英國石油 (BP) 2021 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Welcome to the BP presentation to the financial community webcast and conference call. I now hand over to Craig Marshall, Head of Investor Relations.

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to BP's Second Quarter 2021 Results Presentation. I'm here today with Bernard Looney, Chief Executive Officer; and Murray Auchincloss, Chief Financial Officer. Before we begin today, let me draw your attention to our cautionary statement.

During today's presentation, we will make forward-looking statements that refer to our estimates, plans and expectations. Actual results and outcomes could differ materially due to factors we note on this slide and in our U.K. and SEC filings. Please refer to our annual report, stock exchange announcement and SEC filings for more details. These documents are available on our website.

I'll now hand over to Bernard.

Thanks, Craig. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our second quarter results for 2021. Thanks for joining us. We are reporting what I hope you'll agree is another strong set of financial results.

For the quarter, underlying replacement cost profit was $2.8 billion, operating cash flow was $5.4 billion, net debt fell for the fifth consecutive quarter to $32.7 billion and we have achieved our target of $2.5 billion of cash cost reductions around 6 months early. In addition, consistent with our disciplined financial frame, we are increasing our resilient dividend for the second quarter 2021 and by 4% per ordinary share, while maintaining our cash balance point of around $40 a barrel. And at an oil price of around $60 per barrel Brent, we see capacity for around this level of annual increase through 2025.

We are also commencing our share buyback from first half surplus cash flow with a $1.4 billion program, which we expect to complete by the time of our third quarter results. And at around $60 per barrel Brent, we expect to be able to deliver a buyback of around $1 billion per quarter. Importantly, these commitments are underpinned by, one, the underlying performance of our business; two, an improving environment; and three, our confidence in the balance sheet.

Looking ahead to 2025, we see a significant opportunity to continue growing underlying cash flow as we take costs out of the business, improve operating efficiency and reliability, deliver the next wave of high-margin major projects and grow our convenience and mobility business, all while transforming BP for the longer term by taking disciplined investment decisions in support of our transition to an integrated energy company. This is, in essence, what we mean by performing while transforming.

And I'll come back to talk about our strategic delivery later. But for now, let me hand over to Murray to take you through our results and financial frame in more detail. Murray?

Thanks, Bernard, and hello, everyone. I hope you and your families are safe and healthy.

As usual, let's begin with the macro environment where sentiment has improved. Oil prices continue to increase, with Brent averaging $69 in the second quarter, a 13% rise. This reflects the improved demand outlook as COVID-19 restrictions were gradually lifted, while OPEC+ has continued to show discipline and progressively increasing output. Looking to the second half of this year, we expect oil prices to remain firm as inventory levels decline to historic levels, driven by ongoing increases in demand and continued active supply management by OPEC+.

Turning to gas prices. During the quarter, Henry Hub averaged $2.90, down from $3.50 in the first quarter as prices normalized after storm Yuri. International prices strengthened during the quarter with JKM LNG price averaging around $10, driven by very strong Chinese demand growth with high European gas prices due to supply issues. We expect global gas markets to remain tight in the second half of 2021 with additional LNG supply outages or further delays to North Stream-2 presenting potential price upside.

Turning to refining. Industry margins increased strongly during the quarter with BP's RMM averaging $13.70, the highest level since the third quarter of 2019. However, the recovery has been uneven across products and regions, with much of the increase in BP's RMM driven by higher U.S. markers. This reflects a strong rebound in U.S. gasoline demand and the near doubling of the cost of U.S. renewable fuels credit since the start of the year. However, as you know, the credits do not impact realized refining margins.

Northwest Europe margins increased more modestly due to weaker demand growth, notably for middle distillates. Looking to the third quarter, industry refining margins are expected to be broadly flat compared to the second quarter, with recovering demand offset by growth in refining capacity.

Turning to results. In line with our annual cycle, we have reviewed our price and margin assumptions used for both investment appraisal and value and use impairment testing. Effective this quarter, we have updated our oil price assumptions. Other price assumptions are unchanged from those disclosed in our 2020 annual report. Our Brent oil price assumption to 2030 has been increased to $60 per barrel in 2020 real terms. This is due to capital discipline limiting supply across many basins.

Over the longer term, our Brent oil price assumption has been decreased, reaching $45 per barrel in 2020 real terms by 2050, as we expect an acceleration of the pace of transition to a lower carbon economy. In aggregate, our view of the average price over the 2021 to 2050 period is unchanged at around $55 per barrel in 2020 real terms. As a result of this revision, our second quarter reported profit included a pretax impairment reversal of $3 billion.

Moving then to underlying results. In the second quarter, we reported an underlying replacement cost profit of $2.8 billion compared to an underlying replacement cost profit of $2.6 billion in the first quarter of 2021. In gas and low carbon energy, the second quarter result reflects higher realizations, offset by a strong gas marketing and trading result following the exceptional performance in the first quarter. It also reflects a higher DD&A charge as a result of major project ramp-up this quarter.

In oil production and operations, the second quarter result reflects higher liquids realizations. And in customers and products, the second quarter result benefits from momentum in the customer business with higher retail and aviation volumes and strong convenience performance.

In products, the result reflects a loss in refining, slightly less than the first quarter. This was driven by a higher level of turnaround and maintenance activity and continued low realized margins due to excess supply. The contribution from oil trading was lower than in the first quarter. As announced, the second quarter dividend, payable in the third quarter, has been increased by 4% to $0.546 per ordinary share.

Turning to cash flow and the balance sheet. Commencing this quarter, we have enhanced our working capital reconciliation to include fair value accounting effects. While this item was already disclosed, we believe that its inclusion and the reconciliation will better help users understand our cash flow delivery from underlying replacement cost earnings.

Operating cash flow was $5.4 billion in the second quarter. This included $1.2 billion of Gulf of Mexico oil spill payments within a working capital build of $500 million. Our cash flow delivery continues to benefit from the progress being made on cash cost reduction. As Bernard said, we have achieved our target of delivering $2.5 billion of cash cost savings on a run rate basis relative to 2019, around 6 months earlier than originally anticipated.

Capital expenditure was $2.5 billion in the second quarter. And as guided, during the quarter, we repurchased $500 million of shares, offsetting the expected 2021 dilution from vesting of employee share awards. During the second quarter, surplus cash flow was $700 million. As a result, we generated $2.4 billion of surplus cash flow in the first half of 2021 after reaching our net debt target of $35 billion. Reflecting the strong cash flow delivery, net debt fell for the fifth consecutive quarter to reach $32.7 billion at the end of the second quarter.

In addition to debt reduction, during the first half, we took further steps to create a more resilient balance sheet. We have extended the duration of our debt book through a combination of retiring short-dated debt and issuing $4 billion of longer-dated debt, including $1.8 billion of 40-year bonds.

Now let me update you on our financial frame. We have provided a clear set of principles and priorities for our uses of capital, and these remain unchanged. Our resilient dividend remains the first priority within our disciplined financial framework.

Reflecting the underlying performance of the business, an improving environment, confidence in our balance sheet, and commencement of a share buyback program, the Board has announced the increase in the second quarter dividend we mentioned earlier.

Importantly, this increase is accommodated within our 2021 to 2025 average cash balance point of around $40 per barrel Brent, $11 per barrel RMM and $3 Henry Hub, all 2020 real.

Our second priority is to maintain a strong investment-grade credit rating. This is very important to us and why the dividend increase has been sized to maintain a $40 balance point and why we continue to allocate 40% of surplus to the balance sheet. Our third and fourth priorities remain unchanged, and we are tightly focused on capital discipline, especially in an increasing price environment.

Last, taking into account the $2.4 billion surplus cash flow generated in the first half of the year, BP intends to execute a share buyback of $1.4 billion prior to third quarter 2021 results. And for 2021, the Board remains committed to using 60% of surplus cash flow for share buybacks.

On average, based on BP's current forecast at around $60 per barrel Brent and subject to the Board's approval each quarter, we expect to be able to deliver a buyback of around $1 billion per quarter and to have capacity for an annual increase in the dividend per ordinary share of around 4% through 2025. Other elements of the financial frame are unchanged.

The Board will take into account factors including the outlook for surplus cash flow, the cash balance point and the maintenance of a strong investment-grade credit rating in setting the dividend per ordinary share and in setting the buyback amount each quarter. We expect to outline plans for the fourth quarter share buyback at the time of our third quarter results.

In summary, we believe our disciplined financial frame allows us to focus on strengthening our balance sheet, provide committed distributions to shareholders through a resilient dividend and share buyback with upside to higher prices and the capacity to invest to transition BP for the future. Thanks for listening. And now let me hand you back to Bernard.

Thanks, Murray. So a few words on our strategy. As I said earlier, we have made strong progress in the last year. In resilient hydrocarbons, the engine of our transformation, we have brought 8 major projects online, adding around 200,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day of high-margin production. We have more than doubled our renewables pipeline to 21 gigawatts. We have entered offshore wind and are building businesses in 2 markets that are among the world's largest and fastest growing.

We now have around 11,000 EV charging points in some of the world's busiest markets, over 40% higher than reported at the end of 2019. We have taken our first positions in hydrogen and CCUS, planning industrial-scale green hydrogen in Germany, 1 gigawatt of blue hydrogen at H2Teesside, and we intend to lead the way on building the U.K.'s first decarbonized industrial cluster.

And in the last few weeks, we have made 2 significant announcements in our low carbon and convenience and mobility businesses. First, in the U.K., where together with our partner, EnBW, we have submitted a bid on offshore wind acreage off the East Coast of Scotland. The lease could support up to 2.9 gigawatts of generating capacity. And if the bid is successful, we expect Aberdeen to become our global center of excellence for offshore wind. This would mark another step towards our ambition of scaling our global offshore wind position.

Second, in the U.S., we announced our plans to take full ownership of the Thorntons joint venture. Once complete, the transaction will position BP as one of the leading convenience operators in the Midwest and combine Thorntons' customer-first culture with our existing U.S. retail network. We expect to deliver further value from synergies with our existing ampm brand and through integration with our refining, midstream and trading capabilities in the region.

Each of these steps is an important strategic milestone in their own right. Together, though, they show a pattern of emerging integration and how that can amplify value. And that's what I would like to talk about in a little bit more detail. So let me start with some core beliefs: That as the energy transition unfolds, electrification will grow, the energy mix will become more diverse, more integrated and more local and customers will demand more bespoke solutions.

Let's take the U.K. as an example. For over 50 years, BP has been an integrated oil and gas company in this country, producing oil and gas from the North Sea and bringing it to shore to process and refine, providing customers with gasoline for their cars at our service stations, including sandwiches and coffee, and providing natural gas to the grid to heat homes and supply industry through our trading relationships.

Over time, the U.K. has had to import oil and gas as well, and BP has enabled that, bringing natural gas from overseas to the Isle of Grain or shipping products from our refineries in Europe. As we look forward, that energy system is transitioning. Over the coming decades, we see the energy mix changing, with oil and gas supplied from the North Sea slowly shifting to cleaner sources.

The electrons generated from offshore wind flowing to shore, along with natural gas from the basin or from other nations, that gas flowing into power plants and requiring CCUS to decarbonize with CO2 put back into formations offshore. Those clean electrons servicing the needs of customers of the future for home heating, for electric vehicles and for trucks, hydrogen growing and supporting heavy-duty transport, industry and potentially homes and perhaps 1 day the U.K. exporting hydrogen in the form of ammonia, an exciting future opportunity.

And we at BP are helping drive this transition with a plan to leverage the transferable engineering skills and capability from across our organization, moving from developing upstream megaprojects to world-class offshore wind projects. And working with the same supply chains and employers, construct CCUS and hydrogen plants, leveraging the experience that we have developed in high-hazard operations over the past 100 years.

Transform the retail footprint of the U.K. from fuel and convenience to a forecourt of the future. With charging and convenience with our pulse brand, where we plan to grow EV charging points from around 8,700 today to more than 16,000. Our leading convenience offer with Marks & Spencer's. And helping fleets shift from fuel to charging, such as the agreement we have with Uber here in London.

All of this is underpinned by our strong balance sheet, our project skills, our digital skills that are so important in the connected economy, our marketing expertise and very importantly, our global trading organization with their huge customer network. And while we understand the questions in some investors' minds, we do see a compelling proposition to deliver competitive returns across these value chains. Returns in offshore wind can be stable for 15 to 20 years as we sign up CfDs and PPAs, a much more stable prospect than oil price volatility of the past.

Returns in hydrogen and CCUS are yet to be established, but they will need to be higher given the risk and are likely to be stable for the first developments. Returns in charging and convenience are even stronger. And the magic comes when we use our trading capabilities to optimize between the upstream energy flows and the different customers we interact with, from corporate PPAs to electric charging points for individuals or fleets, to blue or green hydrogen, providing fixed or variable volumes, providing fixed or floating prices in whatever currency they want with carbon offsets if needed.

This is a replica of what we do in our trading business today, which gives us confidence for the future. And this is not unique to the U.K. With our deep regional experience, we see the same opportunity to replicate this in other core markets. In fact, there are currently over 3,000 corporates, 700 cities and 30 regions committed to net zero by 2050, collectively covering nearly 25% of global CO2 emissions and over 50% of GDP.

This is both a huge commitment and a huge challenge and is where we see the opportunity for BP to step in and help our customers manage the complexity associated with their energy transition goals and, in doing so, create value for BP.

And we have a strategy designed for this purpose. Our region cities and solutions team has a unique remit, aligned with our Aim 10, to partner with cities, corporates and industries to create integrated clean energy and mobility solutions through the energy transition. And we are seeing more opportunity than we imagined a year ago, and we have a large hopper of opportunities. We are in action, prioritizing customers in high emitting sectors. Here are a few examples of what the team has been working on over the last few months.

We will work together with CEMEX to develop solutions to decarbonize their cement production, including low carbon power and transport, energy efficiency, hydrogen, CCUS and natural climate solutions. We have partnered with Qantas to cooperate on sustainable aviation fuel supply and other carbon reduction opportunities for their customers. We are progressing our partnerships with Aberdeen and Houston and have signed an MOU with the Ministry of Energy in Azerbaijan to jointly assess the potential for large-scale decarbonized and integrated energy mobility systems in the country.

We have agreed to supply long-term renewable power to Microsoft and Amazon data centers, and are collaborating with Microsoft specifically to bring an intelligent edge to our production facilities. In summary, for over 100 years now, we have been an IOC. For the next 100, we will be an IEC, helping countries such as the U.K. and customers -- some existing, many new, to provide energy that is affordable, reliable and clean.

So before we turn to questions, a few words to close. Over the last year, our attention has been on reinventing BP, reorganizing and taking our first steps to become an integrated energy company. That phase is now largely complete. We are delivering against the plans that we laid out. Our businesses are performing well. We are growing cash flow and distributions. We are strengthening the balance sheet, and we are confident about the future, while recognizing that uncertainties remain.

In summary, we are performing today while transforming BP for tomorrow, delivering on the 3 core elements of our investor proposition we laid out just 1 year ago: of committed distributions, generating competitive cash returns through our resilient dividend and execution of buybacks; of profitable growth, growing cash flow with per share growth supported by our buybacks; and of sustainable value as we invest with discipline into our low carbon and transition businesses, all in service of delivering long-term value for our shareholders.

Thank you for listening. And Craig, now over to you.

(inaudible)(inaudible)

(Operator Instructions)

Okay. Thank you again to everybody for listening, and good morning. We're going to turn to the questions and answers now. And if we can take the first question from Michele Della Vigna at Goldman Sachs, please. Good morning, Michele.

Congratulations on the strong results. I had 2 questions, if I may. The first one refers to your key projects in the legacy oil and gas business driving cash flow growth for the next 2, 3 years. We've seen [softenings] on the 2 projects. But I was wondering if you could give us an update on some of the key developments in Trinidad and then in the Gulf of Mexico. And then secondly, I noticed there was a clear return statement for the Lightsource bp project, 8% to 10%. But could you also give us the range on some of your offshore wind projects?

Very good. Good morning, everybody, and it's Bernard. Thanks, Michele, for the question. And I'll let Murray take the second question around returns. On the projects, Michele, I think the projects are going well. We brought on about -- in the last year, 8 major projects, about 200,000 barrels per day. We're on track for the 900,000 barrels a day by the end of this year. The margins are coming through. Remember, the 35% margin accretion that we spoke about. That's all looking good.

We expect probably 12, 13 projects coming on over the next several years. They're all going reasonably well. I think it's fair to say that COVID has had an impact on a few in Trinidad. It's had an impact on Tortue. We're obviously building the FPSO in China, and we're building the facilities in West Africa. So there's been some knock-on impact there and also in Tangguh.

So we have seen some COVID impacts on the delivery schedules, but Mad Dog Phase 2, I visited myself just about -- oh, I don't know, I forget what time now, 4 or 5 weeks ago, in Ingleside, in Texas. A fantastic facility that is in really great shape. The wells are predrilled. Everything, I have to say, touchwood, is looking very, very good for that project starting up early next year. And as Murray keeps reminding us, the margins from that project are fantastic. So generally in good shape, have had some COVID impacts. But overall, things are pretty good, Michele. So thanks for the question. And Murray, on the returns.

Great. I'll just add on to Bernard's. Across the 900 MBD of new projects that we're bringing on, the average margins for those are 35% higher than the base. So that's why I'm always quite focused on the margin side of that. As far as margin then on low carbon, the threshold targets we've set of 8% to 10% apply across all of our low carbon businesses, as you say, from Lightsource bp to offshore wind to onshore wind, et cetera. So no difference in the targets we have, and we remain confident right now that we'll keep that capital discipline and make sure that we drive those returns for our shareholders. Thanks, Michele.

And I did look at those Lightsource bp projects. I think, Murray, you and I both saw them, 35 projects and averaging 8% to 10% since 2018, since we got involved. So people always ask us, are you confident you can and will deliver those returns? And of course, the short answer in solar is we are already delivering those returns and work to do to prove that case, obviously, in offshore wind. But we believe we can and will do that.

Thanks, Michele. We'll take the next question from Peter Low at Redburn. Peter?

You said that your financial frame is unchanged, but the guidance of the dividend could grow 4% per annum through to 2025, feels new. What's that change? I didn't think the old policy was based on affordability, but rather that you thought a flat dividend with a variable buyback was the appropriate mix for the company in transition. So any color there would be helpful. And then just secondly, you're in discussions with Eni to potentially combine your upstream portfolios in Angola. Can you outline the rationale for such a transaction? And is there any update on the progress of those discussions?

Very good. Why don't I have a go at the dividend question. Peter, thanks for both questions. And Murray can maybe add a few things on that, I'm sure, and I'll also let him talk about the Eni transaction.

I think -- and we've had questions from many of you before on this. I know Jon Rigby has been asking us questions on this over the last several quarters. And let's just wind ourselves back, first of all, to last year, the 4th of August, when we took the decision to cut the dividend in half. And when we look back to that point in time, obviously, there were a few things that were happening in the world.

Number one, we just experienced negative oil prices for the first time in history. I think Fatih Birol described 2020 as the worst year in the oil industry's history. And of course, on the 4th of August last year, we didn't have a vaccine and hadn't any sight of a vaccine in mind. And now today, we have -- we can't name all the vaccines that exists.

So last year was a very difficult, a very uncertain time, and we took the decision to do what we did last year with the dividend in that context, and we did it for 3 reasons. Number one, because of the uncertainty and the uncertain outlook. Number two, we wanted to strengthen that balance sheet. So important to us to do that. Net debt was at $51 billion at the end of the second quarter last year and was on its way up. And number three, we wanted to invest in the transition.

So that's the context for why we did what we did, and I'm sure people will look back and say, well, you can have -- could have or should have done something different. But nonetheless, that's why we did what we did on the day. 12 months forward, Peter, of course, the world is a very, very different place. And the reason that we've taken the decision to do what we have done with the dividend today is based on confidence and it's based on confidence, Peter, in 3 areas.

Number one and most importantly, it's based on confidence in the underlying performance of the business. We spent much of the last 12 months restructuring the company, and that is now largely complete. Over 6,000 people have left the company already. And the business is performing. In the second quarter, we've delivered our cash cost savings target of $2.5 billion, 6 months early. We had our strongest convenience result in our convenience business on record. We've just delivered 8 major projects delivering 200,000 barrels a day over the last 12 months, and we have confidence in the upcoming projects. So reason number one, Peter, is confidence in the underlying performance of the business.

Reason #2 is confidence in the balance sheet. This is now the fifth quarter in a row where our net debt has fallen. I mentioned the number of $51.1 billion, I think it was, at the end of the second quarter. As I said, it was on its way up. Today, we're at $32.7 billion, down from $33.3 billion at the end of the first quarter. And that balance sheet and, importantly, that investment grade credit rating remains very, very important to us. It's #2 on our framework.

And then the third reason is confidence in the outlook or confidence in the environment. And of course, we see now that with vaccines, and this really is a vaccine story, that the world is getting back to pre-pandemic levels. In fact, GDP globally is already back above pre-pandemic levels. And it's not just that. It is that OPEC+ has demonstrated both the capacity and the desire for discipline. And then it has also been a story of U.S. shale business model, where the cost of capital has risen and the business model is certainly far more cash flow focused today than it might have been production-focused 2 years ago. And oil-focused rigs, even at $70 oil, are still 50% of what they were pre the pandemic.

So it is confidence in those 3 things. The underlying performance of the business, confidence in the balance sheet, confidence in the outlook, is why the Board has taken the decision that now is the right time to raise that dividend by 4%.

You ask if our financial framework is unchanged. It is unchanged. We have 5 elements of that framework. Element one is a resilient dividend. This is a resilient dividend and, importantly, we wish to maintain the balance point of the company at $40 oil, and this is very, very important to us. We can grow the dividend. We've said that in a $60 world, we have the capacity to grow this dividend by 4% per annum. And of course, remember that we're doing buybacks, and that is a very important thing, where at $1 billion per quarter at $60, we're basically retiring 5% of the shares of the company, which makes the dividend growth affordable.

So I think from a financial framework standpoint, elements 1 to 5 remain as is. We have taken the decision to grow the dividend. We believe that is the right thing to do to reward our shareholders based on confidence in those 3 things that I've lined out, the underlying performance of BP, the strength of the balance sheet and the outlook for the environment.

Murray, is there anything that you would like to add or correct on that? And then any words that you want to say about Eni and Angola?

Nothing to correct. I'd just emphasize the resilience point. Step one inside the financial frame, our priority one is resilience. And we see the capacity to grow that by 4% given the price outlook, given the performance in the operations and given the potential share buybacks we've got. So maintaining resilience at $40 oil is what's critical to us inside that thought pattern.

As far as Angola goes, we're making good progress with Eni. Linking back to the last quarter when we talked about it, we see a good opportunity to work with Eni to drive a better business locally in Angola. We operate 2 boats, they operate a couple of boats. By bringing the operations together, we can start to drive synergies into it. You can have fewer supply chain basis, you can have more leverage for offshore operations. One set of helicopter crews as opposed to many, et cetera, et cetera. And that efficiency then moves into the resource side, where if you're producing at a lower cost, you can develop more resource.

So we just see it as a great local efficiency play. I think everybody in Angola is very excited about it for the future, both ourselves and Eni and our employees. So we think it's a good transaction for both sides. As far as progress goes, we're working through fully documenting all the terms and then handing those over to partners in government for approval. So that process is on track, and we'll update you at the next quarterly results.

Yes. I mean, the only thing that I'd add to that, Murray, if I could, not to correct anything but to emphasize, in your language, is I think, Peter, we've always, I think, had a track record of being, I hope, creative and innovative. And that doesn't stop and that is unchanged. So think back to Aker BP, where I think we've tripled the value of that investment over the last couple of years.

So in many ways, it's a continuity, a continuation of the past. But as we also think about the energy transition and when we think about resilient hydrocarbons, and as Murray said, resilience from a cost perspective and from an environmental perspective and emissions perspective, then things like this make imminent sense especially in a basin like Angola.

So these always made sense. They probably make even more sense going into the future, and you should expect us to continue to be searching for creative ways to make sure that hydrocarbons inside our business are as resilient as possible. And we will be innovative in how we go about that. Thanks for the questions.

Okay. Thanks, Peter. We'll go across the phone to Paul Cheng at Scotiabank. Thanks for being up so early again, Paul.

Bernard, I have 2 questions. First, BPX strategy. Can you update us that what's the plan on there over the next several years? You said just to maintain the maintenance mode or that's any shape or form you guys trying to grow it, or whether you should be part of your core operations going forward.

And the second question is that clearly, Europe, the [energy] transition is probably at the front end of the world, but the rest of the world may not be like in U.S. So I think many of the investors we talked to seems the concern, is BP investing at a faster pace than the rest of the world, the pace of the energy transition. And as such, that the opportunity set may not be matching what you're trying to do and that your new investment is not generating a good enough return. Can you maybe talk about that concern?

Thank you, Paul. On your second question, we are not investing, I think, ahead of the curve into the transition world. I don't believe that, that is the case. I think we're investing with discipline into that new world. In the second quarter alone, we rejected 50 gigawatts of potential deals that we could have done. So there's a massive amount of activity out there. But in no way would I say that we are sort of ahead of the curve. In fact, our 2030 targets represent between 1% and 3% and of the world's ambition in that space. And if you think about our oil production today, it's not a dissimilar number.

So we're not investing ahead. We are being very, very disciplined. There is growth happening. If I could just give you one example in electric vehicle charging, for example, which I think is a fascinating area. We have already -- we talk a lot about charging points, but the real numbers that we need to focus on are not just the number of charging points but the kilowatt hours of a capacity that we have installed, and even more importantly, the kilowatt hours of electricity that we have sold. And in the first 6 months of 2021, we have already sold 50% more kilowatt hours than we did in the entire 2020.

So in 6 months, 6% more kilowatt hours than in the entirety of 2020. And that's with a backdrop of our number of charging points just gone up by 6%. So this is all about ultrafast charging and it's all about utilization rates. Utilization rates at our Hammersmith station here in London, the 4 ultrafast chargers, are running at 55% utilization today.

So I think the pace of transition, you're quite right, is different in different parts of the world, different sectors are moving at different paces. We're investing into that electrification as one example.

But in the renewable space, you can expect us to be incredibly disciplined and we will be reporting on as much about what we turned down as opposed to what we did, and we turned down 50 gigawatts of opportunity in the second quarter alone. So discipline is the key, 8% to 10% returns in those renewable sector. We think we'll get higher, Murray, in EV charging. But hopefully, that helps a little bit on that.

On BPX, it's a great business. We're running 7 to 8 rigs a day. It's free cash flow positive year-to-date. It's doing very, very well. We'll spend less capital there this year than we actually did last year. We probably will bring the capital up a little bit in that business, but we're not focused on production growth. We are focused on cash flow growth. The reservoirs continue to look fantastic, better than we expected. We've now delivered $400 million of synergies versus the $350 million that we had planned.

And we've just drilled our first well in the Louisiana Haynesville in 10 years. Three 8,000-foot laterals at $3 Henry Hub, and I think Henry Hub today is closer to $4 as is to $3. Those wells deliver 80% returns, 8-0 percent return. So we're very, very happy with the business. It's performing better than we've expected. Murray, I know you're very passionate about it. Anything that you would add on the BPX or indeed on Paul's first question?

I think on BPX, we're just managing it for cash flow and dividend, guys. So we'll gradually ramp up the activity and make sure that we get a decent-sized dividend out of it each year. And we have a very, very strong resource base there, 40 years of drilling at around 12 rigs going each year. So a tremendous opportunity set with very high-quality economics.

Thank you, Paul.

Thanks, Paul. We'll take the next question from Lucas Herrmann at Exane.

A couple, if I might. Firstly, just on the buyback or the indicated buyback at $60 of $4 billion. Can you give us an indication, does that $4 billion include the $0.5 billion or so or $700 million of employee share scheme reversal that you've previously indicated? And can you give any indication as to the extent to which it includes divestment proceeds or what level of divestment proceeds you're assuming when you start thinking about the free cash flow number? And that question is simply driven by working back from $4 billion and looking at what kind of operating cash you'd need to generate and it seems quite elevated relative to the current level?

And secondly, Bernard, on hubs, look, I mean, thank you very much for the slide this morning. I think it makes -- it helps clarify or make clear the opportunities that you're pulling together and the way you see the basins of tomorrow. But I just wondered, can you give any indication of what level of CapEx you'd expect to go into each hub, the extent to which government support is important in the build-out? And how important is access to electricity? I mean, it's obviously very important, but to own supply electricity in your thinking around building out future hubs or future industrial hubs across the globe.

Lucas, thank you. To give you the most confidence in the first questions, I'll let Murray take them, and then I'll see if I can help on the hub question.

Yes. Great. Lucas, you had 2 parts in your buyback question. First part was employee offsets. Those are not included in the $1 billion a quarter, so those are separate. And I think we've guided to around $0.5 billion a year. So that's separate. And then, yes, the divestment proceeds are included in that.

And if you think back to what we've talked about from divestments, we said $25 billion between 2020 and 2025, of which we've already realized $10 billion in proceeds. So we have $15 billion proceeds through 2025. You could just model those pro rata and that would give you a sense of how we've thought about that at a $60 capacity. Thank you, Bernard.

Okay. Very good. So I hope, Lucas, hopefully it does. On the hubs. Look, I think it is a very interesting area of us -- focus for us for the future. And I think there are 2 things that we -- we're sort of making 2 points, I guess, within that. One is the potential to decarbonize industrial clusters and having had the privilege of being in Teesside just a few weeks ago and just seeing what's possible in an industrial cluster that I think represents 20% or 25% of the U.K.'s industrial cluster emissions in that one area in Teesside. I think we see that we will see solutions very much focusing around industrial clusters.

So up there, we've obviously got the Northern Endurance Partnership, which is about CCS. We've got Net Zero Teesside, which is about power. And we've got H2Teesside, which is about blue hydrogen, and then linking that potentially with offshore wind and linking that with our trading business. So that's an industrial cluster, but we're also showing what can happen within a country framework and how we can join up things like electric vehicle charging with the renewables business, with hydrogen, with trading.

So in answer to your question, how much capital is going to go into this. I mean I think, increasingly, you will see our transition spend, which I think we're seeing is about $4 billion by 2025 and $5 billion by 2030 per annum. And I would remind, Paul, from the earlier question that I think we spent less than $2 billion or around $2 billion on -- out of $13 billion this year on transition. So I don't think we're getting ahead. So I think, Lucas, what you'll see increasingly is focus of that spend being on country and cluster strategies is what you will see going forward.

In terms of government support, it's less actually about government support in terms of cash handouts. It is government support here in the U.K., for example, at Teesside. It's about what the government refers to as business models, what we would refer to as regulatory frameworks. And what we mean by that is shipping carbon dioxide offshore and storing it underground needs a proper legal framework around it. We all understand what happens with oil today and decommissioning and so on and so forth. We need similar frameworks in place for carbon.

We need contract for a different type system for transportation of that carbon so that there is a reward that's commensurate with the risk. Customers that are changing their fertilizer plant in Teesside from gray hydrogen to blue hydrogen, we'll need some sort of CfD mechanism. So it is more of these mechanisms than it is direct government subsidies is making sure that, in their language, why business models are in place.

And access to electricity, I think all we would say in that regard is that these are value chains. And I think it was Murray that spoke about it on the last quarter results, is that we used to take molecules out of the ground and pump them into people's cars. We'll now take electrons, let's say, out of the air and put them into people's cars. As we have learned over 100 years in oil and gas, being present right across the value chain as rent shifts means that we can follow that rent as it moves up and down that value chain. And we believe that the same is true of this new world.

And what I would say is that we'll just close by saying we're not in the renewables business just for renewables, i.e., we're not just trying to build an offshore wind business. We're trying to build an energy business that's a net zero energy business. And the fundamental parts of that will be things like an offshore wind upstream position, a trading business and some shorts that may look like electric vehicle charging or may look like hydrogen. So that's what we're trying to replicate here. And to do that, we feel we have to be present across the value chain rather than just in one part of the value chain. I hope that helps.

It helps. Can I just follow up with one question or one observation. I mean trading -- the opportunity to lubricate everything effectively through trading is clearly very important in delivering incremental return. Is there a point at which you think you might actually start disclosing just how stable or otherwise trading streams have been historically? Because it's all very well to tell us or to say, well, typically, we make 1% to 2% of capital employed, but some illustration via hard figures consistently might help.

I was asked that question by Bloomberg this morning. And no plans to do so at the moment. I think we have given probably more disclosure than many already on that subject, and you mentioned the returns guidance that we gave in August of last year. Suffice to say that we have confidence in its current financial delivery. We have confidence in its ability to generate future financial delivery in the new world. And I think it remains and will increasingly become a competence and a capability that a company like ours both needs and relies on. But no plans right now, Lucas, to do any further disclosure over and above what we've already done.

Thanks, Lucas. We'll take the next question from Jon Rigby at UBS. Jon?

So 2 questions. The first is -- and I don't expect you to comment on this directly, although you can, is there's been widespread stories about or reports of BHP looking to sell its oil and gas assets, a lot of which I'm thinking mainly around the Gulf of Mexico. You're the operator of and probably arguably the natural owner, and I think you probably agree both from an economic and an emission standpoint, those are absolutely fantastic assets.

So the question for me -- a question for you from me is how do you think about opportunities like that in your legacy oil and gas businesses when your ultimate aim is to sort of reduce that exposure, but tactically, there may be some opportunities to improve quite significantly the quality of what you have? That's first question.

The second is just intrigued on this Thorntons move in the U.S. Can you just maybe go into a little bit more detail? Is the U.S. or are there parts of the U.S. that are similar or analogous to Europe and the model that you're trying to pursue in Europe, where you can generate very attractive returns from a sort of amalgamation of electricity and nonfuel retail? Because as I understood it, historically, the U.S. has been quite significantly different in terms of its sort of model to maybe Europe. But maybe is that just an issue of certain parts of the U.S. market as opposed to a comment on the full U.S. market?

Jon, thanks for the questions. On Thorntons, 208 stores in 6 states in the Midwest. We like their business. They have very attractive locations. They run their operations well, and they have quite a differentiated offer that works well in those states. We can now -- having planning to own 100% of it, we can really drive integration now into our existing business with refining, with trading and we hope we can also deliver some more synergies than we already have with the ampm brand in the West Coast. So I think -- with supply chains and so on and so forth. So I think there's a real rationale, shall I say, a local rationale as to why we would do this.

Secondly, of course, the U.S., I believe, is going to remain the #1 fuel market in the world out through 2040. So despite the transition and everything that's happening, we've been talking about electrification earlier, this will remain an incredibly strong fuels market in the world, the #1 fuel market in the world, and will do so for many, many years to come. So we see great opportunity there.

And of course, as electrification takes off in America, which I think it will, but I think we'd all agree will probably start on the coast, probably on the East Coast and the West Coast and -- before it makes its way inland, then that opportunity will happen over time there. So hopefully, that gives you a little bit of context into the Thorntons decision, Thorntons in my Irish description, Thorntons.

And then on BHP and oil, I guess what you're talking to there is oil and gas acquisitions, so to speak. And the first thing that I would say is that there is no -- there's not a strategic no to doing oil and gas deals inside the company. So if we see deals that make sense, then we will do so.

The ultimate thing to say, and I'm not trying to avoid the question, it really is how we would think about it, Jon, is that we're just driven by value, right? If we can find barrels that are higher margin and lower emissions intensive than our existing portfolio, then we'll high-grade. And we will continue to look for ways to achieve that. At the end of the day, all we're trying to do is create the highest value oil and gas portfolio that we can.

So the deal that we've just talked about in Angola with Peter, with Eni, what we did with Aker BP, you'll see us continue to be active in that space. There is no sort of no to -- there's no -- there's not a strategic no, you won't do that. But it has to be about value and it's about high-grading and making sure that the barrels we have are the very, very best that they can be, both from an emissions and a value perspective. Murray, would you add anything to that?

No. Good. And just excited about the Thorntons deal, guys. They have a tremendous convenience offer. Very high margin. As Bernard said earlier, we've had a record for convenience as we look back, as we tracked it. So great quarter. And the world is really turning towards convenience, so we just see a tremendous opportunity in that moving forward.

Record for convenience adjusted for Thorntons and a record for convenience in Europe. So it's a great story, Jon. But hopefully, that helps and thanks for the questions. And hopefully, you're happy with what we did on the dividend. So back to you, Craig.

Okay. Thank you, Jon. We'll take the next question from Biraj Borkhataria, RBC. Biraj?

The first one is on the impairment reversals. You cited BPX. I was just wondering if that is the legacy assets or the kind of BHP-acquired assets. If it's the legacy assets, does that mean your gas price assumption has changed, and maybe you can clarify what that is if there's been any change there?

And then the second question is just going back to your comments from last year, Bernard. Effectively, you affirmed your 2021 targets that you set out a few years ago. Castrol in particular, was supposed to see quite a bit of growth from 2016 to 2021. It looks like the run rate is quite a little bit below that now. And I understand some of the key markets are impacted by COVID, but there's also been some additional offerings with e-Fluids and things like that. So could you just bridge from maybe first half of this year or where you are now relative to that target and talk about some of the reasons why maybe, at least for 2021, the earnings growth is not attainable?

Biraj, thank you. I'll see what I can do on Castrol, and Murray, if you could take the impairments question, please?

Yes. On the impairments, we didn't change gas price, Biraj. We just changed oil price, as we previously disclosed. And yes, there were some write-backs inside BPX as well as the historic portfolio for oil price. So I think that's what we'd say on that one.

Very good. On Castrol, I think your observations are good, Biraj. Performance was down a little bit in the second quarter compared to what was a good first quarter. I think we understand the reasons why, overall, it's relatively short in the second quarter versus the first, and that's around base oil supplies. And obviously, we've had lockdowns in India, which is a core market and so on and so forth. So I think that is clearly been headwinds this year and over the last year.

We have a plan for Castrol that is in action, so to speak. And you should expect to see Castrol grow over the coming years. I have looked at that plan, as has Murray, very closely with Emma. And I think we feel very good about it, and it is now about executing on that plan. There's a lot of opportunity in that business that we've identified.

It's an incredibly strong brand. Great to see it, by the way, on pole -- not on pole position, but on #1 in the Formula 1 at the weekend, which was brilliant. I've never seen better brand placement in a long time. But it's a brilliant brand, and it's a brand personally that I love and think that it has enormous potential. And I think there is more in that business, and our job is to deliver on that potential over the next couple of years.

In terms of e-Fluids, it's absolutely part of the strategy. We have something called Castrol ON, which is designed for improved electric vehicle performance. And I think more than half of the world's major vehicle manufacturers are now using them as part of their factory fill. So we feel pretty good about Castrol's ability to pivot to that new world. But I would say that the internal combustion engine will remain a dominant feature of the transportation landscape for decades, particularly when you see the growth in markets like China and India, and particularly things like 3-wheeler and 2-wheeler markets in those countries.

So the traditional lubricant will be around for decades and has the potential to grow through that period. And there will be a transition over time and the technologies that we have and the coolants that we have and the greases that we have, we're able to transfer to that new world. So Castrol, doing relatively good given the circumstances. I think it's actually above 2019 numbers today despite the base oil challenges and despite the COVID challenges in places like India. But we believe there's a lot more that we have to do. I think base oil is 40% higher, for example, at the moment than it was in 2019 and yet the business is back to performing better. But more to do with Castrol and watch this space over the coming years. Hopefully, that helps, Biraj.

Thanks, Biraj. We'll go back across the U.S. and take the next question from Jason Gabelman in Cowen. Jason?

Two questions. First on the Gulf from Mexico. I wanted to get a sense, given it's one of your higher-margin regions, where production was in 2Q. I know it was impacted from maintenance and then kind of the ramp-up over the next few quarters, where that production is going. You have a couple of larger products coming online, Mad Dog and Thunder Horse expansions, and what the cash flow contribution of that will be maybe from where it was in 2Q given the maintenance?

And then back to this idea of integration in the low-carbon energy business. Can you just discuss if you have to reach a critical mass of assets in order to realize that 2% trading benefit? Or is that something you'll expect to realize kind of off the bat as these new renewable power assets and others come online? And then further to that, are there other pieces within the value chain that are maybe less visible to us beyond these kind of large power projects coming online that you need to set up in order to achieve that trading benefit?

Jason, thank you. I'll ask Murray to take your second question, and I will take your first question. Yes, we had a lot of maintenance. And in fact, it's a feature right across the portfolio really and also in the refining business, where, obviously, we were unable to do a lot of turnarounds last year. And turnarounds are essential maintenance, typically, and therefore, we are playing catch-up with some of that in 2021. And you saw that in the second quarter. Production in the GoM was slightly below 300,000 barrels a day in the second quarter, and it will be above 300,000 barrels a day in the third quarter.

The business -- I was actually in Houston as well a few weeks ago and reviewed the business there. It's running well. You're right, it's an absolute core asset for the company. We've just brought on the Manuel project in June. That's a 2-well tieback into Na Kika, which will hopefully get Na Kika to be full, which is great. Thunder Horse Southeast Expansion Phase 2, a field I know reasonably well personally, that will come online later this year. Another 2 wells at the beginning and potentially 8 wells tie back at Thunder Horse, which is fantastic.

I've talked about Mad Dog Phase 2, which I think, Murray, has a gross capacity, that facility, of 140,000 barrels per day. All the wells have been predrilled in the facility. Certainly, to an amateur like myself, looks to be in fantastic shape. The team is doing a really, really good job, and we look forward to that starting up next year. And we had a discovery as well near Atlantis that is quite interesting.

So the key in the GoM for us going forward is filling the infrastructure that we have, keeping our cost down, keeping our emissions down. The team are all over that. We're excited about all 4 of the hubs as well as our OBO portfolio there. But business is running well, and you should see higher volumes in the third quarter. We always have hurricanes to worry about in the Gulf of Mexico, and let's see what impact that will have this year. But aside from hurricanes, production will be well up on -- in 3Q on 2Q. Hopefully, that helps, Jason. Murray?

Yes, Jason, on the trading question for the future, maybe the best thing to do is analogize it to gas. If you think back into the beginning of the natural gas portfolios, we started with point-to-point transactions. So you build -- you develop an LNG facility in a gas field and you point it at a specific market and you'd sign a long-term agreement.

Gradually, over time, people would move away from long-term agreements and move towards a merchant model or a spot model. And key inside that was having positions in the upstream, the midstream and then customer shorts. So that buildup of natural gas that occurred since the 1960s is what you see right now in our portfolio with fantastic profitability and very high returns as we have sources of energy that are equity, sources of energy they are merchant, the capacity to move molecules around and sales to customers.

And that's really how we see the electron market and hydrogen market unfolding over time as well. It will be important to get a series of long positions in the actual energy production itself. A mix of merchant and equity is always super important as our history, and we think that's true in the future. It will be important that you have the ability to manage transmission in some countries. Some will be regulated, some won't, but in places that aren't regulated, you'll think about that.

And then you'll need to establish customer shorts. They will start as long-term contracts. You guys call it a CfD or a PPA right now. And over time, that will move towards merchant. And that's where you need charging, hydrogen outlets, carbon offset outlets, like offshore producing facilities, carbon capture and sequestration, et cetera.

So building out those different shorts over time will be extremely important, and we're confident that we'll be able to do that. Obviously, in places like the U.K., you're going to have 15 years where you've got a CfD underpinning, or 20 years where you've got a CfD underpinning, and you'll do trading optionality around that for whatever percentage we decide as we move towards the CfD rounds.

And then over time, you're moving into a place where you have a mix of equity and a mix of merchant longs and you'll be pushing into all kinds of different shorts, and that's where the magic comes and that's where we are in the superior returns. So we understand the business from 60 years of doing this inside natural gas and 20 years of doing this inside North America with our power position there, and we feel pretty confident with the future too. I hope that helps.

Okay. Thanks. We'll take the next question from Christyan Malek.

Yes. Murray and Bernard, first of all, well done on a great result and definitely a positive surprise in the dividend. So 2 questions, please. First, I remember how you vehemently defended not raising the dividend. And you don't quite surprised it increase today. I think it's very clear the base of the raise and thank you for that framework.

But I wonder if I could play the movie in reverse now and with the benefit of hindsight, of course, I wonder just how much of the 50% cut in the dividend would you apportion to a weaker constructive outlook versus, call it, funding the transition? Just with that kind of rear view mirror now, I'd just like to understand that because it helps me frame the quantum of the future dividend increase potentially going forward?

And the second, and this is more strategic, but it seems that there's all these higher equity markets failing to -- you and others with a low yield internal valuation and some would argue that the sector's structure impaired. If the equity market continues to under-appreciate the Clean Energy part of your business -- I will put it a different way, if there really isn't a core institutional investor base for the next generation of international energy companies, what options would you consider, if any, to do things differently?

Great. Christyan, thank you, and thanks for the commentary. Look, I think it's -- I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to do in terms of predicting what we'll do going forward. I think I just have to bring you back on the dividend to what we have guided to today that basically says in a $60 world, here is what we have the capacity to do and I know everybody wants to know what happens if the prices are above that and what happens if the prices are below that.

If they're below that, we follow our financial frame starting at 5 -- point #5, the buybacks, and working our way back to point #1, the resilient dividend. I'm not going to apportion how much of it was outlook, how much was transition. We were in a very uncertain world, as you and I both know, and it felt and the Board felt that this was the prudent thing to do at that time.

We felt that a 50% cut for the reasons that I stated, uncertain outlook, the balance sheet strength and being able to invest in the transition that the combination of those 3 things led us to the decision that we have taken. And clearly, today, as life tends to do, the world is very, very different, and that's why we've raised the dividend by 4%, and that's why we've issued the guidance that we have.

And of course, at these prices, as Murray keeps reminding me, with buyback starting, it means that we can actually do this comfortably at $60 without actually increasing the dividend burden on the company and therefore, maintaining a balance point of $40.

In terms of the yield, and I do understand your question and your question about structural impairment and whether core institutional shareholders are going to reward a company in transition. The first thing that I would say is that it's a bit of a hobby horse and probably not particularly helpful to you, but that is that if the world is going to have any chance of meeting its climate goals, it must embrace screening companies.

They are simply -- we cannot start enough new green companies to get to net zero. It's simply not possible. You just have to look at Tesla selling 0.5 million cars a year versus Volkswagen, (inaudible) and Toyota selling 30 million cars a year. The incumbents matter, they must transition, they must be rewarded. They must be encouraged. Otherwise, I think it's very difficult for the world to get to net zero. So this is what we call greening companies.

But to your more specific point around what are the options that we would consider. The option that we would consider is the option that we are doing. Our job is to prosecute the agenda that we've laid out. We have made a strong -- we have a strong belief in the value of integration. And Murray has just, I think, given a great description of what it looks like, and we've tried to do that in our presentation today to say that by being an integrated energy company, we believe we can add value.

We recognize that the market has questions around that. And the only option that we are considering is simply to keep doing what we are doing. And we believe and strongly believe that in time, the market will see that transition play out, will reward that transition as long as we perform each and every day and deliver today as well as transitioning for tomorrow.

So the option is deliver on the strategy that we've laid out just 12 months ago, and we are confident that if we perform, as you can see with the buybacks and as you can see with the dividend increase, and we transition with discipline, which is what we're intending to do, that in time, the market will quite frankly, find it hard to ignore what is an incredibly compelling cash proposition.

And as Craig reminds me, the second elements of our investor proposition, which are profitable growth, 7% to 9% per annum, compound annual growth rate of EBITDA per share and sustainable value increase. So I think we shouldn't expect to be rewarded overnight. It's a big change. We got to be patient. We've got to knuckle down and focus on the basics, and that's what we're going to do, Christyan. So Murray, anything you'd add to either of those questions?

No, good answer.

Well, thank you. Murray says they're good. I'm happy. Even happier that Martijn's. Great. But Christyan's great. So Christyan, thank you. Thanks for your question.

Thanks, Christyan. We'll take the next question from Irene Himona at Societe Generale.

Congratulations on the progress reported. You achieved so far this year a $2.5 billion cash cost saving and you did so 6 months early. So 2 related questions. Firstly, can you say what the key components of these savings are? And in particular, how much of it comes from the 6,000 labor force reduction you referred to? And then secondly, having achieved the target early, what happens next? So what can we anticipate in the second half of the year on cash costs?

Irene, thank you. I'll just have a go at the second part of the question and ask Murray to help you with the first part and the second part. But I think what's next is the $3 billion to $4 billion per annum of cost savings that we have said that we will deliver by 2023. And by the way, the $2.5 billion was by the end of '21. The $3 billion to $4 billion is by 2023 as a full year.

So we expect to see costs come down $3 billion to $4 billion. So what next is we got to keep going. We've got to keep going. We have more people that are scheduled to exit the company over the next several months. Very, very difficult. Obviously, for them and for all of the leaders inside the company. But we're reaching the end of that phase now, and we're doing that in the best way from a caring perspective that we can.

We're heavily focused on digital. Gordon now has over 7,000 people working in an agile structure. You remember us talking about agile and agile ways of working when you visited Oman with us. And we have now over 7,000 people, not just using agile tools but structured in an agile way. And we're seeing the pace of decision-making and the pace of getting work done coming down by 30% to 40% in those teams. So we have to keep going.

There is still an enormous amount of waste in our company that we want to get after. We see digital as key. We see agile as key. Leigh-Ann is doing a fantastic job running our supply chain organization from one place. We now have one group supply chain. We're seeing synergies coming through on that, offsetting some of the inflation costs that we've seen in steel and tubulars over recent months. And we'll continue to automate where we can.

So we just have to keep going. We're not stopping. And the next is the $3 billion to $4 billion by 2023. And if you ask me what's beyond that, Murray and I believe and the team believe that we will continue to drive cost down out through 2024 and 2025. We wanted to be a hallmark of how we run BP. It's a hallmark of a well-run company and it needs to be a hallmark of a company in transition, and that's what we're very, very focused on. Murray, anything you'd add and where is the breakdown into $2.5 billion.

Yes. I think the breakdown of the $2.5 billion, Irene, is really in 3 parts. It's procurement savings as we bring the upstream and downstream together, and we normalize contracts across the 2. So there's quite a bit of procurement savings inside that. Second, headcount as you rightly identified. And third, then work practices. The combination of what Bernard talked about with Agile is a big lever, as well as all the investment we've done in digital over time.

In the historic upstream, we've been on about a 10-year journey to digitize the totality of the upstream. We're a long way down that, and we're now able to watch procurement flows across the globe with a tool called Celonis that sits over the top of our SAP system and find out where inefficiencies exist in the system, both bidding inefficiencies and process inefficiencies and that's dragging costs out materially. It's quite an amazing thing to be able to do.

And I'm excited about the future because we can now take those tools that we developed over a decade in the upstream and apply them in the historic downstream refineries in retail. And there hasn't been as much investment in that part of the business in the past as in the upstream. We're now going to get on to that in customer and products and look forward to great things as we move through the decade to continue to drive efficiency in our business. But think about 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 of that $2.5 billion. Thanks, Irene.

Yes. I mean it's -- our data stuff is fascinating, isn't it? Murray's also got David Jardine, who runs internal audit and internal audit being able to conduct audits basically from home of operations around the world because they have access to the same data streams and maintenance, for example. That the teams on the ground in Trinidad or in Angola have. And it's just the efficiency and productivity improvements just continue to grow and grow. The opportunity is massive. So anyway, just a small example. Thanks, Irene.

Thank you, Irene. We'll take the next question from Chris Kuplent at Bank of America.

Thanks, Craig. Just 2 questions, please, and both are a little bit concerning around tax. The first one, Murray, perhaps for you. The Gulf of Mexico oil spill payment guidance has switched from post-tax to pretax. Is that because you've lost visibility on the tax impact? Maybe you can give us a little bit of a reference of what that shift actually is? Is it an upgrade in costs? Or is it more or less the same and you've just changed the reference?

And then secondly, on your sensitivities or rules of thumb, again, you were giving those to us in pretax terms. But just wanted to come back to your balancing points. You told us that the BP's policy CapEx has been calibrated to retain your $40 per barrel balancing point. And if I then calculate the sensitivity from $40 to $60, I end up with about $5 billion of post-tax cash flows. Would that be wrong from your pretax guidance?

And therefore, I just wanted to see whether you can confirm roughly that my math is right that your $4 billion annual buyback at $60 is pretty much eating into that entire cash flow, a rule of thumb that you've given us. I hope those questions make sense.

Well, I think they'll make more sense to Murray than they will do to me, Chris, but that's not because they're bad questions, but he'll have more of the detail on certainly the first one, and we might need a little clarity on the second one, I think. So Murray, over to you.

As far as tax payments go, Chris, we just felt it was easier to move to pretax guidance. The actual outflows are pretty consistent from now until 2033. It's a ratable schedule of payments. Trying to do it on a post-tax basis as the tax -- the tax rate moves around with the losses from last year. The gains from this year was just getting a bit too confusing.

So we felt it was easier for you guys just to move to pretax guidance. You can obviously see the swings in the tax rate in the first half of this year versus the first half of -- versus the second half of this year. So that's all. There's no change to the underlying payments that are happening, it's just movements in the tax rate itself. So that's the first question. So no concerns from my perspective there.

As far as -- I didn't really follow your calculation, so maybe Craig can follow up with you off-line. But the way to think about it is from our $40 balance point, your rule of thumb that you've got out on the website, it's a pretax basis. We'll let you use the average cash tax rate to figure out what that is on a post-tax basis, you'll multiply that by 20, as you say. And then there will be some adjustments in there. Remember, we've got a capital range of $14 billion to $16 billion and if the oil price is down around $40, you won't be spending $16 billion, so you'll be modulating that a little bit. But we'll let Craig and the team follow up with you to make sure that we understand the math that you had.

Thanks, Chris. Thanks for the questions.

Thank you, Chris. We'll take the next question from Lydia Rainforth at Barclays. Lydia?

A couple of questions, if I could. The first one, if I just come back to the dividend increase. Bernard, I think you talked about the idea that confidence in the underlying business is better. What part of the business is better? Is it simply the cost side or are the operations better? So I'm just really trying to get a break down as to what operationally you're more confident in?

And then the second one relates to the CapEx side and this idea of the brilliant reality that you can now do both additional cash returns to shareholders and start less spending. But how do you make sure that, that additional spending goes to the right places and that it's effectively good CapEx. And I'll leave it there. Thank you.

Fantastic, Lydia. Good morning. Good to hear your voice. Murray, as the custodian of good capital with me, I'll let Murray talk a little bit about that. Lydia, look, I think a few examples that we've talked about already in terms of the underlying performance of the business. Number one is the cost structure, which I think we're never satisfied, Murray and I, with where we are on cost, but we're pleased that we're meeting our targets earlier, and you should just expect us to continue to build that muscle inside our company that, quite frankly, we still believe there is a huge opportunity in, and we will continue to focus on.

The convenience business is just a great business, growing volumes, growing margins, best quarter on record. A strong business, a strong brand, strong partnerships and one that, quite frankly, we can continue to make it better and better. And then in the hydrocarbons business, those major projects, the 200,000 that we've brought on, the ramping up of Raven in Egypt, my physical site visit to Mad Dog Phase 2 in Ingleside.

These things are tangible. They're real, and they give us confidence. And in terms of the reliability of the business, probably not as good as we would have liked in the second quarter, but better than the first quarter, and we know what issues we have there and the team is on it. So I think it's just that overall, we've got confidence, and I think I would have to add that the team is settling down now.

We've been through enormous change, necessary change, but enormous change inside our company. We have a new leadership team now that has been working together for 12 months. They were effective on July 1 next year. We have a lot of people in new jobs with new teams from the 1st of January this year.

And I think while not perfect everywhere, the whole organization is beginning to settle down and increasingly, as we get back physically to our offices where we can, I think that will help. And I think there's just that sense of underlying confidence that the company is getting in a zone, and that's what gave us the confidence to do what we do, along with the confidence in the balance sheet and the fifth quarter in a row of reducing net debt and the confidence in the environment. So hopefully, that gives you a little bit of color around how things feel inside the company. Murray, on capital, on Lydia's question.

Yes, Lydia. So I think start with a few things on CapEx. First, it's important that we have choice and that we're looking at a lot of things inside low carbon. That's why Bernard talked about we refused 50 gigawatts of opportunities in the quarter. So there are -- there's almost an infinite opportunity set out there in the world right now.

The way that we make sure that we're not wasting money in this space is that we look pretty rigorously at the business cases. We demand the 8% to 10% levered. We won't go below that. And critically, it's P50 assumptions on energy price, on CapEx, et cetera, which is obviously a tricky judgment. But it's those P50 estimates that we put inside it to make these judgments.

Likewise, on oil, you wouldn't want us wasting money on oil, either with the rise in oil price up to 60 riyal. We've got a 20% hurdle rate in order to invest into these. They have to be at P50 assumptions as well for the reservoir, for the cost, et cetera, and they have to pay back in 10 years. So each bit of our business has its own set of hurdle rates, its own set of expectation with P50. We have independent monitoring of that as well. So I think we've got a pretty disciplined and rigorous process that gets us to P50 outcomes.

And as we do look backs, annually, we do look-backs at drilling projects, et cetera, across the globe. By and large, the majority deliver within that P50 range. We have 1 or 2 that are on the downside and 1 or 2 that are really on the upside. But by and large, as we look across our portfolio, normalizing for price we are delivering, thanks to the great work inside projects, operations, wells, et cetera. So feeling pretty good about that, Lydia. I hope that helps.

Thanks, Lydia. We'll take the next question from Alastair Syme at Citi. Alastair?

Yes. Thanks, Craig. Bernard and Murray, as you're building out the renewables pipeline, I just wonder if you could characterize the different levels of competition you're seeing between Europe, U.S. and Asia and also perhaps across technology, solar versus offshore wind? And then sort of secondly, related on the recent Scotwind, I was surprised to see such a detailed press release on what was essentially a bid. And I realize this is a bid, this not just about price, but you're the only bidder that's disclosed capacity. Do you have any sense on perhaps on how much oversubscribed do you think this auction is going to be?

Thanks, Alastair. I'll let Murray take maybe the first question around competition and renewables by geography, by technology. On ScotWind, it's an important license round. I think we've said 2.7 gigawatts is the license that we are after. We've basically done a lot of work on it. We want to win it. And the press release simply sets the context for our bid, which is the things that we will do right across Scotland, which include setting up, as you've read it.

And you know, setting up our global offshore wind monitoring center in Aberdeen, which is a lovely story of a city transitioning from hydrocarbons to low carbon and long been a center for BP and can be a center for the next 100 years for BP as well. A lot of work on the potential for hydrogen, electric vehicle charging, investment into ports and so on. So we simply felt it was important for stakeholders to know the commitments that we were making, the importance of the bid to our partnership, not just to BP, but to EnBW, our partner from Germany.

And you can never be sure of these things, but we want to put our best foot forward and do the right thing for Scotland, for the U.K. and obviously, for our respective companies. So that's a little bit of context as to why oversubscribed. I think it will be a competitive process. And a lot of interest. It's a different process from the processes down in England, and we'll see how it plays out. And we should know early next year. Murray?

Competition in low carbon across different geographies, et cetera. I think in primary markets that already exist, there's almost infinite demand, and there are a lot of suppliers. So it's about being selective, Alastair. Solar expansion in Europe, very high. Solar expansion in the U.S. is very high. Solar expansion in Australia is starting to grow. So we do see an awful lot of demand there. And Lightsource bp, our development vehicle, is able to compete in these markets.

They do seem to be at the low end of cost to supply and able to compete effectively. And win projects and win PPAs with customers. And you can see those rolling out in different press announcement from them. Offshore wind, obviously, quite competitive right now. And Scotwind is a good example of that. We see equal intensity of competition around the different offshore wind environment around the world and an awful lot of the judgments around who gets awarded there, or about local supply chains around track record.

And importantly now, ability to provide integrated offers as well. I think governments and nations are starting to recognize that's exceptionally important. And then last point I'd say is hydrogen. Hydrogen is a growth market, and we'll start to see more and more competition around that over time, especially it's really taking off in Europe right now. I'm sure you can read about the stuff in Germany and Continental Europe and, of course, here with blue and green in the middle of the U.K. So I think hydrogen probably not as widespread yet as it is inside Europe. I hope that helps.

Thanks, Alastair. On the theme of Scotland, we'll take the next question from Jason Kenney of Santander.

Thanks, Craig. Bernard, Murray, a couple of short questions, hopefully. So with the oil price change to $60 a barrel, does that mean that BP keeps its oil assets for longer? Or are you still planning on the 1 million-barrel a day less upstream volume, 2030 versus 2019? And then on the ROACE delivery, when do you think BP hits 12% to 14% ROACE at $50 to $60 oil in that 2021, 2025 plan? I've got one short question as well on DiDi in China, because of the authorities looking at the DiDi app across there. Is there anything we should think about in the rollout of progress there?

Very good, John or Jason. That was 3 questions. But if you put in a good word first on Scotland, we'll let you off on that. So I'll let Murray take the ROACE question. On the $60 case and any change to our longer-term plans on either the amount we invest into hydrocarbons or indeed our plan to reduce the volume of hydrocarbons, which as we keep reminding people is very different to reducing cash flow. We're actually going to grow cash flow in the first 5 years even as we reduce volume. No change to our plans. I think as someone said recently, we don't plan to increase our investment into high-price world.

Number one, I think we know how that story ends. So staying disciplined in this space will be good. And secondly, where we have some divestments to do, which will always be at the tail, so to speak, we will enjoy, we hope, a better marketplace in which to do that. So I think our strategy personally takes full advantage of a stronger price environment and in many ways, is very well suited to it. DiDi in China, our plans continue in China with DiDi. There's been no change based on what you and I have all been reading in the news. I think this was about new users rather than existing users. I think DiDi has 550 million users already on its platform, at least those are the numbers I used to quote in the past. And utilization of our charters in China are running at double industry average, I think, at well over 30%. So no change to our current plans in China. Murray, ROACE?

And another 500 installed during the quarter on DiDi in China as well.

Just 500?

Just 500. Not that bad. And on ROACE, Jason, I'm not going to change guidance, 12% to 14% by 2025 at $50 to $60 price deck. We'll probably update you annually on that, but for now, no change.

Thanks, Jason. I think when he said short questions, he meant shorter answers, please.

Yes. Okay. We'll take the next question and possibly final question from Martijn Rats at Morgan Stanley.

I have two, if I may. First of all, I wanted to build on the question, I think, from Jason sort of early roll on the oil production. Because clearly, there is some seasonality in 2Q liquids output. But the statement also mentioned reduced investment. And I was wondering given -- yes, given the -- also the year-on-year underlying decline adjusted for disposals in liquids output, if we're finally hitting that point where reduced investment in upstream CapEx is now starting to bite into liquids output, I guess we're all trying to look at individual company data points to get to macro implications.

But those type of things are quite important for non-OPEC production and that's why I wanted to ask. Are we now hitting that point where low investment is indeed starting to hold back liquid supply? And the other thing I briefly wanted to sort of ask you about, sort of in the conversation that's just taken place, in 2 different parts. On one' hand, you talked very optimistically about the total amount of electricity sold via EV charging outlets.

At the same time, we've also spoken about the increase in oil price expectations between now and 2030. And I guess individually makes a little sense. But if you put them together, you can also see that there is some tension behind that. Could you just address the point that on the one hand, you're seeing faster than expected electricity sales growth to EVs, yet at the same time, you're expressing a degree of optimism and writing back assets in the traditional oil and gas business. Can you elaborate on sort of how we -- how you see the tension between those 2 things.

Martijn, thank you, and thanks for holding on until the end here. So I think, first of all, Murray will take the question on oil production, but we're not -- I think it would be wrong to draw the conclusion that we are now beginning to see a lack of liquids production based on lower investment. I think lower investment is coming through capital discipline and capital productivity. But to your second point, I'll let Murray comment.

On your second point on electric vehicle charging versus prices being raised in the near term, in the near to medium term. I think there's 2 things, I would say. Number one is that on electrical vehicle charging, it is obviously something that will impact the demand side. And while we are growing, as I said, over 50% higher already in 6 months and the entirety of last year, as we must remind ourselves always it is from an incredibly small and low base. So that is demand. The oil price movement that we have done in the near term is a supply-led rather than a demand-led change. And it's supply led for 3 basic reasons.

Number one is the discipline that OPEC+ has shown and our belief that they have shown both the capacity and the desire to maintain robust prices. So that would be number one. Number two, while connected to your first question, I think over time, there will be an impact of lower investment on the price of oil or on the supply of oil, and therefore, that will impact price. And thirdly, and maybe the most important is the change of business model in the Lower 48.

We were running 750 rigs before -- oil rigs before the pandemic in 2019. At trough, we were running 175. It has now doubled since then to 350 rigs, but that's less than half of the oil rigs that we're running in North America just before the pandemic. So we are indeed adjusting and having a more bullish, if you want to call it, that outlook on oil over the next 5 to 10 years.

And we're doing that on the back of supply constraints and the conversation around electric vehicle charging, I'd make 2 comments, which are, one, is it's about the demand side of the equation and it is starting from an incredibly low base. So I understand how you might draw contradiction in some ways between those 2, but I hope I've explained why we don't see it as a contradiction. Murray?

Yes. Martijn, nice to talk to you. On the oil product itself as opposed to our oil division, on the oil product itself, we're seeing big impact year-on-year on a few things. One, as Bernard said earlier, last year, we didn't really have any tar because it was too difficult to do it with COVID. So we've had a heavy tar season in the first half of the year.

Second, because price has gone so high, we're having material PSA and TSC impacts. So that makes the oil volumes look suppressed because of that rising price. The CapEx comment inside the OPO division is more about the CapEx cuts we made in BPX, which sits there. And most of those cuts were done inside the gas side of the business. So that's why you see the gas volumes declining in OPO. So that's less about oil. That's more about natural gas.

And then the last comment is, obviously, we've got a lot of divestments going through over that time period. So you've got a big divestment impact. But we don't see an unnatural level of decline inside oil. It's just a bunch of effects that I've just described. And if you think about a business like BPX right now, we're biasing the rigs into the Permian and the liquids-rich Eagle Ford as we move forward and the Black Hawk as well. So there's no unnatural hit to the oil-producing side.

Wonderful. I appreciate the dividend to increase, by the way. I think that's very welcome.

Thank you, Martijn. We appreciate the feedback.

Thanks, Martijn. Okay, there are a couple that are pulling for follow-up questions, but I think in the interest of time, we'll close the call there. And for those of you that did want to follow up, clearly on the sell side, we look forward to talking to you this afternoon. And I think on that note, maybe let me hand over to Bernard for some closing remarks. Thank you.

Very good. Well, thanks, Craig, and thanks, Murray, as always. And thanks, everybody. Just four things I would say to close out the call, if that's okay. First of all, I hope you'd agree that it's another strong quarter of delivery, and we have got to remain focused and will remain focused on execution of our strategy. So another strong quarter of delivery number one. Number two, we're doing it consistently. We're not changing our investor proposition.

We're not changing our financial framework. We're not changing our capital guidance. We're not doing anything like that. We are doing it consistently. And thirdly, I think we're growing in confidence a little bit while, of course, being cognizant of downside risks, but we're growing confidence in the underlying business, in the balance sheet and in the outlook for the environment.

And then fourth and finally, we're doing what we said we would do. I hope you can see, which is that we would perform while transforming. We would deliver for our shareholders today. And by that, we mean cash and cash distributions. And today, we've grown our distributions, and we've realtered the balance a little bit in favor of dividends.

And we're also transitioning the company for the future, something that we think is vitally important, and we're making steady, disciplined progress on doing that. So this concept that we rolled out actually on the 12th of February 2020, which was performing while transforming remains at the core of our proposition to investors. So I just want to thank you all for your interest in the company, for your feedback this morning, for your great questions. And I hope you guys get a break with family and friends, and look after yourselves, and we'll be in touch. So thanks very much.