 Sorry to interrupt all the conversations. Thank you very much. We are now going to come to what I think is probably going to be the high point of this day because we're going to have two individuals who are more strategic in their thinking than anybody I know. Dr. Brzezinski, of course, is known as having been one of the great strategic thinkers for America in the policy landscape for many years. And I'm so very grateful that he's a mentor to me and a professional and personal friend. And I'm very grateful for that. And John Hess, who is also a member of our board, I can't say how grateful I am that John joined our board. And John, of course, is the leader of Hess, the Hess Corporation, which has done such remarkable things. We heard about it earlier with Dan Solomon about the work that Hess did during Hurricane Sandy. At some point, John, I hope you'll say something about that. I think that would be very helpful. What I'd like to do to get this conversation started, and this is a conversation for all of us, is maybe to ask each of them to take a few minutes at the beginning to reflect on their perception about where we are with this question. The geopolitics of energy. We're trying to combine two perspectives here, an energy perspective with John and a strategic perspective with Big Brzezinski. John, let me start with you and ask you just to reflect on how has this shale revolution that we are experiencing, how is your perspective as an energy man and what it means for us, what it means for the industry, and how Hess is dealing with that. Why don't we start with you? Thank you, John. It's an honor to be here. In terms of our own company, it's been transformative. It's totally changed our strategy. Our company is an exploration and production company. We've transformed ourselves from an integrated oil company, and in that regard of our strategy for exploration and production, about five years ago, we saw that shale was a game changer and if you were going to be a resource growing company in hydrocarbons of oil and gas, you had to have a seat at the table in terms of shale. So in the past, our company was way too dependent on high impact, high risk exploration. And we were drilling, and we're participating in drilling very expensive wells offshore Brazil, offshore Gulf of Mexico, offshore Africa, offshore Indonesia, and some of these wells could cost $200 million. And you know, there are not many companies can afford a dry hole at that rate. One of the things that Fatih was talking about before in terms of the declining production in the world, we have to make up for it. And because a lot of the easy oil has been found, you have to take risk in deep water. And it's more expensive, it's riskier, but it also takes a lot longer. So we really had to reassess our strategy as a company and fortunately we decided to get into unconventionals in a big way. We looked at some of the gas shale in the United States, but we were worried about what future prices might be. And there are a few oil shales. And fortunately we were very lucky in 2010 to triple down in the bucket, where we now are one of the two largest oil producers there. We're currently producing about 70,000 barrels a day. We project that by 2018 that'll be 150,000 barrels a day. It's going to be a very important part of our company. We also have learned some of the talk about technology and operating excellence is very important here. There is a learning curve that over the last two years we've been able to reduce our drilling costs there from about $13.5 million a well to $7.5 million a well. So that will allow us not only to be more resilient with lower prices, but it also opens up a lot more wells that we'll be able to drill. So it's been nothing short of game changing or transformational for our company in terms of the role that it plays. One of the challenges, however, that shale presents a company like ours, is as you look forward, you have to make a huge pre-investment before the production gets up. Because each one of these wells doesn't do much more than 500 barrels a day and then maybe it drops off to 100 barrels a day. And that compares to the Gulf of Mexico where a well could do 10,000 barrels a day. So you have to drill a lot of wells. It's logistically very challenging and it's also very labor intensive. So you have to get the operating model right. But the second thing that it did to us besides totally transform our strategy and portfolio is we had to look at how we allocate capital. And because it was $2 billion a year our company is a lot of money. It's about half of our budget. We couldn't afford to feed the pre-investment cycle of four to five years of $2 billion every year without selling assets. So what we embarked upon doing about two years ago, which we've just completed, is we sold more mature assets that were international, about $6 billion worth in Russia, in Azerbaijan, in Indonesia and in Thailand to help fund this growth. The big thing about shale is once you find it, it's really low risk growth. And investors like that, as a shareholder, I like that too. And it's been something that's really been the foundation for the company. And what we're hoping to do going forward is to take the operating capability and technology that we've proven out in the Bakken, and we're also operating by the way in the Utica in eastern Ohio, that's a smaller position than what we have in North Dakota, but we want to apply our capability on a global scale. So that is an opportunity that's in waiting. That's something that I'd be happy to talk about later in terms of what a global unconventionals look like because the majority of unconventional production in the world is in the United States now with a smaller piece in Canada. So that's just a perspective of how shale has impacted us. It's been transformational in our strategy and in terms of the company we're trying to become. The other thing that is a consequence is what is our company going to look like in the next five years because of shale? Half of our production will be unconventional, half will be conventional, basically offshore assets in the United States and across the world that are long life cash flow generators. Half our production will be onshore, half will be offshore. And I think the other thing that's really important is half our production is going to be in the United States. And before we got into shale, 25% of our production was in the United States. So in sum, we're much lower risk to investors. We have balance between unconventional, conventional, offshore and onshore. And I think our company will be well positioned to deliver superior sustainable returns for some time to come. John, before I turn to Dr. Brzezinski to ask him about the geopolitical implications of this, let me just ask one little question. Energy abundance is great for consumers. We love it. It's good for American security, et cetera. But it also means that you're entering into probably a prolonged period of slack pricing. One of the things about abundance is if you're on the selling side, it makes it at prices. You don't have the pricing power that you'd have before. And of course we've got an enormous infrastructure build out that we have to contemplate. How do you think about that as a businessman? Well, it's not just about shale in terms of how it affects oil prices in the world. I think it really gave a great presentation this morning talking about energy demand growing about a million to a million and a half barrels a day every year. The supply for that energy with production declines and proven provinces going down about 5% of the year and then you have to meet that growth wedge. When you talk about the world needing 90 million barrels a day of oil growing to 100 million barrels a day, we produce in this country about 8 million barrels a day and of that 2.5 million barrels a day is shale. So I think there's room for shale and I don't think it's going to make prices tumble when you look at it over the long term. Now in the short term, you have Libya off the market the last nine months for 2 million barrels a day. You have Iran off for about a million a day because of the sanctions. If that all came on the market at one time, there would be a price readjustment. Another point, but in the long term I think that price readjustment would correct. I think we're in a period of much higher prices for many of the reasons that Fatih talked about. Another point I think it's important to know is shale is not a cheap barrel. At 70 or $75 a barrel, you'd start cutting back on your drilling. That's one of the attractive things about it in that you can cut back on your drilling but the resource is still there because you hold most of the leases by production. I think the last point I'd like to make is 90% of the drilling in this country in shale is on private land. And so really the American entrepreneurial spirit capitalism at its best is being practiced and one of the reasons we're having the success story in this country to grow our oil production and to grow our gas production. Dr. Przenski, just as a summary of the inadequate summary of the presentation this morning, this energy revolution means America is going to be stronger because we've got a stronger economic foundation. Most of the consumers in the world are looking in, especially China, is looking east and China is increasingly dominating the landscape as a consumer. Major producers such as the Middle East are looking at Asia as its primary market. Russia is torn. They're having to find markets in the east and can you reflect on the larger geostrategic significance of what you're seeing in this energy landscape? Well I have to confess that at this stage I don't have a very clear view regarding it because I'm still not sure how transformative it's going to be. I think there is enormous potential but I think there are still areas of uncertainty and in any case I think to the extent that it will be occurring it will be occurring in a world that as I said earlier today is much more unstable, much more potentially explosive, much more affected also by subjective dynamics of a global population that for the first time in the history of mankind is almost universally now politically awakened, politically conscious and filled with enormous passions of resentment or aspirations. Resentments against colonialism and oppression and these are still surfacing in the post-colonial countries, intensifying religious fanaticism, sectarianism in an world which is a major source until now of energy, the Middle East of course. All of that introduces into this dimension tremendous unpredictabilities and poses the question how our relative advantages of comfort and security in this regard can be translated into meaningful geopolitical strategy. Perhaps we can be more comfortable about our status but whether we can then translate that into geopolitically enduring arrangements that serve our national interest I think is very questionable. There's also a further dimension to it. This revolution is occurring in the context of other ongoing revolutions and earlier revolutions. The industrial revolution transformed global geopolitics. The wars of the early 18th century, 1800s were the last pre-industrial wars. The wars that occurred 100 years later in Europe were the first wars dominated by countries that had entered successfully into the industrial age. And it's not an accident that the Russian forces that entered so triumphantly Paris in 1815 were defeated in the Crimean War than defeated by other wars including the collision with Japan for example. And it's not an accident that Japan also defeated China which had been heretofore in a sense more powerful than Japan but once Japan industrialized it was able to do that. And the 20th century was a century of wars wage by industrial powers. We have more recently experienced a revolution weaponry which created all of a sudden the emergence of the United States on the world scene and the sudden rise of Russia because it survived the industrial war and then was able to transform itself into a global power with the appearance of atomic weapons which put us in the same category of survivability or non-survivability as the Russians. Now we may be on the eve not only of this energy revolution which enhances our security but we may also be on the eve of yet another revolution which transforms the natural warfare. And I know you have been very interested in that and so have I written a little bit about it namely the whole combination of information cyber capabilities and so forth creates the potentialities of fundamental transformation in the distribution of power in a way that can be altogether surprising and decisive and very sudden. So where that then places the so called energy revolution which gives us a higher level of comfort in terms of thinking about geopolitics. It may be quite independent of that it may not be affected by it at all and even those who we see as much more vulnerable to energy problems and as potentially the objects perhaps of enhanced our influence in relationship to them may be able to achieve a quantum leap in geopolitical capabilities by an altogether distinct and separate revolution namely in the next phase of weapons of mass capabilities but perhaps not all that lethal actually in terms of their immediate consequence but totally effective in terms of political results. This is a horrific prospect which completely overshadows in my mind the question of if I may say so the energy potential that we may be acquiring or the values of a democratic society and its cohesion or ultimately the survivability of our central role in the world. So we're looking for kind of broad sweeping judgments regarding the geopolitical prospects in the next several decades. Yes the energy revolution strikes me from what little I know about it and I plead on the very limited knowledge about it as significant but perhaps potentially in terms of consequences geopolitical consequences overshadowed by the successful successive revolutions in geopolitics affected by the industrial revolution the post-industrial weapons revolution and the next phase of weapons revolution. Okay boy I will order dinner so you're all going to be here for a while. Take us a while to dig into that. While I'm thinking it through John let me ask you John this is one guy amazing for an energy guy that decided to learn Farsi because he thought he needed to have that perspective. So I'd like to put on your kind of international hat John not just as an energy hat but international hat to reflect on what it and I know that you said that you were getting out of a lot of overseas drilling but nonetheless you've lived a lot of your life in that space and I would reflect on what that's like for an American company to be overseas the kind of support that we would need to give our companies if we want them to be successful the kind of normative values that we want to encourage because you're living in a world where you're up against state-owned companies etc and so just reflect on that because then I'd like to turn back and ask about what it means for us as a policy landscape. As it turns out I said about half our company was international about two days ago I was in Equatorial Guinea the west coast of Africa where we operate about 70,000 barrels a day of deep water production we've been in that country for about 12 years operating. The country has its social challenges in terms of education and don't go past third grade 80% don't go past sixth grade so it's a huge challenge how can the president of that country lift his people out of poverty and so one of the things we do to try to help ourselves getting access to energy but also continuing to have the license to operate and having the trust of the government is not just invest to take the oil or the gas out and make money for our shareholders but just as important as what your economic contribution is you should have a social contribution so we've formed a public-private partnership there with the government of Equatorial Guinea it's in its sixth year it had a first phase of 50 million dollars our company would pay half the government of Equatorial Guinea would pay half and we've touched the lives and benefited 40,000 students we've trained for years and we've rehabilitated about 800 schools and that was really focused on primary education now we're in the second phase because it's been so successful and focusing more on secondary education and vocational training so that we really can help the people of Equatorial Guinea prepare themselves for the new world that they're coming into and hopefully get jobs and be productive citizens. I'm proud to say there are people that work in Equatorial Guinea in our company over half our nationals and that's not an accident it's by intent so while I'm not addressing the issue of how the US government directly can help us I think there are things that American industry can do with their own ingenuity to have a wide view instead of a narrow view about who their stakeholders are so that everybody benefits from the investment. I want to come back to that too you know I have my CPU about half the clock speed of Dr. Brzynski so it took me a little bit of time to think about a question to follow up on his statement so let me offer that and then I'm going to open up to all of you for some comment. Dr. Brzynski you sketched out a rather potentially alarming future and challenged all of us to think about it certainly I haven't thought about it adequately. Let me tie that into the conversation we've had today which is that whether this energy revolution is fundamental to reshaping the geopolitics or not it is going to make a stronger America but it also is probably going to create more fragile conditions, economic conditions in our allies more dependencies in our allies and so I'd ask you to think as a man who's been a practitioner for 50 years where we have designed an engagement strategy in the world that depended on good and strong allies what's your vision about this, this future that you are discussing and you are describing and the condition of our allies going forward how would you think about that and what would we do and is there a role for this new tool that we may have? Well actually I was just thinking about that as I was listening to you particularly on the last point because one of the critical aspects of sort of contemporary revolutions on the world scale involves also the question of significant changes in the way America's perceived in the world and the way people relate to it. What you're doing is an example of a very important dimension of that problem namely for much of its history America has really been perceived as the city on the hill probably in a very exaggerated fashion but it gave us enormous strength and appeal and so on. Today that perception is a little more blurred and it's mixed up also with a great deal of resentment within this novel politically awakened population and one of our major tasks in the world is I think to see if we can in some constructive fashion make our social experiments and our social change relevant to the concerns of humanity. You're doing that on a more narrow basis but very significant and I think if we are sort of thinking about the future and how we can manage it more effectively we also have to address this issue of subjective attitudes and how they are influenced by how we are perceived by others and I think in recent years we have been sort of coasting on the cumulative legacy of the age of revolutions in Europe in the 19th to 18th century and we were the epitome of success in contrast to Europe. Is this still the case? Totally. I don't know but I think there are sort of many signals that our system is becoming gridlocked that it's incapable of addressing fundamental issues that it can become locked into cultural conflicts that could be very divisive and our decision making capability in response to rapidly changing circumstances is becoming a little bit rusty to put it mildly even on the constitutional level who really makes foreign policy in our country. Is it the president which I assume according to the constitution he should be or is it fundraisers for political campaigns and national or international interest groups, lobbies and these kinds of things are part of this huge parcel of what becomes the ability to influence world affairs and I'm not trying to minimize in any way what we started talking about today, the importance of the energy revolution. It is important but in that larger context of other critical dimensions they also deserve much more attention and I think we just have been sort of drifting along on our success, getting involved into wars which were translated by public support by subterfuge to put it very mild and politely and wars which assumed responsibility for cultural change in a way which perhaps has not been quite as productive as we had hoped I'm all for the promotion of democracy but I'm not sure whether democracy can be transplanted and embedded in societies which were over a hundred years have had a different path than we and then in a very sharp sudden and bloody encounter we expect them to become like us and I'm waiting with some curiosity to see what happens after we're out of southwest Asia and perhaps after we're pushed out of the Middle East to see what kind of cultural impact it will have on their political evolution so my sense is that we are faced with a lot of very big question works attached to these revolutions that we're talking about some of which are very promising such as the one in energy John? Yes or no? I think listening to the conversations today and the discussion now it's really brought into focus what has the impact of shale bin on the United States there are really three dimensions that I would like to suggest one is the economy one is the environment and one is energy security they're three E's they're easy to remember on the economy it's created two million jobs to put that in perspective at the height of the financial crisis we lost eight and a half million jobs and we regained about seven and a half since then with the recovery two of those shale and it's projected as we invest more in shale job growth may go up to four million jobs by 2025 the second impact on the economy is investment a hundred billion dollars a year is invested in shale development that's a huge number and that's a number that happens year in year out and if you add the indirect investments in the energy business the energy business contributes about two hundred billion dollars a year to the U.S. economy then you look at foreign trade and Carlos here the impact of having more production and less imports has enabled us to reduce our trade deficit by about half since we started to produce shale oil so that's about a hundred billion reduction and that's huge impact in terms of how it's affected trade in terms of oil that we're not buying from foreigners but we're buying from ourselves so you know when I look at all that and then you add the cost advantage that was talked about earlier four dollar gas versus ten dollar gas in Europe and sixteen dollar gas let's say in Japan that's created a manufacturing renaissance and that's probably another hundred billion dollars for petrochemical plants industrial plants that are being built here so the real take away on all of this is what's good for energy is good for the U.S. economy and I think that's something that we need to think about when we think about public policy on the environment hydraulic fracturing you know I think the industry has not done nearly enough work to educate the public they're catching up I'm part of the industry so I'm trying to do my share as well working with our industry brethren on this but hydraulic fracturing has been around in the industry since 1949 a million wells have been hydraulically fractured in the United States 80% of the 40,000 plus wells drilled last year were hydraulically fractured our own company drills about 200 or more wells each year in North Dakota on farmland things are fine we're drilling 10,000 feet deep horizontally drilling another 10,000 feet and you know the states regulates and we don't need another level of federal regulation because the states are doing a good job whether it's North Dakota, whether it's California, whether it's Texas so I think the point on hydraulic fracturing has to be put in perspective it's a safe and proven process with a track record talk was about before the impact of gas displacing coal reducing our carbon footprint our emissions have gone down just since I think 2010 by 5% it's all because of the increased use of gas so I think that's important the other point that was brought out earlier by FATE again was we should just be talking about investing for supply we should be talking about investing in efficiency which will make the reserves last longer and also have the benefit of security and reducing our carbon footprint and in that I could use an example hopefully it's not too far fetched that if all the cars and all the light duty vehicles about 230 million of them in the United States went to hybrid technology we would have about 30% efficiency and could reduce our demand for gasoline and who knows how technology will work out from 9 million barrels a day to 6 million barrels a day and that would be a saving again of about $100 billion that's a price to me that's worth fighting for but last but not least is the word energy security our country has about a 90 year supply of natural gas and a 50 year supply of oil that makes us an energy power and obviously that has economic benefits and the foreign minister of Norway last night said we're the number two producer in natural gas in the world and we're becoming the number two producer of oil in the world so I think that provides a lot for our own security but I also think it can do a lot for global security and there are two ideas that I would suggest in that regard Libya went off production as a country in the middle of last year it's been off for about nine months that's about let's say a million and a half barrels a day that's taken off the market if we didn't have the two and a half million barrels a day of conventional oil the spare capacity that Saudi Arabia has of about two million barrels a day or maybe it's a little higher would basically be used up so without shale oil I think oil prices would be spiraling out of control right now so there is a real security benefit from an economic perspective of having the shale oil contribute to a world economy not just the US economy and security is a consequence the second point I'd like to make is I've heard a lot of talk about how can we help our allies in Europe and people often talk about LNG well LNG is not going to help probably for the next four years because a lot of those projects don't come on until full maybe 2020 and that will be 5 billion cubic feet a day so we talk about it but that's really not going to be something that helps our allies now this is something we could do today to help our allies now and that's give the green light to crude exports I think that is so important I think it's got huge benefits we already export three and a half million barrels a day refined products from crude why not export the crude itself let the free market determine how to allocate the resources and do the buying and selling export of LNG and we import and export natural gas now anyway imported from Canada exported to Mexico why don't we allow the export of crude the other point I think that's really important here is that the arguments made that it will raise gasoline prices at the pump gasoline prices in the United States are world prices because of the importing and exporting of refined products that we have so the lower price of crude here isn't translated to lower prices of the pump for consumers the best way for us to help consumers is and also world oil prices is to let that export of crude happen now the regulations that prohibit it were put in a time of shortage back in the 70s we're in a position of surplus now so when the Norwegian foreign minister yesterday said the best way to get energy security is to get diversity and more supply options on the table I think the best way we could help our allies in Europe is to put that crude on the market now and help take some of the pressure off of Russia selling them 30% of the oil that they're buying and I think that's something we can do now to help Europe and help the world in terms of making the place more secure and also help prices as well. Can I ask you a question actually on that? You're absolutely right in what you have just said but we have now potentially in our hands an even more urgent problem namely Ukraine right? We want to assist the Ukrainians to become part of Europe they're totally dependent on Russian energy Putin has just announced that not only he's going to charge them double for what he was charging them before and that was already exorbitant but he wants now payments in advance of them that would have the immediate effect of offsetting what is a very serious political threat that he has addressed to the Ukrainians in the field of energy. Well I think on the oil side because it's easier to get oil to them than natural gas for the reasons that I was talking about. Really both. Yeah, on the oil side I think if we allowed crude exports that would put more supply on the market that either directly or indirectly could influence European prices but also influence Ukrainian prices and access to it. It would basically reverse the flow in what time frame I think over the next 90 days. That quickly. Yes. That should be something that should be subject to public debate and information. And what else? Well on the gas, the gas is much more difficult. Well the LNG there, I remember the Norwegian minister last night talking that there isn't a lot of spare capacity on gas from Norway to offset the Russian supply. So I think this issues on natural gas would have to be longer term in nature because the infrastructure would have to be put in place that's already maxed out. Well what does that mean practically? I don't know exactly the dimensions of it in the Ukrainian context but what would they have to so to speak for sake since it's going to be longer time in coming back and being replaced. Well I think the oil would make a big difference as a starter and then maybe there are ways to work with the other European allies to figure out a better way to optimize their gas supplies with the Ukrainian so it lessens the supply insecurity that they have. So I think Europe would have to step in there because natural gas is much more regional commodity than a global commodity so really our European neighbors would have to come up with some way of giving them more supply or at least give them some relief. It's a major responsibility with the rest of Germany in that connection. Yes I would say so. Well actually that's a good and practical idea because if we are supposed to be doing something to offset the risk and to avoid perhaps the military collision we have to do something along these lines and to do it dramatically and effectively and tangibly. But these are things we can do now. It just requires some leadership. Okay let me open this up here for some questions from the comments. Thank you very much Dr. Hamry. Munzer Sleiman with Almayedin TV based in Beirut Lebanon. One interpretation of the continued crisis in Syria was related to energy that there were some talks about pipes coming from the Gulf through Syria to Turkey to supply Europe to what extent do you agree with that notion. The other thing there is an offset agreement between Russia and Iran about selling Iranian oil in exchange for their products. How that will impact on sanctions on Russia and also sanctions on Iran. Well I think that's subject to the ongoing discussions and we may be successful in phase one but hasn't been consummated yet. However the main impetus for the conflict and for its continuation is really not over energy. It's over sectarianism sectarian conflict which masquerades as an attempt to create democracy. We have been sucked into that essentially misleading definition of this conflict. I think the real problem in Syria is not the extent that it is or it is not being used for the export of Iranian oil or whatever. It's much more the fact that it does involve an instrumentally developed, deliberately developed sectarian conflict into which we have become unwilling partners. Ambassador Leach, how big a problem is the volume of water used in fracking and the adequate disposal of the used water. Well that is this is about handling of contaminated water when it comes out of the well some of it's recycled but it's disposed according to state regulations. I think the point is there's a lot more water consumed in the United States on golf courses than is in hydraulic fracturing. So to put it in perspective I think it's important to make that point. Give up. And I think there's also been a great deal more use of non-water techniques for fracturing. They're emerging technologies. That's also growing I believe. I didn't know it's your foot. So you're walking around with the boot. You're talking about race production but how about refineries? Are you building new refineries to handle all this production? Because every time we hear about a price raise it's shut down for seasonal change or either there's a fire one that shuts it down too. So how are you handling the increased production with more refineries? Because there was an article in 2012 saying the first new refinery in America was built in 2012 after 30 years. Great question. Should the industry build more refineries in the United States to deal with this increased production? By way of comparison we've gotten out of that business because we weren't as competitively advantaged as some and we thought there were more ways to make returns for our shareholders and grow our company by investing in exploration production because both refining business and exploration production business are very capital intensive and at the end of the day you have to make choices. So we chose exploration production. Having said that we don't do know a little bit about the refining business. We are already exporting three and a half million barrels a day of products to the rest of the world. So we don't have a shortage of refining capacity. We're actually long. So I don't think more refining capacity is necessary to deal with this increased production. The one thing that we need to think about and the industry from having clear economic signals needs to figure out is how do we want to retool our current capacity, which in many cases is built for heavy oil and retool it for the lighter oil that is coming out of the box and in the Eagleford in Texas. So I think that's the real decision we have to make. But having said that I think we should just let the law of supply and demand work and send the right economic signals and that's another reason I think it would be in our interest not just from a free trade perspective but from an economic and energy security perspective to let crude exports go now, let the market come to its equilibrium and then let investors decide what the best thing to do to build long term capacity is either in growing our resource base or do we invest in refineries? Right behind you. My name is Howard Newman and to follow up on Dr. Brzezinski's warning about war by other means what percentage of your CAPEX do you spend on cyber security to protect your IP, your operations and your finances? That's a number that I wouldn't talk about but you know this issue of cyber security and hacking that's going on obviously our IT information technology department is a very high priority and we often do tests where surprise attacks are made to see how we would react to it. So it's a very important issue in terms of information propriety and it's something that is important for all industries whether it's here in the U.S. or abroad. We've got about five more minutes and then we're going to wrap this up. Any other questions? Yes. I'm David Bardeen, question for John Hess. I really want to know how the U.S. government is helping you do your job but let me be more specific. I love your people in North Dakota. I know what you're producing. You said 70,000 barrels a day going up to 150,000. You've got to ship it to some refineries somewhere. As you said the United States is the largest oil refining country in the entire world. Nobody's mentioned that but you in effect said it. That's why we export so much. But you've got to get it to a refinery, right? Now you've told us how their U.S. government is preventing you from exporting your Bakken crude oil to other places, other refineries who'd very much like to have it as a result of price controls and other controls that really dated back to the Nixon Ford administration. But what is the U.S. government doing today to help Hess do a better job and more thorough job in growing this Bakken oil and getting it out? I think there are five key enablers for the shale success story in the United States. And those five key enablers really don't exist yet in foreign lands like China, Europe, South Africa, Australia that also may have shale. The first among all other things is the geology. The second is mineral rights and I'll explain what I mean by that in a second. The third is infrastructure. The fourth is fiscal policy. And the fifth is regulatory policy. And obviously that's where the government comes in quite a bit. On the first, which is geology, the United States has a wealth of information that's public about the wells that have been drilled in this country. And there have been a lot. So there's a lot of density of wells that give you the geologic certainty or uncertainty that you need to make the investment. So I think the first thing that you have to have is clarity on geology so you can appraise it. And in a lot of countries that information isn't available. Starting with somewhere like China or other countries as well. So those countries need to do more work to appraise the endowment that they have. The second enabler that I was talking about is mineral rights. In our country 90% of the drilling is done on private lands. But in other countries the country owns the mineral rights. But private individuals own the surface rights. So there's a misalignment. So that makes it a lot harder to get the alignment so you can make these big investments. Remember I said it's very capital intensive to build a shale business. The third enabler is infrastructure. Pipelines to take the oil and gas out. Meaning it's not stranded 500 miles from nowhere. The ability to get rig crews in. We're running 17 rigs right now in North Dakota. Could we run 17 rigs like that somewhere in Europe or in China. So it's a huge logistical undertaking and it's also people intensive. You also need water. You need sand. So it's a huge infrastructure challenge. And are those infrastructure enablers outside of the US available. The only country that's really mastering this now is Canada. Even though it's producing much less unconventionals than we are here in the US. But they've got it right in terms of providing the environment to invest in unconventionals which I think is at the heart of your question. Fiscal policy is key on pricing. But also what the tax policy is. What the royalty policy is. Because you're making an investment for the next 20, 30, 40 years. You have to have not only the rule of law there. But you have to have a policy that you can count on before you make this big investment. That's far from a parent to make shell work. Remember I said it's a high cost oil alternative. So if you're going to make that investment you have to have fiscal pragmatism. And then along with that you need regulatory. That's really where the government comes in. Regulatory pragmatism. And even though the federal government sets certain standards from the EPA. In terms of how to oversee and what standards we want. In terms of water quality, air quality and the way we operate our wells. The states really are experts in this. And are able to do an excellent job. But in many parts of the world that might have shale. They've banned fracking. Even though fracking as I said before is a proven process that goes back to 1949. And we're drilling over 30,000 wells in our country. That are safe. And secure for the environment. So I think the best thing our country could do is to let that system work. And I think the best thing the world could do is learn from our system and apply it there and get those five enablers. And then I think you'd see people doing more shale development in other lands. Not just here in the US. Okay the last question is way in the back. We've got a mic coming right over to you. Thank you. Mr. Hess, both in your last answer and an earlier comment you made. I'm sorry, Terry Campo, private sector lawyer used to be a DOE. That our policies are based upon the assumption that we were running out of oil and other fossil fuels. And I'm wondering if you would agree as well as particularly Dr. Brzezinski having been involved in the early policy decisions if almost all of our energy policies are based upon this mistaken assumption that we were running out of fossil fuels and that we have to drill, no pun intended, drill down to change that assumption in order to change those policies. I think the most important thing that we as citizens of this country can do regardless of what party you're in favor of or regardless of what you do for a living is to communicate better together, collaborate better together and in terms of the energy business do a better job of educating the public about the pragmatic realities that we face as well as the opportunities we have as a country. That's why having CSIS provide a forum like this I think is so important so we can all learn from each other to then finally address maybe having a more enlightened energy policy going forward. You've all been terrific to be with us. It's been a long morning but we've come to the hour. We should say thank you to all of you for being here but would you please with one last round of applause. Say thank you to these remarkable people.