BP could have chosen to use its capital and skills to focus on blue hydrogen to provide clean, reliable and affordable energy but that would require oil company skills which we will soon no longer have. Instead it has been decided to focus on solar panels, wind and green hydrogen because that is what we are good at.
6 replies (most recent on top)
*”blue carbon” should say “blue hydrogen” below.
@maz+18 - you’re talking about Scope 3 emissions. When we consider scope 1 & 2, which means areas where we have direct control over carbon emissions in the value chain - green hydrogen has a much much lower carbon footprint than blue carbon.
"Blue hydrogen isn’t clean. If bp wants to achieve it’s goal to be net zero it can’t continue to produce oil and gas."
Green hydrogen isn't clean. Where do you think the power and heat come from for China to make solar panels and wind turbines and refine cobalt?
How do you think they arrive in Europe?
I thought the objective is making clean hydrogen with no CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. Of course if the objective is to destroy oil companies and lay off all the geoscientists and wells people in BP, Shell and ExxonMobil then your post makes sense.
Blue hydrogen isn’t clean. If bp wants to achieve it’s goal to be net zero it can’t continue to produce oil and gas.
Blue hydrogen falls squarely in the "clutching at straws" category, as such I thought it was deeply embedded within the new bp strategy.
Why can't we use our subsurface and drilling skills to encourage a blue hydrogen solution which may provide a market for our natural gas?
Is there any strategy left in bp or do we now just chase the latest fashion. Perhaps we should hire someone from McKinsey or another management consultant to help form a joined up strategy that makes sense for bp's skills?
Don't give up.