 I'm very excited to be able to introduce our speaker today, appearing from sunny Australia, and he is Brad Page, who's the executive director of the CCS, Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, actually CEO. A job he's held for 10 years. Before that, he held high level advisory and oversight jobs in Australia, in electricity and natural gas markets. His education went through the University of Canberra and Cambridge University. So one thing we've tried to do in this seminar is maintain balance across all fuel resources, renewables and also fuels with appropriate controls. So right now I'd like to turn the podium over to Brad Page, who will talk to us about why CCS matters in a net zero emissions world. Brad, take it away. Thank you very much, John. So first of all, thank you very much to the Precourt Institute for Energy for the opportunity today. And right at the outset, I think it's important to say that here at the Institute, for us it's about addressing climate change. It's not a competition of technologies. And so anything that I say today is not in any way a criticism or a competition with technologies, all of which are going to be necessary if we're to address climate change successfully. So we might just start by talking about the Institute because we're not necessarily that well known outside of those who are deep and close in CCS. So we're an organization that's member owned and we're an international think tank. We have 85 members in total around the world that includes and we're a bit unusual in this sense that we have national and subnational governments as well as multinational energy companies, technology providers, quite a range of research organizations and a small number of NGOs, all paying fees to support the activities of the Institute. We have a simple mission. It's to accelerate the deployment of CCS globally. And we are indeed a global operation with our head office being in Melbourne, Australia. We also have offices and locally employed staff in Washington DC, Houston, London, Brussels, Tokyo and Beijing. And over the course of the next few weeks, watch this space for a new announcement of an entry into a region that we're not currently in right now. It's always a good question that I get as to why on earth are we based in Australia? Seems a long way away from the action. And to put it simply, coming up 12 years ago, the then Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, came to the conclusion that the world needed an organization that would accelerate and support the deployment of CCS as part of the response to climate change. And so with a very generous seed capital funding, the Institute was established by the Australian government but was actually never a part of it. It was almost Australia's gift to the world. And so we were established and are indeed an Australian company. But to be clear about it, the majority of our staff are not in Australia. They're actually overseas. So we are truly global in nature and are always appreciative of the initial support that the Australian government provided. So the context for the Institute and the context in a way for what I want to talk about today is that it is only about climate change. And if you're going to talk about climate change, you've got to talk about the Paris Agreement. And the critical decisions in the Paris Agreement from our perspective, are first of all the temperature objectives of aiming for two degrees C and ideally below that, perhaps as low as 1.5. And as a side note, let's remember that our current trajectory is greater than three degrees C. So we're definitely not on track. And a big and net zero emissions to be achieved in the second half of this century. And a good friend of mine, Dr. Julio Friedman at Columbia has a great way of framing. This and I'll never do it justice, but he keeps saying it's really just about the math and I happen to agree with him. So having been trained in economics, this frankly is a classic stock problem. There's simply too much of this stuff in the atmosphere and we keep adding to it. And until we get the stock back into the right proportion, we're going to continue to make this worth. Now, as a general observation, and it is generalized, you can find different pathways out there, but a two degrees C pathway generally implies that we're going to cut emissions above somewhere around early 2000 levels by 85% by mid-century and then continue to reduce them to zero over the second half of the century. 1.5 is a little more aggressive and requires 100% reduction in emissions by mid-century. And after that, we are likely to continue to have residual emissions and we are likely to have overshot actually the carbon budget and we'll need to actually engage in carbon dioxide removal. You have to have net zero emissions for obvious reasons. Any emissions that go in return us back to the stock problem, we've got to avoid that. And we're going to have to remove any residual emissions and that's generally regarded as being at least five, maybe 10 and probably more than that gigatons per annum by mid-century that CDR is going to have to contribute. These are not trivial amounts. Now the IPCC did some particularly valuable work on this and you can see their special report on 1.5 and I'm sure there are many people churned in today who are much more expert on this than I am. And I'm certainly not going to run through the four different pathways that the IPCC provided to illustrate what could be involved to achieve 1.5 degrees. But sufficient to say that pathway one is generally regarded as the one where lifestyle changes are very substantial and fundamental for most people in the world and especially in the developed world. And to that extent is a very difficult pathway to imagine can be achieved. The remaining pathways have their various points and merits but I think one of the things you can see that distinguishes for example, P2 and P3 from P4 is that P4 very much shows a delayed uptake of emission reductions and that you see that you're somewhere around 2050 before you are crossing over that zero line but the rate of decrease from around 2030 is dramatic and certainly much steeper than the other pathways. What I really wanna point to here is that is that in all three of these pathways there is a very substantial role for carbon capture and storage. Illustrated in P2 and P3 to a much lesser extent in P4 by this shaded blue section of the figures. What's also included here is significant amounts of CO2 removal from bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. And you see that it's at its greatest in pathway four but it's still significant in three, perhaps not so much so in pathway two. Now, just for those who are concerned about the appropriateness of bioenergy, let me make the observation that in talking to some of the lead authors and principal authors of this report, at the time that this was done there was very little data available on direct air capture with CCS. And as a result, Bex has rather become a proxy for anything other than nature based solutions for the removal of CO2. So we should understand that there is, this of course is at a moment, it's based on the best information available. But since that time, of course, we do have better understandings of direct air capture with CCS. And that would play into this if this were to be redone in the future. But the point to this is that it's very hard to get away from needing carbon capture and storage both to avoid emissions and also to be a significant part of carbon dioxide removal. So we have an uncomfortable reality, quite frankly. One of the most uncomfortable things is that existing capital stocks will overwhelm a 1.5 or two degrees C carbon budget. And I say that based on IEA analysis from 2018. And to be honest, it's probably got worse not better since then. So the IEA found that existing global energy capital stocks and they did have to assume their normal engineering capital life. Will consume 95% of the CO2 budget under their sustainable development scenario which modeled a two degree C future. They also found that 1.5 degrees wasn't possible unless you had anywhere between 100 and 1000 gigatons of CO2 removal in total, I might add, by 2100. What this implies is you can't build any new significant emissive energy facilities because 95% of the budget's already taken by those that exist. The truth is new and very emissive energy facilities are continuing to be built in many parts of the world but it does particularly focus in Southeast and East Asia. And I've heard Fatih Barol, the executive director of the IEA on quite a number of occasions now, make the observation that in Asia alone, the average age of the coal fired power station fleet is just 14 years and that if they were to be run through to the end of their engineering lives, you would be seeing those facilities run to somewhere between 40 and 50 years. The planet really can't cope with that. So to achieve climate goals requires among many other things I might add, at least the premature retirement of existing facilities and at an enormous scale or many, many gigatons of annual abatement using carbon capture and storage on those facilities or most likely a combination of the two. And it's always important I think to try to get a sense of the scale of challenges. And in this case, the carbon dioxide removal challenge is often underestimated in my view. So if we were to work out what roughly all the people on the Earth way, that's about a half a gigaton. And I might add being an Australian, I do do these things in metric. The global annual production of plastic is about one gigaton. Our global annual consumption of meat is about a third of a gigaton. And I put that in there because of course we know that intensive livestock rearing for meat production and consumption is one of the significant contributors to a range of issues in the environment but including climate change. The size of the annual global oil market is about five gigatons of materials and not CO2, five gigatons of material. And as I said earlier, the annual carbon dioxide removal requirement from around 2050 is at least five to 10 gigatons and maybe much higher. So if we think about that against the size of the global oil industry and I think we all appreciate how large that is, CDR alone is gonna require an industry at least the size of the current oil and gas industry but operating in reverse. And it's worth remembering that industry has been built over more than 50 to 100 years in many countries. This is no small challenge and it's a perspective we have to remain conscious of as we talk about what are the options for carbon dioxide removal. So to CCS, we say it's vital to net zero and we also say it's a game-changing technology. I wanna start by being absolutely crystal clear. Zero-emission electricity is absolutely a huge part of the answer to climate change. In fact, it's probably the dominant part but it isn't the whole answer and it can't be. We have hard to decarbonize sectors and these generally need carbon capture and storage to address their emissions. This is steel, chemical, cement, fertilizers and plastics as a range of examples but again, it's not the whole list. There are also new opportunities for communities and new fuels to be made and used by applying CCS. And especially I wanna talk a little later about the hydrogen opportunity. And what we've also been able to see and pleased to see is that the commitment to net zero emissions is rapidly increasing and increasingly an important recognition that BEX and direct air capture will be essential for carbon dioxide removal. Consequently, we've been seeing CCS coming to the fore quite dramatically over recent periods. So let me share with you where it's at. So each year, usually at the COP meeting we release our global status of CCS report and what I'll take you through today is actually an update of what we released around about the time of COP last year noting it didn't actually happen because there's been a few changes. But the good news is that the pipeline of CCS facilities is continuing to grow. We're seeing an increased broad-based commitment to NZE as I said before and that happened especially during 2020 and perhaps surprisingly given the pandemic and the impact of economic recession in parts of the world. We were able to witness policy and funding support for CCS increase during 2020, notably in the US, UK, Norway, EU, Japan and Australia. And there are three factors that are enhancing the business case for CCS around the world. First and I think most significantly are enhanced tax credit arrangements in the United States. Secondly, we're seeing the emergence of what we call hubs and clusters as a new part of the business model. And finally, hydrogen as the fuel of the future. But what we need to bear in mind as I take you through this is that to meet the modelled role that CCS needs to take to get to 1.5 and net zero, capacity has to increase by more than 100 fold between now and 2050. So the quick snapshot, 66 commercial CCS facilities operating right now. Sorry that we can identify right now, 26 of which are operating. I just wanted to spend two seconds on the term commercial. Whilst we have some tracking of very small scale and experimental pilot and demonstration plans, our focus, the reason we were set up was to focus on the large scale in use commercially viable facilities. And that's very much what we present in this report. So there's 26 operating now. There are four under construction, another 34 at various stages of planning. And at the moment, two facilities have their operations suspended. One is involved with enhanced oil recovery in the United States where the oil price doesn't support its continued operation right now. The second regrettably, its host facility suffered from a significant fire and was damaged badly and will come back online once all of that damage is repaired. In 2020 alone, we identified 17 new commercial facilities at various stages of planning. These 26 operating facilities capture and store very close to 40 megatons of CO2 per annum. And the total capture capacity of these 66 facilities if they all come to fruition and operate as design will be 115 megatons of CO2 per annum. Now, this chart gives you a sense of what's happened over the past decade to the whole pipeline for CCS facilities. Now, one of the things that I have to admit is that I started in this job in 2011. And you can see the impact that I had right through to 2017 which was not necessarily great. The good news is we've come out of that depression and coming back up the other side. And I saw my opportunity and announced about six weeks ago that I'll be leaving and retiring from my career towards the end of this year. I figure you should always go out on a high. And a high it's going to be because what we've seen since 2017 is a continual increase in the total numbers of projects at various stages of development and in operation which has been a complete turnaround from the difficult sets of circumstances CCS faced for a good six or seven years. What is interesting is to see that between 2010 and 2020 the total volume of CO2 captured and stored from in operation facilities actually trebled. And that we've seen a return to new projects at various stages of development both early and advanced increasing substantially. And indeed between now 2019 report and now 2020 report the total numbers of facilities increased by one third. And that increase is actually unprecedented. It's the greatest that we've ever seen. So I'm not going to talk through all of this bubble chart as we call it, but a couple of points. The red line roughly approximates to where we are today in 2021 everything to the left has already built and operating by the two facilities there lost Cabin and Petronova that are suspended. Everything to the right is either under construction or is it at an advanced development stage? We've not listed here those facilities that are in earlier stages of development. What I really want to highlight here is the versatility of CCS as a technology in dealing with emissions. When you look down the left-hand side at the various applications for CCS that we're seeing now it ranges from cement production through iron and steel power generation, hydrogen creation, ethanol fertilizer production and natural gas. And I also just want to point out that the first CCS facility came online in 1972. So we're rapidly coming up to 50 years of experience with carbon capture and storage. And my point about that is you'll regularly hear that this is an experimental technology that has no track record and nothing could be further from the truth. To the right, what I also find interesting and this is being driven largely by policy arrangements in the US is that we've suddenly got at advanced stages of development a whole series of potential facilities on both natural gas and coal-fired power generation plants. All of those are, sorry, all bar one of those are in the US, the Bridgeport Mooney one, which is very small there is actually in Australia. So that's where we're at. That's the history and what's before us. It's a huge uptick in engagement at a commercial level for CCS. Now I mentioned I wanted to talk about hubs and clusters. And it's important to understand that in the CCS value chain, it starts with capturing the CO2 and most emitters have the capability to operate plant that will capture their carbon dioxide emissions. But then you need to actually transport it usually in a pipeline and you need to store it in the subsurface. Usually emitters, unless they're in oil and gas, don't have the skills, the capabilities, nor necessarily the business interest in that transport and storage in. This has been for many years a real difficulty for CCS. What's emerged rapidly in the last three to four years is a recognition that large-scale emissions tend to occur in hubs or in clusters of industries. And you can see them in places, especially in the north of England, in the Tees Valley, where there is a very large range of different industries located there, all of them highly emissive, all of them needing to deal with their emissions. What they need is somebody else to come along with a pipeline at their gate, saying you plug into this, sure you're gonna have to pay us, but we'll take away the CO2 and we'll store it and it's our problem. That has grown from probably a half a dozen hubs and clusters we could have identified three or four years ago to now totaling 15 at various stages of development around the world. The Alberta carbon trunk lines, noted here as number one and ACTL, is in operation and has been for over a year now. It's foundation customers is the Redwater Oil Refinery on the one hand and the Agri-Im Fertiliser Production facility on the other, and is now talking to a range of other emitters who simply have to capture their CO2 and plug into that pipeline. Important drivers here have been involvement and positive involvement from a policy and a financing perspective from both governments at a federal and provincial level, and undoubtedly the Canadian approached pricing carbon has also given those sorts of incentives. The other one I wanted to talk about is in Norway, the Northern Lights Project, and without going into extraordinary detail here, what this is really important for is that for the first time we are seeing commercial enterprises in the form of Statoil or now Equinoa, Shell and Total, joining together in a joint venture to create a storage site for commercially taking CO2 from other emitters. This is not about dealing with their own emissions. This is about being prepared on a pay per ton basis to accept the CO2 from other emitters and to store it commercially for the long term and certify its safe storage. This project is underpinned by the Norwegian government's Longship Project and Longship is seeing the development of capture facilities on the municipal waste incinerator in Oslo as well as the Brevik cement plant just outside Oslo. This is definitely worth watching because we're seeing the emergence of a new business line. Now you'll recall that I spoke about us having a challenge to deal with the difficulty carbonized sectors and that CCS very much holds the key to achieving this. Now the IEA did some further valuable work as they always do in the sustainable development scenario and they identified that CCS or CCUS, we use those terms interchangeably here I might add, between 2017 and 2070 would actually be about 25% of all of the abatement that would have to occur in iron and still would come from carbon capture and storage. 61% in cement, 28 in chemicals, 90% in fuel transformation, hardly surprising and about 16% in power generation. And again, I find that hardly surprising because there are many, many new and low-cost technologies that are renewable and zero emission coming through in the electricity sector. So CCS is clearly going to be incredibly important to decarbonizing these emissive sectors. And when we look at how much is that, and this is not perfectly able to be correlated because this runs to 2060 rather than 2070 but it is for cement, five gigatons in that period, about another 10 for iron and steel. And as you can see here, just short of a further 15 gigatons for chemicals. And I just want to remind you at the moment, we're very upbeat about what we've achieved with CCS, but it's only 40 megatons per annum that are captured and stored. These are numbers way beyond our capability and capacity today. I now want to move on to hydrogen because hydrogen holds the key to a large number of industries being able to decarbonize by moving away from traditional fossil fuels and into a fuel whose byproduct when combusted is simply water. And this is especially so in applications of very, very high heat needs where electrification actually is highly unlikely and indeed probably impossible to be the solution. Today in hydrogen production, all I really want to point to is that it is an orange sliver here that represents the total amount of hydrogen produced from electrolysis. And that electrolysis does not necessarily come from electricity with a zero emission footprint. So we are today producing hydrogen largely from carbon intensive fuels through very mature processes and very low cost and we have very little contribution from electrolysis. Now I'm indebted to the former chief scientist of Australia who undertook at the request of the government a particularly valuable investigation and created a national hydrogen strategy for Australia. And I'm sorry about the quality of this graphic but it's the best that we can get. 2015, the total production and demand for hydrogen in the world was eight exajoules. So exajoules is a lot of energy but it's all relative, so eight. By 2020 that had grown to 10 and we'd added in there some industrial energy uses. The forecast total hydrogen demand by the time we get to 2050 is 78 exajoules a year. I just wanna pause on that for a moment because the scale ups obviously 10 times what it was in 2015. It is dramatic and the new applications are extensive but the question becomes how do we go from actually a very small market to a very large market in a short space of time against the backdrop of all the other things we need to do in energy and climate. And one of the important things to just reflect on here is that if we were to use zero emission electricity and electrolyzers alone to deliver 78 exajoules of hydrogen per annum globally, then based on work that the IA has done that would require more than 26,000 terawatt hours a year of electricity from zero emission sources. And that is actually equal to the total electricity generated in the whole world from all sources in 2018. And we know that the electricity systems around the world by and large have an extraordinary way to go for themselves to be decarbonized. It is very difficult to see a pathway to 78 exajoules of hydrogen in the timeframe available 30 years where the only technology to be used is electrolyzers running off zero emission electricity. It is, as I say, not to be negative about renewables far from it, we need masses of them but there are going to be natural limits about how fast you can build and there are then a series of very important questions to ask about where the best value is derived. Is it from devoting renewables onto electrolyzers and dedicating them there? Or is it actually to decarbonizing the broader electricity grids? And so necessarily cost comes into this and this is some work that we've put together based on publicly available analysis and those sources are listed there. And right now and for quite some years to come the lowest cost production of clean hydrogen is either thristine methane reforming with CCS or coal gasification with CCS. And these are generally around $2.50 to $3 per kilo in Australian dollars. So somewhere $2 or south in US dollars where dedicated renewables with electrolysis on average are pushing around $7.50 and curtailed renewables with electrolysis are very expensive largely because the utilization rate of the electrolyzers is very low usually as low as 10% and so it drives up the cost. Cost is not the only consideration in this and there needs to be a much broader appreciation but the point to be made here is that it's always dangerous to go with just one technology when you're trying to solve problems and there are going to be roles here for both dedicated renewables with electrolysis as well as the mature and large scale technologies of steam, methane reforming and coal gasification with CCS both of which we have experience with both of which are already in production in the world. So this is a very quick run through but it is sufficient to conclude by saying we think the case is there for CCS being vital to net zero. No matter which of the analyses we look at by academics, think tanks, universities and some of the important multilateral organizations that actually have no vested interests in individual technologies CCS consistently comes up as being necessary but we've got to increase our capacity by more than 100 fold by 2050 and I'm sure you will hear that from a range of other technologies as well. We need to go from the 66 we're talking about to more than 2000 large scale facilities in the course of the next 30 years and to do that much stronger policy is going to be required than what we can witness today to incentivize that rapid CCS investment. There are some policy priorities and I don't have enough time today to go into depth about these but they include creating the conditions that are ripe for investment and the United States actually is leading the way globally on that. It is very clear the direct relationship between the tradable tax credit known as 45Q and importantly the California low carbon fuel standard where the permits that are tradable there for CO2 are averaging somewhere north of $200 a ton and create the perfect environment for a CCS project. We've got to facilitate this development of CO2 pipeline and storage infrastructure. It's the key to actually enabling those with emissions to capture them and to dispose of them and in a number of jurisdictions there remain key legal and regulatory issues particularly around long-term liability for stored CO2 as well as some other domain and pipeline rights issues. So we have work to do. And with that I'd like to end. I hope I've not taken too much time and look forward to answering as many questions as I can. So John, I think it's time for me to stop sharing and pass back. Okay, sir. Thanks for that exciting and comprehensive update on the state of CCS commercialization. I have to admit I was kind of rather maybe it's a lag response, thinking of the downward part in your graphic there from 2011 to 2021. So good news for today. The world needs more good news like that. I was pleased to see the upswing that you're now betting that this trend will continue. So we did get quite a few questions. We have about 10, 12 minutes or so for them. There's a lot of basic questions on what qualifies as CCS? Is it a certain percentage removal or other metric? And then related to that, perhaps a lot of cost and efficiency comparisons with other technologies. You already, since those questions were asked on the hydrogen chart, which was a good start on that. But maybe one other specific thing you could address is with the new kind of enthusiasm about direct air capture, how would you compare CCS cost and efficiency with direct air capture cost and efficiency? Great. Thanks, John. And it's always difficult to know where to begin and end in these sorts of presentations. So let me touch firstly on the question about percentages of capture and the like. The way that we go about cataloging these things is to take what the specification is for the plant. Now, it depends on the application. So if we were looking at gas processing, for example, you will find that the carbon dioxide that's captured out of a column that any of the oil and gas producers are dealing with will be very close to 100% because the product specification at the other end requires CO2 content in the final CH4 at exceptionally low levels. So you'll get very close to 100%. For other applications, it almost always boils down to how much do you want to pay to capture it. It's theoretically possible in most applications to get to 100%, but like so many of these engineering and physics questions, those last few percent actually cost significantly more than the first few percent. So as a general rule, if you look at the operating coal-fired power plant in Canada at boundary dam, I think its capture rate is pushing up around 90% of its emissions. It's not capturing all of them. In theory, it could, but to be honest, the cost of that last 10% is very high. In gas, we're saying that it's pretty much all captured. What we count is the volume captured and permanently removed from the atmosphere. What the actual facility that that equipment is attached to has as its overall CO2 residual footprint is a different matter of one that can range from zero through to a significant number. We're relying on individual policy regulation and business policies of the company to work out what to do with the remainder of the emissions. But of course, that pathway to net zero means they're gonna have to deal with that and they need to find ways to do so. If we go over to the cost question, cost first up, you have to say is very site and application specific. And I'd invite people to visit our website because there's lots of reports there that you can pick up that do talk about what the various costs are. And unfortunately today, I've not brought along the key graphic on that. But they range so on capture. If we just talk about capturing CO2, they range from incredibly low. So in the natural gas processing sector, for example, in methanol production, for example, the cost to capture is so low because firstly, the CO2 stream that's coming out of those processes is near pure. And so there's very little that has to be done to actually clean it up and manage it into storage. In the case of the gas processing industry, of course, they have to strip it out. So it's not like they have to add equipment to actually extract the CO2. It's already part of the process. That can be well under $5 US a ton in many instances to get that done. If we go to the other extreme, you can see in early stage cement capture costs are still pushing up above $100 per ton to capture. Interestingly though, it's not that many years ago that we would have said that was the sort of number for capture on a coal-fired power plant. We've actually got a report where we show that that's changed dramatically. And in fact, between Boundary Dam, the first CCS-equipped coal-fired power plant in Canada that was around $100 to $110 a ton. The next one, Petronova was down to about 75. We've now seen studies. They're not under construction, but we've seen studies that are pushing down towards 50. And there's a very exciting technology in the United States known as net power with the alum cycle, which depending on the various applications that come with it, its capture costs are said to be below $20 a ton for coal or gas-fired power. So technology keeps moving in this space as well. Transport and storage, oddly enough, is a relatively low cost on a per ton basis. And for the best storage opportunities, you can see storage being sub $10 a ton. And that's $10 for the ton, paid once, and it's stored in perpetuity. And the transportation then is, however, by pipeline, very much dependent on distance, on pressures, how much compression you need, et cetera. And it can range from maybe $30 or $40 a ton down to $1 or $2 a ton where you've got very short pipes. So that's the quick thing. Just on direct air capture, direct air capture is actually a subset of carbon capture and storage. It's just a different way of capturing CO2. You then have to do something with it. And the use opportunities are minuscule, important but minuscule against the size of the anthropogenic problem that we've got. And you inevitably wind up at a place where you've got to geologically store it again. However, this technology is moving fast. And so if I went back two or three years ago, you would have heard that it was $600 a ton to capture. We're hearing pretty consistently now that that's fallen to somewhere between $2 and $400 a ton. And there are plenty of the technology providers there who are making advances all the time that foresee sub $100 a ton. Prices are entirely possible in the next decade. And let's remember that a carbon price to achieve two or 1.5 and net zero emissions is definitely gonna be around $100 a ton. Whether it's explicit or implicit, it's gonna start there, it could well be higher than that. John, I think that's about the best I can do in the time I have. Well, thank you so much. I asked three questions and you just answered six questions. So moving right along, thank you for that. Again, lots of updates. I'm gonna have to be glued to your website for a while. They get caught up on all this late breaking information, which is very good. Speaking of, this may be unfair to ask somebody at Australia, but as you may have heard, President Biden will announce later on this week a something three to $4 trillion infrastructure program. So if you were asked to give him advice on whether or not to invest in CCS infrastructure and if you answer that positively, what you would suggest to invest in, what would you say? Maybe this is a retirement job for you. Oh, yes, I should have said my formal statement says, I'm stepping back from full-time work. My wife could not cope with me moping around and I don't intend to. So the first part of the question, of course, is simple because of what I do and what I believe in the answer is, of course he should, in what and how. Well, I think that where the investment needs to turn up and you can do it in many different ways, but the value is what matters. We need to be making sure that we are building the infrastructure that makes sure that we can shift the massive volumes of CO2 at very low cost from points of emission to points of storage or indeed in a number of cases, points of use. And so when you look at the 45Q construct, it's actually focused on the capture end. It's a tradable tax credit, but it's focused on actually delivering captured CO2. What we've got to do is make sure that there are then the pathways and the transportation and essentially the waste services, if you want to think about it that way, that can take that captured CO2 and deal with it and deal with it in huge, huge volumes, not just for abatement, but also so that we can get more active in carbon dioxide removal, which is just inevitable in my view. And of course, when you see the size of that problem, you realize that nature-based solutions are very, very important here, but they too are limited in how much they can contribute to pulling CO2 from the oceans and the atmosphere as well. So my advice to the president for what it would be worth, because I think you'll be advised by much smarter people than me, is I'd be looking at the infrastructure to facilitate still more capture based on these other very good policies that are already in place in the United States. Super, one last question. This seminar attracts a lot of chemical engineering, geosciences, professionals, and students. So for those people who want to work on the fossil, some of them may job to renewables, for those of who want to work in the fossil sector, what kind of career advice would you offer to them at the highest level? Where do you think the other than your job, which of course is the optimal job for that, what professions and institutions and additional settings would you advise them to get into? If they wanted to make the big difference to make all those steep curves a reality. Sure, John, I think it's a great question and for a guy that's trained in economics to all of the engineers and subsurface people hats off to you. You've done something harder than I did. What I'd say to you is that I've been enormously impressed over the past three or four years with how quickly the oil and gas industry on mass has moved towards accepting, embracing, and pursuing a decarbonisation agenda. And so particularly if you're involved in subsurface, well to roister into the future, we are going to have to saw trillions of tons of CO2 and there's no shortage, no shortage of pore space to do that in, but there's a huge amount of work to be done to characterise it and prove it up and the like. I actually see there's a lot of opportunity oddly enough for the oil industry, because they are the ones with the expertise to flip around from pulling stuff out of the ground to putting stuff back in the ground and they really understand pressurisation structures, et cetera, that's still got huge opportunity. The chemical engineers, honestly, there's so much chemistry in carbon capture. There's also subsurface chemistry, of course, as well as my geologist colleagues remind me regularly in the office here, but the capture technologies across a wide range of applications just going to keep people busy for an awful lot of decades ahead. So from my perspective, both of those skillsets, both of those qualifications and the pursuit of them should never be seen any more as characterised as simply going out there to get more oil and gas out to be burnt with no pollution and environmental control, particularly around greenhouse gases. It's quite the opposite. It's a great opportunity to be part of an industry that I am convinced is going to transform itself and remain one of the biggest industries in the world, but by reversing itself out of what it's done for about a century now and into a place where it's dealing with the problem. They'll also, of course, and you can see this in a range of the companies and most of them are members of ours, they're moving into the alternative energy space as well and they're moving strongly into hydrogen and electricity and they're taking their skills and their knowledge and their business abilities with them. I think it remains a really attractive industry that's in transition. In closing, I can't help but observe that I've observed what you've observed over the last five to 10 years, the oil and gas industry has dramatically turned towards extremely aggressively pursuing these opportunities. I wonder if that has anything to do with that being the same 10 years during which you've been doing your current job. So with that said, I thank you very much for an outstanding and inspiring seminar and hope you can come visit us here in the Bay Area San Francisco Bay Area as soon as you're able to travel. John, thank you. It's been a great honor to be invited and to do so and the Bay Area is one of my favorite parts of the world. So I really hope to get past this virus and get back there. Excellent, we'll see you then. Thank you.