A fireside chat with Josu Jon Imaz, chief executive officer of Repsol

Oh, thank you. And thank you for having me here. It's an honor for me.

First of all, transatlantic is not only a geographical concept. It's about values, principles: democracy, human rights, rule of law. It's important to maintain and strengthen this relationship. Now it could be a bit unbalanced, and the new American administration versus Europeans watching the mirror. We have to increase efforts in defense and security. But protecting this relationship is important because we have a common concern: China is growing and using the energy transition as a geopolitical weapon. Working together under the same rules is really important.

Unbalanced means that we Europeans are taking advantage of American protection, supplies, technology, and market. The US also has access to the European market and support, but when we compare both sides, Europeans have to increase our own responsibility. We are not children; we are adults. We have to increase our effort in defense and security in cooperation with our American friends.

Yeah, and we have to change our policies in a radical way, as the Draghi report mentioned. We have to be more focused on competitiveness. That is also related to the energy transition. We have to change our energy transition policies with the target of having stronger and better competitiveness in our industrial sectors.

If we see this discussion from Europe, we have to fulfill the three targets of the trilemma. We focused fully on decarbonizing but forgot security of supply and built dependence on Russia, a big mistake. Now we are building a new dependence on China. We forgot affordability. European families have had difficulties paying energy bills, and we destroyed 12% of European industry. And we are not even succeeding in decarbonizing; we are exporting industries, jobs, and CO2 emissions. For example, Europe accounts for 8% of global CO2 emissions, same as Chinese cement and steel. If we export steel to China, emissions increase 50% because their plants are less efficient. Also, by driving up LNG prices, we forced the global south to use coal, increasing emissions. We need to rethink the energy transition: combine decarbonization with security of supply and cheap energy. The US is a good example: you reduced emissions while increasing energy production and having cheaper energy.

First of all, we are oil and gas producers and proud of it. 65% of our capex is devoted to hydrocarbons and 35% to low carbon. We do that because we have to be responsible. The world needs oil and gas and will need more. Restricting supply is not an option; it would shift to coal and increase emissions. We have to sustain the current system while shifting to low carbon over 2-3 decades. We need clear KPIs to reduce carbon footprint. Going back on decarbonization is not an option. Also, AI and data centers will need renewable power. We need investors to support the journey, not just green or brown parts.

I fully agree. I admire that the US is technologically neutral, without bias. In Europe, politicians try to define the energy mix, which is a mistake. We should rely on science and use all technologies: gas, nuclear, renewables, efficiency. Shifting from coal to gas could reduce global CO2 emissions by 15%.

I respect the decision of American voters. But looking at the last 15 years, the US has produced more energy in a more sustainable way, driven by technology, not politics. The unconventional revolution and renewable revolution are technology-driven. This trend will likely continue under any administration. The IRA may change, but the focus on reindustrialization, cheap energy, and supporting AI and data centers will be shared by both parties.