The emissions cap really places scarcity on emissions and allows firms.... There's flexibility in the proposed regulations to allow firms to trade and get compliance options like exporting fuel and LNG offshore and getting units to bring home. That is indicated as a compliance option that can be looked at under the regulations.
There's compliance flexibility around trading, and firms can do what they want to basically meet that objective, that cap. The proposed regulation asks for about a three megatonne reduction in time. Compare that to Pathways' CCS proposal, which is around 10 to 12 megatonnes of reduction. That puts it into scale.
One of the challenges with the studies around the impact of the proposed emissions cap is that they assume that the only way to reduce emissions—forget trading; forget getting offtakes from Asia—is to reduce or curtail production. When you curtail production, as was just pointed out, it's really expensive. It's like $800 per tonne. There are other cheaper options to comply.
If firms want to reduce production, that's a choice, but there's a lot of compliance flexibility in there to keep costs down.