighty percent. For example, Petronova, it was the technology that was put

in place. I believe if you looked at how that could be improved, I believe that if you built that again, it would be successful and if you used it with the right reservoir. They had difficulty with a reservoir they were using it with, and so it didn't work for as efficiently as most reservoirs that we are operating work because it was a different You have to be careful with the design and the processing for an hair sol recovery.

Now Natzier oil requires you too, as you explain, put more carbon dioxide into the ground than the carbon dioxide that would be generated if you burn the oil. When will the first shipment of Nazier oil through carbon capture come through? I can't tell you that right now because what we're facing with our first director capture facility is more interest in taking the CO two and sequestering that in a saline reservoir and or a depleted oil reservoir,

not to do for an hair soil recovery. Right, so this will be just for sinking it into the ground for climate purpose so that it's not in the atmosphere and nothing to do with extracting more not all the volume. So, just to be honest with you, we are getting a lot of request and a lot of interest in corporations that need CO two offsets because they have net zero goals. And so the companies that are calling us most frequently are those that want the CO two not to be

used for incremental oil production. And so we're we're making the best decisions that we can for the advancement of further facilities. So, ultimately, I believe that putting CO two in a saline reservoir is a waste of a valuable product and it's something that we should not do on a large scale basis. It's missing an opportunity. Is I feel like using CO two and enhanced or recovery sequesters the CO two. It accomplishes what we need to do.

It sequesters the CO two ultimately and it generates the net zero carbon oil and that's what the world needs. VICKI is clear that it makes better sense to use CO two to get more oil than just sequester it. But other companies want offsets and are willing to pay

her a premium to just put it underground. However, if Oxy does that, it won't be able to use the captured CO two to replace the CO two it has been mining from underground, and that offset was needed by Oxy itself to create net zero oil and meet its climate goals. So I asked Wiki, if selling offsets will derail Oxy's own climate plan, It doesn't derail up our plan. It just makes makes it longer for us to get to that plan. Okay, so we still have that commitment.

We want to make it happen, and we will. Okay. You know, it would be remissd for me to not ask, because you did have a carbon neutral oil shipment go to India and that was not with offsets that are considered credible by most experts. So why did that happen? Why did you take that route given you know how to do offsets right, Why would they say that that was not from credible sources. Because most of the offsets that exist in the market today are offsets that avoid

emissions carbon avoidance. They're not actually sequestering carbon dioxide from the air. If you build a new forest, you may be able to sequester carbon dioxide. Most of the offsets that exist today are renewable energy power plants, which are being built as a theoretical replacement to a coal power plant. So they're saying, we build a solar plant or a wind plant, and we avoid cut emissions because we built

a renewable energy plant. They're not actually capturing the carbon dioxide. Oh, now that we used a third party's force to purchase our credits, right and to forests, Yeah, they were valid, they were. Yeah. Are you sure about that? I would say that, I'm it was. We went through a reputable, very reputable source to get them. Yeah. I don't know if we revealed who we bought them through, yes, but

it was. It was a very reputable source. Because most of the express we've talked about, and in the existing offset market, because what you are building, where you're actually capturing carbon at st and putting it into the ground, that is a very small market. Right now, the largest direct air capture plan that does it is four thousand tons. You're going to build something that is one hundred and twenty times larger in the next two years. But the

carbon removal offsets are, you know, essentially negligible. Part of the carbon offset market. Most of them are avoidance emissions offset. I would be interested to know. Yeah, who says what we did was not credible, I'd be very keen if you want to share with me who you bought those offsets from, what project they were attached to. Yeah, I would like to do that. That is. Yeah, we wouldn't have bought credits that we didn't feel more valid. Yeah, because we didn't need to do that. What we wanted

to do was help the world see that. What you can do is there is a market for premium oil and premium moil being that that's you know, either carbon zero or net carbon zero. Yes. And I think the most of the offsets projects, as they began thirty years ago, started with the right heartened place to do good, to try and help the world, to try and maybe transfer some of the money from countries to developing countries. The trouble has been over the last thirty years, every time

they've done it, accounting has been a problem. Because carbon removal was so expensive, nobody went down that route. And now finally we're getting to a point where we can actually do carbon removal. Yeah, I agree with you that to build a solar facility or win facility and to expect to claim the credits are the two that wasn't emitted.

That's not the way it should be done. Yeah. What do you say to someone who has heard our conversation today and has hood an oil company CEO saying we are going to make net zero oil and then they think this is greenwashing and it's a way to extend the social license and extend the life of oil, which is, without controlling for emissions, is the cause for climate change. How do you respond to that. I would say that's true.

It's true because what we need to do is we do need to extend the life of oil production because it's the most intensive energy source, and so we need to do it for the world. It makes the world a better place. What is different and what's most important for people to get is the net zero carbon part of it, because too many people are focusing on killing energy sources rather than killing emissions. The common enemy that we all have are the emissions, and that's what we

need to control. What our strategy does is it ultimately will produce a better oil, and net zero oil is the best oil you can produce, and it's the lowest cost that you can produce for the energy that it will provide. But burning fossil fuels also causes air pollution, and that kills more people every year than many of the diseases that we know. So nine million people a

year are killed by air pollution. Half of it is through indoor air pollution when they're burning wood, but half of it is because of oil, mostly or coal power plants. How would you account for that externality? If you do continue to produce net zero oil, you've taken care of the climate problem. But then there's the pollution problem, right, Well, the pollution. We're addressing the pollution by extracting the CO two out of the atmosphere. That's a part of it.

The volatile organic emissions, Yeah, particulate matter, Yeah, that certainly needs to be addressed, but that I think is a lower source in my view of what could be causing health issues overall climate. If we don't address it will be higher eventually. But air pollution currently is four and a half million deaths a year. Most of it happens in developing countries, most of it happens in poor regions.

Most of it from coal though, yeah, but also oil, I mean the air pollution death that has sort of shaken the legal world happened here in the UK where a young child was killed and the cause was air pollution. That this was the first time that it was put on the death certificate that air pollution was the cause of that death. They had to go to court to be able to make that case. But because the family lived at a junction where air pollution levels of vary high.

But yeah, I mean it's currently it is a bigger health problem globally if you just take the average number and then acute problem in some areas. After the break, I ask Wicki about the US Climate Bill, how exactly Oxy will scale carbon capture, and her relationship with one of the richest men on earth, Warren Buffett. So far, we've heard a lot from Wicky about why Oxy plants to produce nazio oil, but not how exactly it will

do it. Oxy will need to find a lot of C two and Oxy has plans to capture it from ethan, all fermentation, from cement plants and even natural gas power plants. But the one it's betting on first is a technology called direct air capture, and a quicker reminder, direct air capture is a technology that removes carbon dioxide from the air so that it can be stored somewhere else, kind of similar to how you would grab only the chocolate

chips from a bag of trail mix. But it is phenomenally energy intensive and expensive to do so, and that's why the economics haven't really lined up to do it at scale. Needed to remove significant amounts of C or two from the atmosphere. In twenty nineteen, when oxy first announced that it will use direct air capture for extracting more oil, the only way the economics could work was

to use some very specific subsidies available back then. But now new incentives in legislations like the Inflation Reduction Act or premium payments from carbon removal offsets may provide a path to make the technology operate at scale. So I asked Wiki, is she surprised to have so many options to pay for direct air after I can't say that I'm surprised. I will say that I appreciate the efforts of Senator Mansion and Bill Gates, who was on your show not too long ago, to get the Inflation Reduction

Act passed. Was a huge help for us to be able to accelerate what we're doing, and it certainly is beneficial to us, but as you know CO two credits are likely to be at a level where we certainly without ultimately without those credits from IRA, we will be able to make these plants commercial. I just don't believe.

And as you were saying earlier in the program, there's there's not enough natural sources that can that can be used for offsets, and so I think CO two credits are going to be are going to sell at a premium because there's just not enough available. Right. And so let's talk about the Inflation Reduction Act, because Oxy has been involved not in all of the Act, but very specifically on the carbon capture side for quite some time.

Three years ago, you had, under President Trump, received an increase in the amount of tax credits provided to carbon capture. You got an extension on when those projects could be built. That's now gone a step further with the Inflation Reduction Act. You're getting even more money to be able to capture each ton of CO two and you're getting a much longer lead time you can build plants well into the

twenty thirties. How much work did you have to do to make sure that that came through in the Inflation Reduction Act. I think what was helpful to Senator Manton and others to design the build the way they did is to know that there were companies that would commit to build the facilities. You never want to work really hard to pass a bill and then find that it

doesn't benefit anybody in any way because nothing happens. And so I think the fact that that we were out there and saying, whether the bill passes or not, whether we get incremental credits or not, we're going to build this first facility and we're going to beyond that continue to develop the technology. I think that was helpful to Senator Mansion to know that from the Director of Capture standpoint,

it was going to happen. Oh that's interesting. I would think you would want it as a bargaining chip where you would say, look, if you don't get this bill passed, I don't know if you'll build it. You know you want America to be able to build these technologies, don't you. You're saying the opposite. You're saying no, no no, no, even if you don't pass a bill, we're going to do it. No, but you have to listen to the rest of it.

How do you accelerate it? You can only accelerate it if you have that certainty revenue or at least some base revenue coming in. And that's what enables us to now feel very comfortable that will achieve the seventy and maybe even more because we'll be able to accelerate. Now, that was the chip that the United States has no way to significantly impact CEO two reduction without this happening, because look a look at the discussion about carbon capture

in the United States. There's a lot of people talking about it, but there's not a lot of people that are doing the site prep and getting ready to start building one and building a large one. Yeah, it's surprising to me. I mean twenty nineteen, there was this exuberance in the corbon capture community. You know, we were at Jackson Hall at the Wyoming conference, and there was all this enthusiasm that we'll be building all these facilities within months.

There'll be announcements, very little as being built. But this time, you think, this time is real, it'll be different. Well for us, it's real. I don't know how real it's going to be for anybody else, but we want to do it. To get serious about this, OXY has invested in a Canadian direct air capture startup called Carbon Engineering. It's one of a growing number of companies that take

CO two out of the air. The amount of energy it takes to remove one ton of CO two is comparable to the amount of electricity my wife and I consume in an energy efficient London apartment in four months. I wanted to know if Oxy and Carbon Engineering would be using renewable electricity, or burning natural gas, or keeping the amount of energy they need using botes. We will initially, yeah,

because because we'll be on the first one. First probably couple will be on the grid which has both renewables and it has gas. Okay, so not being our own gas power plant, you're just going to take it from the grid. That's right, account for it and in addition to our solar plant. But you'll account for it because they will have some U two emissions attached to it, so you'll make sure that when you do the math

of how much is captured. That's right. Oxy announced in twenty nineteen it planned to build its first diet air capture facility, but the plan only becomes real when the company makes the final investment decision, costing hundreds of millions of dollars. I was told in me that the decision will be made soon, so I asked, wiki has it

been made. It has been made. So we've actually started side construction and we're having the I guess the groundbreaking on November twenty ninth, but we're working already to prepare the side. So construction begins November twenty ninth. You will that's the ground breaking, yep, and then two years later it'll be fully functioning. What happens in the middle, you're going to have to do some testing. When do you think you'll do the first capture so to speak, even

if it's released to that facility. Yeah, I haven't looked at the chart yet, but I would imagine that'll be in early twenty twenty four, because it could be mid twenty twenty four or late twenty twenty four to get the facility up and running right, and then you have a plan to not just build this one, but seventy seventy five, okay, and that'll be a million tons each. Yes, so this one is half in a way, because you're

going to then scale that up to a million tons. Yes, all of this is going to be expensive because the technology is new and be the energy requirements are quite high. So what funds the first facility? Then where is the money coming from. What we'll likely do is it'll be a combination of the cell of the CO two credits and our own cash. Right, we have options, and what we're ensuring that we do right now is keep our options open because we have a lot of interest in

the CO two as credits for other corporations. Once you prove the technology, once you at least how it works together. Once you prove that, then you have the option of project financing. We also have the option of bringing in equity partners who might want to help develop this as we go along. So we have lots of options on

how to fund it. And what we don't want to do though, is we don't want to give up too much of our upside on what we believe will be a profitable business pretty quickly, and so we're we're trying to keep our options open for now. I cannot not ask you about your larger shareholder, Warren Buffett, who now owns more than twenty percent of the company, and he is buying every share he can as soon as it drops billow sixty dollars a share for for oxy. What's

your relationship with him? Like, I have a great relationship with him. I go visit him regularly and and we have conversations a lot of times. When I go, we might spend only you have twenty thirty percent of the time on oxy, and then we talk about other things. So I'm having the opportunity to learn from him too, which has been really really good for me personally. And is he supportive of this carbon management strategy because one of the things he is very good at is investing

in companies that will provide return. Is he convinced that what you're doing with carbon management will be the kind of return that he will get from a company he is so heavily invested in. I can tell you that. First of all, let me clarify that what I'm about to say does not come from what he has said, because with our shareholders, I try to be really careful

about not disclosing individual conversations. But I will say that generally speaking, you could deduce from everything he said in the past that he doesn't want to invest in companies that can't deliver returns and a company that has the ability to deliver significant cash is important, and so how we allocate our capital is important, and so we need to always be a company not just for Berkshire, but for all of our shareholders. We need to generate returns.

How do you see the next few years playing out with having to deal with energy needs while meeting climate golds. I really think that we have to build a plan and have to somehow get it accepted by the world. Where we're doing all we're building lots of solar, lots of wind, We're building electric vehicles at a faster pace. We're developing as quickly as we can industrial size battery storage,

energy storage. But where we're also continuing the development of oil and gas, but in a much more responsible way than we've ever done before as an industry, and that means addressing methane emissions aggressively. And other companies are committing to do the same, and that's to have a target to get to zero methane by twenty thirty. We're trying to think about how do we capture from our larger facilities the emissions that may be happening and reinject underground

into our reservoir so that we're reducing those emissions. Ultimately, though, we're going to have to go to the use of valves and planges that don't have fugitive emissions. As a side, I just love the term fugitive emissions because it's like that is a crime. Methane leaking the fugitives is the right, right. I don't know who coined it, but it is right. Now, you've made a case for common capture as a necessary

option for the transition. Maybe that is the majority of you, but there are voices that say, you know, we can do this with all renewables, add batteries, we'll add maybe nuclear. We don't need to have fossil fuels in the mix. And this is kind of a philosophical debate. After a point, you can look at numbers, you can look at data, you can look at scenarios, but after a point, it's

a judgment call. Why do you think your judgment call is the right one rather than one hundred percent renewables people. I don't mean to be offensive here, but Europe is a live case study. People really need to give that some thought. And anybody that says that we can go one hundred percent renewable today without significant advancement in the technology of battery storage, which I think ultimately will come. But it's not here today, and you cannot hope that

it will be here in five years. You can't hope that it will be here in ten years, because if you do, you put yourself at risk. So I think that anybody who says that we can go one hundred percent renewable today is speaking from emotion and passion and not logic, and it's definitely not scientifically based. And I worry about the United States and some of the pressure in the United States to move away from fossil fuels.

Right now, we're the largest producer of oil in the world, where the largest exporter of ellen G in the world right now, so we are essentially energy independent. That doesn't mean that today we're producing all the oil that we need all to meet the demanding United States, but it means we do have the resource to do that if we needed to do that. That puts the United States in a position of significant strength if we need allies

that are that have strength too. And where the world is headed, it's becoming a more volatile place, and without energy independence, I think that some countries will experience not only difficulties within their own country to provide energy for their people, but a weaker position in the United States. Should the politics and should the geopolitical tensions continue to grow as they have recently. I think you make an

interesting point about national security and energy independence. But also it's easy to make that while you are in the United States, because you are endowed with fossil fuels and you are endowed with an economy that is capable of extracting those fossil fuels. Most of the world is not in that place. India does not have fossil fuels. It has coal, but it doesn't have enough oil, doesn't have

enough gas. It is endowed with renewables, and so you're going to have to take different paths in different places. So some countries will have to double down on renewables because that's their path to energy independence, right, that's right. But the countries that don't have the natural resources to be able to be energy independently to ally with those

that do. There's still a lot of oil to be produced in Africa, but the investment in Africa is declining, and there's there's a lot of oil and gas in South America. But the countries now in South America are going away from oil and gas, and so where are they going to be in five years or ten years South America. Many of the countries, they are going to

be in a much weaker position. And the problem is that the stronger countries in the world can't defend everybody and can't provide energy to everybody, and so the world becomes a more difficult place for a lot of regions. And when the Pope and others have talked about a just transition, having a just transition means that we have to help countries to use their own natural resources for energy and dependence and or to develop their economies so

that they're will have a better quality of life. That's something that I think we as Europe needs to do. We need to do it. And so for these countries that like to tell we're moving away from all in gas and we're not going to use it anymore. We're going to go to one hundred percent renewables, that actually makes it more difficult for the developing countries to have a way to develop their natural resources. When do you

think the demand for oil will peak? I think the demand for oil is not going to peak anytime in the next five to ten years. I think it'll be beyond that. And if you see that it has peaked, what will be the steps you would take in return?

So say, there is a pretty credible analysis coming from a colleague highly respect on the opinion side, David Fickling, whose calculations show we are either peaking this year or be peaked in twenty Typically with these peaks, you won't know for a couple of years whether that's actually true. But if it is true, would that change any calculation for you? Our calculation going forward is to with the

carbon management. Part of our business is to make our oil more attractive than others, So it would impact certainly how we look at closely at what others are doing. But with the fact that the Europeans are going more toward renewables and decreasing law production, with South America, essentially with the governments that are that are coming into place right now, it will be I think, except you know, maybe a country or two, the rest will be declining

all oil production. Africa's declining production. So I think that there has to be some country that steps up to make up that difference. And I think the countries that will make up that difference should be Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the United States. Now, coming back to carbon management,

it's a broad phrase. How are you going to look at the balance of Oxy's revenues in twenty fifty You may not be chief executive officer then, but if you have to imagine this is where you're taking the company. What portion would be making money from extracting carbon and what may be making money from injecting carbon. If our plan works the way that we'd like for it to, our revenues from our capture of carbon for ourselves and

others would equal the oil and gas revenues. And that's understanding that we don't intend to reduce our oil and gas as some are. We intend to develop our own gay so that it matches, helps to match demand and so. And we believe that using a COO two for Enhanstol recovery and generating the zero barrels is the way to be the last company standing in terms of who's going to produce the last barrel in the world, it should come from a cootwo Enhanstol recovery reservoir. In process, that

was a great conversation. Thanks for coming on the show. Thank you. It was great to be here and great to talk to you. I appreciated Wiki scanner and hearing from an oil executive who's doubling down on what she already does. I was surprised, though, that particulate matter air pollution didn't factor into the net zero oil calculation. Unsurprisingly, Vicki is bullish on oil demand, but if oil demand decreases, she sees the strategy of injecting carbon as a hedge

in a world that needs those services. Given the history of the oil industry, all these claims require immense scrutiny to hold the industry accountable. Thanks so much for listening to Zero. If you like the show, please rate, review and subscribe, Tell a friend or tell someone who doesn't know about oil's boom and bus cycle. If you've got a suggestion for a guest or topic or something you just want us to look into, get in touch at zero pod at bloombeb dot net. Zero's producer is Oscar

Boyd and senior producer is Christine driscoll Our. Theme music is composed by Wonderlely. Many people help make the show a success this week. Thanks to my bloombeb mus colleague Kevin Crowley for preparing for this interview and who recently published a great article about the Great exon Exodus that you can check out at bloombeg dot com slash green. I'm Shatrati back next week. M h m hm