Just let me finish here, I haven't gotten to my question yet.
If you are consulting, I would point out that the issue is that 400 scientists wrote and said not to fall for the plan that the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is pushing on “carbon capture”. They said it's “financially risky”, it's not “proven at scale” and it's not “verifiable” for actually storing CO2, and then the kicker is that it's not going to come on stream for six to eight years.
When I read your plan, which is heavily dependent on carbon capture, if it's $15 billion or $75 billion that you're going to give them, if it's not coming on stream for six to eight years, you're not meeting your 2030 targets, right? Why don't we just say that “this is what we're going to invest in big oil, we're going to continue to promote Bay du Nord and we're not going to meet those targets”?
It would be better to just be honest on this than to claim that you're going to miraculously meet these targets while within the space of a week you alone have signed off on half a million new barrels a day of production, and you're telling us that the CER, which is saying that it's going to be over a million barrels a day, that that's on your plan as well....