 Our next panel is led by Tony Kovchak, Professor at Stafford University. And the topic will be resource extraction industries. We're going into the specific industries now and I'll turn it over to Tony to introduce the panel and get things started. Thank you. Tony, it's all yours. Great, thanks. You know, I have, oops. I have one slide just maybe to show in terms of context. We'll pick a minute that we'll get going here. So just a figure that appeared recently in the Houston Chronicle just to set the stage a little bit for at least oil and gas looking at really the different CO2 intensity of oil production around the globe from the top producers along with, you know, with size of production, right? So upstream is, you know, a significant contributor to the total carbon footprint of transportation fuels and something that we'll get into a little bit today. So with that, we'll get right into our panelists. Our first panelist is Bob Fogosong who has over 20 years of experience in upstream technology with ExxonMobil. He's currently the upstream GHG Solutions Manager and he's now part of the recently formed ExxonMobil technology and engineering company where his current role focuses on technology solutions for meeting ExxonMobil's objectives in greenhouse gas reductions. So Bob, I invite you to take it away. Oh, thank you very much for the introduction and thank you very much for inviting me to talk today. It's a great opportunity to talk about how ExxonMobil upstream is engaging in the energy transition and talk about some of the challenges and opportunities associated with the carbonization of our oil and gas producing assets. So I wanted to start out with a slide. I just have a few slides to show if my screen will advance, there we go. These are a couple of graphs that were taken from our advancing climate solutions publication that came out earlier this year and BJ alluded to this earlier. I just wanted to share these, provide a better perspective on how oil and gas production is likely to fit into a range of uncertainty about the energy transition in the coming decades. And so these graphs show several of the main energy transition scenarios that I think we're all familiar with. The IEA step scenarios, state energy policy scenario, which obviously is far from where we need to be. An average representation of the IPCC lower two degree scenarios kind of showing the demand out in 2050. And then the light blue line there is the IEA net zero scenario. And I wanted to show this for a couple of reasons. First, obviously there's that huge range of uncertainty but even in the net zero scenario there oil and gas remains critical to meeting the demands of society. And so, as you look out to the future with the oil and gas decline that's typical of the industry, five to 7% between 7% for oil, 5% for gas. Even in that net zero scenario there's still massive oil and gas investment required. And the IEA estimates that at over $10 trillion between now and 2050. So there's still a lot of work to be done in the oil and gas industry here. And that really highlights the decarbonization challenge and opportunity to meet society's needs for us. But it also highlights a couple of different problems and between that light blue and the dark blue clearly the dark blue that new production to fill the decline gap. There that will be big new green field projects opportunities to apply emerging technologies and things. But the light blue is still very critical that the decarbonization of the brown field and that carries obviously some unique challenges. And that's kind of the way we approach thinking about our business as we go forward that there are those two distinct opportunities which even for very similar types of assets may have very different solutions and it's important to keep that range of technology options open. So my next slide, this is just a map of where Exxon Mobile operates around the world and a couple cases of active development areas for future operations. And I don't wanna show this for how big Exxon is and how spread out we are but it's a hugely geographically diverse industry. There are oil and gas production around the world. And as you can imagine looking at that range of countries there's very different levels of infrastructure and policy support to assist with decarbonization. And so I just throwing up three examples of kind of the diversity of our business. So on the left we have our unconventional business. So this is shale oil like in the Permian out in West Texas and New Mexico. And of course out there there's infrastructure available where we can tap into the electrical grid and purchase renewable power to help sustainably produce those assets. But then on the other side of the world you look at PNG where we have a very significant LNG facility. You know out there these assets are so remote that we had to build our own landing strip to bring in our oil and gas facilities. And so obviously again very different decarbonization technologies required between those and then even more challenging the one in the center Guyana Deepwater. Now these floating production storage and offloading vessels, FPSOs these can be hundreds of kilometers offshore which obviously creates a great challenge in terms of accessing any sort of onshore infrastructure is very difficult, very challenging. And of course your space and weight constraints on those producing vessels make it very challenging to decarbonize particularly in the brownfield. And all of these resources are necessary to meet that oil and gas demand in the future. So it does just represent that broad range of needs for the oil and gas extraction business. And but ultimately that's the challenge that we have to take on that Exxon's taking on. We're committed to being a leader in the oil and gas energy transition and plan to reduce our scope one and two upstream GHG intensity by 40 to 50% by 2030 relative to 2016. And as Vijay mentioned earlier we have a corporate ambition to be net zero by 2050. And we're in the process of building roadmaps for all of our assets to plan to figure out how to do that. And then going back to that Permian asset which is just really critical of Exxon's future growth in the upstream and as well as our domestic energy security as we're seeing recently. We've committed being net zero there by 2030 an even greater challenge and are well underway those planning efforts. And so that's where I wanted to wrap up is this another set of graphs taken from that advancing climate solutions report. This shows some of the potential abatement options for reaching that net zero 2030 goal for the Permian. And where I mentioned earlier that different assets have different challenges at a very high level the challenges are very similar. That there are three primary drivers of GHG emissions in the upstream. And those are methane, flaring and energy. And so methane comes from both combustion slip, methane that doesn't get burned in a gas engine or a flare for example. And then of course, fugitive emissions. These are natural gas pneumatic bleed devices or fugitive emissions from tank vapors for example. And it's really critical to get better measurement of those emissions. And we're involved in a number of efforts, technology collaborations to better understand those emissions. So we can ultimately address those and abate those. And one of them is Project Astra, ground-based methane detection system that we're piloting here recently in the Permian basin as well as a collaboration with SEPR air which is kind of integrating across ground-based aerial and satellite monitoring to provide a really comprehensive kind of real-time quantitative measure of methane. And just to underscore that commitment to reducing those methane emissions and ultimately working towards eliminating those, we've recently joined the Aiming for Zero Methane Emissions initiative that was just announced by the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, OGCI. Turning to flaring there, the orange bar, there our goal is to limit all of our routine flaring and we're working towards an objective of eliminating that by 2030 consistent with the World Bank Zero Routine Flaring Initiative. And then with, again, going to the Permian, we have an even more ambitious goal there to eliminate routine flaring by 2022. So we're taking that challenge very seriously. That doesn't eliminate it completely. There's still safety flaring that will take place. And that's where some of these really difficult areas, you see that small blue bar there on that road map, that does represent some offsets or negative carbon technologies that may help with that. But then the biggest source of mission there in the green is it represents the energy demand of our own industry. And that can be gas turbines or diesel engines, electric motors, driving compressors, pumps, electrical generation, process heat. And that obviously requires a broad range of solutions that we're exploring, ranging from electrification with low carbon power, not certainly green, but you can do, obviously, power generation with CCS, carbon capture sequestration and fuel switching, whether it's hydrogen or renewable, hydrocarbon fuels. All of those will play into this decarbonization strategy for our upstream oil and gas industry. And which solution ultimately gets applied is going to depend on some advances in technology. Certainly policy will drive some of those decisions, but ultimately that's just part of the challenge the opportunity for our industry. We're really building a really deep understanding of our opportunity space and gives us confidence to meeting those 23 plans and ultimately our 2050 ambition. Thank you. Thanks, Bob. So we'll let all of our panelists make a presentation and then we'll turn to the Q and A. So I want to move on to Sarah Gazda who is the Research Director and Chief Scientist in Computational Geosciences at NORS, which is an independent research institute in Bergen, Norway. There, she currently leads the Center for Sustainable Subsurface Resources, a national research center that's going to provide the knowledge required for the Norwegian petroleum industry to transition to zero emissions production and clean energy resources in the coming decades. So thanks, Sarah. I think, Bob, you need to stop sharing. Arsene, can you hear me? Yes. Oh, good. Yeah, thanks for having me. It's a, I live in Norway, so it's still light out, even getting late into the evening. So we look forward to the summer. So, but let me see if I can get my right thing up. Do you see something? It's good. Yeah, I'll put it in the screen presentation mode. Good. Yeah, thanks for having me. I think I was charged with the task of bringing a bit of the European Norwegian perspective. And as Tony said, I'm currently leading a new center which is really dedicated toward decarbonizing the petroleum sector from the role and the perspective of the subsurface. So I'd like to bring up a couple of points as a kind of background to a lot of the research that we're really getting into. And the first one is, and I think Bob really showed it quite well, is that we know that oil, especially gas for Europe is going to play a really important role in the energy transition. And this was clearly something that we knew for a long time. But if I gave this talk five weeks ago, I would just stop here and move on, but with the current geopolitical situation in Ukraine, and we're getting news every day about how we really want to accelerate the independence from Russia oil and gas. And that's where Norway, which right now, and I don't have the numbers on the top of my head, will really be expected to increase oil and gas production to meet the gap that is left by the 40% that is currently provided by Russia. So it's a really interesting time here where exploration, which of course is still a big political football of whether or not we will continue to explore for oil and gas in Norway. And I think all of these arguments are going back up in the air. At the same time, right, is the, I think Tony showed it, right? Norway is one of the lowest in the world in carbon intensity from the oil and gas from the upstream side. But we want to do more. Every single operator, and I'm sitting here today in Stavanger, which is the oil and gas capital of Norway, which is not as big as Houston by any means, but where every single operator gets up and says, we will be carbon neutral by 2030 and have zero emissions production by 2050. Every single operator I've heard in the past months has that as an ambition. This is a huge challenge. Not only, again, if I gave this talk six months ago, oh yes, we just electrify and we move on because Norway has abundant hydropower. But again, even before the war, the energy crisis and supply driven energy price increase really changed that discussion both nationally and also in the EU and certainly around the world. So how we're going to do this, of course, is on the agenda, has been on the agenda. And of course, Norway has said now that 50% of its fields will be running on electric energy within the next decade. So there's a lot of things that need to happen. It's coming quick and fast at the same time. Is this transition to the future value streams? And I can't actually see my, I need to minimize this with this idea that we're going to reuse as much of the depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs out there in addition to exploring for new, what they call sustainable resources and the sustainable resource base to storage. Norway of course has now the world's largest climate project or at least Norway's largest climate project with the long ship, which will capture CO2 emissions from a cement factory and now pretty soon to be a waste and incineration facility in Oslo and ship it out to offshore Bergen with the idea of really providing a CO2 storage, transport and storage hub for a lot of Northern Europe. And there's a lot of discussions going on right now about how to upscale, how to bring a CO2 storage deployment up to the next level, which we're talking and a scale up of 10 to 100 times. So there's a lot going on all at once. It's really exciting time. And I think the big challenge for us from a research side is knowing that first of all, when you look at the complexity of the decisions that are being made and I think everybody knows that there's no civil bullet and we'll go back to electricity electrification discussion that just expecting that we can draw power from land especially with the current energy situation will not be the status quo. We'll have to really think about a lot of creative, innovative ways to get us to these ambitions of 2030, 2050. And I'll just remind everybody in this room that Norway being a renewable energy producing land with hydropower offshore emissions from oil and gas upstream it can constitute 28% of Norway's domestic emissions. So part of Norway's goal to meet its Paris agreement commitments, taking the oil and gas emissions down to net zero by 2050 is also important part of Norway's political climate ambitions. So a lot of they are wrapped up in one big package. So we know that to mean all this it really requires a tremendous amount of innovation, creativity, we have to put research on the table everywhere we can to really get us to these energy availability, zero emissions and the green shift altogether. So from the research side, we're looking at this from the subsurface. There's a lot of going on on the top side in terms of floating offshore wind and attaching solar cells and doing carbon capture and storage, carbon capture, let's say all based on the platform, all looking at everything from that. And what we're looking at is really from the subsurface side mentioned the center and there's four different particular focus. One is about the reservoir operations themselves. Right now reservoir operations have been run on the idea that we have stable relatively cheap power provided by the platform gas turbines available at the ready. If you switch to electrification, if you switch to offshore wind, if you switch to more, let's say energy costs variability, we might need to really think about how we can look at the reservoir operations and try to synchronize them with the idea that you have intermittent energy availability. This is a really interesting from the scientific point of view, a lot of very cool stuff to look at but I really could have a lot of opportunities here to take a new look at how we operate reservoirs and get away or at least in some cases and I think Bob showed that you have so many different types of fields out there. In some cases there may be an opportunity here to throttle production to match to a certain extent the energy availability or energy price. You can't always do that or in some cases you may want to diversify your energy supply in here. Also there's an opportunity here to again from the platform point of view have a bit of energy independence and if you're running a platform off offshore wind, you would like to look at other ways of energy storage not just shipping out a bunch of batteries to be attached to the platform but looking at how we could maybe use hydrogen compressed air, geothermal and other ways of utilizing the subsurface to supplement that and to stabilize that variability. I think and also we need to look at how digital workflows that we have. So from everything from data assimilation, optimization, reservoir simulation, the demands of electrification and the variability of energy availability, the you have different things going on in the subsurface if you have hydrogen storage, CO2 storage, CO2UR, regular water drives to maintain an efficient workflow but still maintained as of understanding these really, this is an ongoing challenge in the industry and I think with electrification it adds extra pressure to really accelerate and innovate in those workflows. And of course last, it's really about the leveraging knowledge. If you're running a field or portfolio fields and you want to think about their long-term, long-term business plans, you wanna really start thinking about that now and maybe even how you operate reservoirs has an impact on what could possibly be their later use in the zero emissions perspective, everything from hydrogen energy storage or carbon storage. So we use this term upcycling and the upcycling, it's actually a bit of a strange concept in Europe but it's quite common in the US of you take something on and you make it into something new with a lot of creativity and innovation and I think that's really where we really need to be thinking is how we take this classic paradigm of petroleum reservoir and petroleum reservoir operations and think about an integrated view of we operate for today and we operate for MPV and we try and optimize on that present value but we should be trying to gain as much information out of that reservoir to help us turn that reservoir into something in the future. So that's really a lot of very interesting research and tools and development of screening criteria and various other aspects that in a way, we need to take a lot of knowledge that's built up in carbon storage and try and use centers like these as a clearinghouse for that type of information to filter out what's really needed moving forward. So I'll just finish with this slide. I think, as I said at the beginning, I mean, there's so much complexity and then decisions that are being made today, tomorrow and research from the subsurface side really wants to look at what kind of added value can we obtain from different ways and new operational strategies that can help, let's say, and I think both of these sentences say the same thing add some granularity to the subsurface component when you're looking at electrification scenarios, when you're looking at the total best energy solution for individual fields or portfolio fields and what to do with them later. And so for industry point of view, they look at a research center, well, will this work for my field? What are you going to do for me? And so we're really of course focused, although we'd like to play in the lab and with our numerical tools and such forth, we have always in the back of our mind is really producing tools and knowledge and various other tangible things that industry can take with them into these new challenges that we're facing. So with that, I'll just thank you for having this chance and also acknowledge the partners in the center, Stanford, one of those and our funding partners. So thank you very much. Sarah, so we'll turn now to Adam Brandt and I'll just again introduce him briefly. He's a professor in energy resources engineering here at Stanford. His work is focused on understanding measuring and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil energy sources. And the main tools that he uses are lifecycle, assessment and process optimization to estimate impacts of technologies at scale. So thanks, Adam. Yeah, thanks, Tony. Can you guys see my site? It's good. All right, thanks. Yeah, so happy to talk and a couple of good talks to follow a lot of questions I wanna ask. I'm gonna talk about our efforts towards sort of part of our oil and gas greenhouse gas work, which is around developing tools to estimate consistently emissions from oil and gas operations. This is distinct from our work, mostly distinct from our work on methane, which I won't touch on too much. So I think there's a lot, a set of pretty big questions that are still out there in the open that we're beginning to get a better handle on, but I think are still, we face a higher level of uncertainty than we like. First, how large, well, how larger, how larger are greenhouse gas emissions from the global oil and gas supply chain? So just, what's the number? If we could come up with a number, what is it, how did you compute it? How do you define it? And that's, that relates to the second point, what are the uncertainties in these emissions estimates? And third, and this is a really important practical point for this sort of stage in history, I guess, is how can sort of reporting and monitoring, whether sort of government mandated or through voluntary means help improve practices and sort of industry accountability. And these are all kind of important open, I would say big questions. We've been working mostly towards the first and second with the model that we call the OPG model. And the goal of the OPG model is to build an estimator that leverages petroleum engineering fundamentals to estimate what the expected emissions would be from an oil and gas project based on its underlying properties, such as depth, pressure, gravity, water, cut, et cetera. OPG stands for the Oil Production, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimator. And I have often said that an alternative title for the model that was suggested by a buddy of mine was OPEC, the Oil Production Emissions Calculator. That was a little too on the nose for one obvious reason. Now the other problem was that I didn't wanna call it a calculator. OPG can't really do what an in-company accounting team that has access to utility span to power use, gas flow meter consumption at the compressor, inlet, things like this, right? We can't really do what someone with in-house access to the actuals at an operation would be able to do. What we can do is perhaps provide a consistently computed synoptic view across large sets of projects from hopefully an accurate underlying engineering basis. So that's really been the goal. So we don't aim to necessarily calculate. We say, we're not gonna tell you exactly what the emissions are, but this is our best estimate given what we know about the project. Lots of papers and things published on the model. It's really been in development since about 2010 or so. We're undergoing a regulatory update for a version 3.0, which is vastly improved and I'll talk about that. Here's some potential papers. Feel free to email me if you're interested in understanding more about the model. Just some real basics on what it is. It's basically a kind of a flow sheet like approach. So we have a set of processes here. This is our well slash down whole pump process. Streams flow in, streams flow out. And then on the process sheet, basically you're using petroleum engineering fundamentals to compute what in this case the lifting work might be, right? One way that it differs from something that's sort of a more classical process simulation tool is that we sort of interface a lot with the life cycle world and with the methane emissions world and include a variety of kind of sources and approaches that aren't a typical kind of chemical engineering kind of calculation. Although this basic sort of organizing principle around the full sheet is very much like aspen heisus or another process simulator. So I'll talk a little bit about some recent improvements in the model and then I'll finish up with kind of open questions. These are all improvements for 3.0. One of the pieces of feedback we were hearing over the last five years as a firm industry was why don't you attempt to move away from kind of textbook correlations? A lot of our computations were based on basically treatments of different process units in engineering texts or open scientific literature. What we did is we moved instead to a process simulation platform. We used aspen heisus, there are others as well but these are relatively small set of pretty typical process simulation tools used in industry. We were able to run thousands and tens of thousands of simulations in this case of an acid gas removal unit with various input conditions. Then we could generate essentially predictive relationship to say given properties of input, streams, composition, temperature pressure, et cetera, what would this sophisticated process simulation software suggest the energy use would be for pumps, compression, a reboiler, gas use, et cetera. And so what these are showing, these are parity charts showing the really good predictive relationship that we end up with, and this is for a holdout set that's essentially blinded from the training process. And so for sort of blind test cases, we are often getting R-squared in excess of 0.95. Some cases 0.99 are functions can essentially recreate with great fidelity what this process simulation software would give you. And so we're steadily moving towards a set of modules based on these more fundamental or more rigorous engineering methods rather than a textbook-like approach. A second important improvement, my student Zhenzhen has spent the last couple of years working on a remote sensing of oil and gas infrastructure. And so in this paper, we published the results of generating our first sort of global coverage database of where oil and gas projects are around the world. So this is a mixture of government data sources and well over a hundred digitized maps that she was able to sort of combine into a consistent picture. So with this, we're able to basically provide some lookup features with the model and say, okay, give us the name of the operation. Well, since you look up, do we have that name defined? And if so, essentially go to the polygon represented by the field and access some flaring information that's been provided for about the last decade or so from government satellites, some flaring estimates. So this is a really nice kind of detailed approach to that that we haven't been able to do before. And so that's exciting. Eventually as methane satellites, the methane remote sensing and methane comes on. We'd like to integrate those kinds of approaches as well. The last one, we really have improved in recent years the treatment of fugitive and invented methane emissions. And so here basically, this is just a sort of a summary slide of the approach developed by my student Jeff Rutherford. What we're really trying to do is understand can we, from a kind of a valid and modern statistical approach generate a fugitive emissions numbers in a tool like Octi that look like what we're seeing from the literature using this resampling approach from fundamental measurements. And so you can see here on the left-hand side, our study agrees quite well with the Alvarez at all methane study and science in 2018. If any of you are familiar with that, which they found a large discrepancy with what EPA would expect when we apply basically better statistical techniques than are used in sort of conventional inventories, we get something that looks a lot closer to what's seen out there empirically in reality. And so that's a good sign. And so this is basically being integrated into the model. And so we're trying to basically converge the best of life cycle thinking and the best of methane science. Harder work on a new version, happy to talk in discussion about what that means. And we've got a lot cooking there. I think there's a lot of interesting questions ahead around challenges in generating reliable and consistent results around the world. It'd be great if we could sort of do global benchmarking in a way that we think is validated and fair. And that's would be a really useful toolkit for industry. And so I've got a lot of questions about how to do that and we'll be happy to discuss it. A lot of standardized reporting sort of frameworks are being developed around the world. And SEC recently announced expectations for requirements of carbon reporting, et cetera. So how does this kind of tool align with governmental or super governmental kinds of reporting standards? And then I have big questions about how remote sensing might change this. So as we get into a world where methane and CO2 sensing is ubiquitous, how do we integrate those kinds of empirical observations with an inventory or sort of an accounting like approach and make sure that we're squaring with each other? And that's a pretty big open question. I don't think anyone knows how to do that yet. So that's just a quick summary of what we've been working on and happy to discuss more in Q and A. Cool. Thanks, Adam. So we'll actually turn to mining next and I'm pleased to introduce Jill Engel Cox who is director of the Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis at NREL. Over her 30-year career, she's been an engineer, researcher, program manager, strategic planner for a diverse suite of renewable energy, clean technology and environmental programs all over the world. And in the past decade, she has led international strategic planning and technology assessments for renewable energy and environmental sustainability research plans. So thanks, Jill. Great, thank you very much and super happy to be here to talk, to switch us a little bit from oil and gas over to mining. So I'm with the, at NREL with the Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis and I wanna mention that specifically because that is a partnership between NREL and Stanford as well as a few other universities and also wanna acknowledge my colleague Travis Ladder who helped put together many of these slides and my colleague Tessia Gogo who also helped put together the report that some of these bases are on. So there's a couple of reports and I'll put a link in the chat after I'm finished specifically to that report on the left that we talk about clean energy and mining operations and there's a lot more detail in that. We also have done quite a bit of work on oil and gas that I won't talk about but there's some interesting reports that definitely reflect a lot of the comments that have been made on oil and gas so far. But in my presentation, I'm gonna focus on our work that we've been doing on mining. And so this really emerged from a realization that so many of the, well, there's a strong link between mining and renewable energy. All the renewable energy technologies that are being rapidly deployed when solar batteries depend very heavily on mined materials. But then the mines themselves are facing major issues around environment and social issues, decarbonization and a license to operate in the communities in the rural areas and countries and communities that they operate in. So clean energy review as a way to address at least some of these challenges within the mining industry which of course is circular down around is very important to the renewable energy technologies that they would be using. So we have seen some growth in renewable energy projects that are serving mining operations in 2015. There was about 600 megawatts serving different mine sites. And in 2020, there was over five gigawatts of renewable energy projects either installed or planned. A lot of these are solar and some wind and then but recently there's been an increased focus on hybrid projects which mix traditional energy sources, diesel, natural gas, coal with renewables. So operating in a hybrid fashion but certainly a long way to go to provide the energy for these sources but we're seeing a significant uptick in the installation of these projects. And in fact, at least two thirds of the largest mining and metals companies have set some kind of net zero emission targets. You will see most of these are in the 2050, 2040 range. So not overly near term but definitely an interest from industry to begin to explore these. I will say my impression is that the mining industry is behind the oil and gas industry in terms of starting to begin to think about these technologies and how they might be applied to their operations but certainly starting to incorporate it into their targets. So thinking about what are the different technology type of energy loads and what type of technology solutions there might be. So the thing with the challenge with the mining industry is that the mining, mines are very, very different from each other. So an underground mine in the United States is very different than an open pit coal mine in Australia or a cobalt mine in Central Africa. So their energy demands and the energy types that they use are very different. They do fall into these general categories. There's the exploration extraction and the related operations. So this is what you would typically think of as a mine. So it's drilling, it's digging, it's dewatering within the mine site either open pit or underground. There's the material handling where you're moving these materials from the mine to wherever they will be processed which can be conveyor belts or trucks, trains, shuttle cars, other transportation technologies. And then there's the beneficiation and processing where you're actually crushing, separating, drying and then ultimately refining. And this last step is where a tremendous amount of energy is used in these products. In fact, mining is about over 35% of the global industry energy use and some estimates up to 11% of our global energy use total. This is for mines that are particularly grid connected, electricity, they have done quite a bit of electrification because it's a very efficient way to do it. There is concern about emissions of course, air emissions, especially in underground mines. But even so, if it's electricity generated on site it is often generated from fossil fuels. And then of course offsite mines will be doing a combination of fuels and electricity combined. So a lot of diverse sources, both electricity and process heat that are needed. So if we're looking at different clean energy applications in mining there, I'm gonna talk about, briefly talk about these four, the from left to right, going from a high technology readiness level things may actually being deployed now to things that are probably another decade out. And I'll start with renewable electricity loads. So we are seeing wind and solar and in some cases storage being deployed at mine sites that can offset the diesel fired electricity generation at the site. The big challenge of course is that wind and solar is variable and mine sites typically have consistent loads. So that's the graph on the top, the green line showing the load and the red line showing the wind production. So dealing with that variability is one of the challenges. And the chart on the right is looking at the levelized cost of energy as a function of renewable power and storage. And that's a very interesting paper if you have a chance to look at it because it's looking at four different mine sites and the cost of energy as a function of how much they generate from renewables. And the takeaway is that when you get over about 60 to 70% like renewable power it gets very, very expensive because you're trying to meet those peak demands. And we've actually, this is pretty consistent what we found in all industry sectors. So you're gonna need some long-term energy storage or dispatchable modular power systems to enable higher levels of renewable energy. So some of these are available but others we really gonna need these breakthrough technologies around hydrogen flow batteries. And some people are talking about small modular nuclear reactors being deployed at some of these very large mine sites. The next technology that we're starting to see go in is electrifying transport. I mentioned this reduces both in greenhouse gas emissions but also air emissions, which is very important in many of these sites. Again, especially in underground sites. Elect, battery transportation, electrified transportation can facilitate more renewables because you can actually integrate the electricity demand or possibly have electrolyzers produce hydrogen which then can be used in the vehicles. Picture there is a hydrogen fuel cell excavator prototype that has been developed by JCB. Many of this transport mobility has already been electrified, the conveyor belts but there's a lot more work that needs to be done for lithium iron and hydrogen vehicles for heavy off-road vehicles. Those have not been really fully developed but are starting to be tested at pilot scale. Moving up the TRL green hydrogen we already had seen discussions already about the challenges of green hydrogen and its cost. This would potentially be able to level out some of the balance between the power production, the power demand and it could be used for electricity generation, for mobility, process heat or as a feedstock to some of the processing. As we've talked about before, the hydrogen prices and technology readiness are still major barriers for this being incorporated into mine sites as it is in elsewhere. And we're seeing mining companies starting to invest heavily in hydrogen but if low cost green hydrogen is still expected to be at least a decade out from full commercial scale. And then finally process heat and feedstocks. So there are some low and no carbon thermal technologies. This is concentrating solar but they have not really been commercially demonstrated at a mining scale. And there's a number of things or challenges around that around land use and the technology and the cost and other elements which I'm happy to chat about later. This electrification of process heat can be a pathway to incorporating more renewable generation but we really need to get these technologies to be able to produce at the temperatures and the scale that's necessary. And then also, this also feeds into feedstocks and fuels had already discussed earlier about you need different types of hydrogen reduction of iron ore and other elements on the mineral processing side. I do have a small module reactor here mentioned. I won't discuss that in great depth but that is a technology that's being discussed for the future as potentially being deployable in a scale that would work for large mines. But that also is just in early stages of being planning for demonstration for electricity generation and some industrial processes. So we're still probably at least five years and probably 10 years out from those technologies. So just wrapping up, I wanna really emphasize that renewable energy technologies need mined materials. And so we think it's really important that mining operations benefit from using renewable energy because the two are very tightly linked. There are a number of barriers. I've mentioned some of them in terms of the technology not being ready. I wanna also mention that sometimes there's conflicting business models. Renewable energy developers require 20 year PP power purchase agreements. Mine operators don't always operate at consistent energy demand from year to year. And so there's not a good match up there. There's not a lot of renewable energy expertise that's been integrated into their mining models and decision-making. And despite mines having a lot of land, a lot of it is not suitable for some renewable energy technologies. And then there's, but there's a number enablers. There's, we're starting to see, we need to align the incentives and contract structures, design mine sites, energy management to make the loads more flexible as well as the production capacity building within the industry. Lots of technology development and research and development needed to demonstrate these technologies. Interesting thinking about supply chain certification, a lot of end use of renewable energy and other technologies are interested in green minerals and metals. And so they want certification that these are being produced in an environmental and way. Sustainable way, policy and regulation matters. And then finally, as was mentioned, several times already collaboration between the renewable energy sector and the mining sector is gonna be really important. So thank you very much and looking forward to our discussion. Thanks, Jill. So I will introduce now, Mit Singh, who is the global head of strategy and marketing and he's based in London. This is a position he assumed in June, 2021. And this role is responsible for corporate strategy, mergers and acquisitions, strategic partnerships, venture capital and marketing to maximize customer value generation for the digital integrated projects and energy transition division of Slumberjee. So thank you, Mit. Thank you. Thank you everybody. And good morning and good afternoon. I hope you can hear me well. I'm based out of London, but coincidentally I'm dialing in today from the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I have to fly in here for a few meetings. But and also thank you for the invitation and participating in a very interesting panel here today. I think I'll take some time to maybe share some of the slumberjee perspectives and also maybe what I'm seeing here is a very interesting trend because a lot of topics which have been talked about from my predecessors are very common and I think they drive our focus as well and for our customers. So getting started, I think the kind of a convergence of some of the trends around climate, around the oil price and the progression and maturity of digital technology means that the way we are going to develop our oil and gas industry going forward doesn't have to be the same way we've done before. And in some ways, I think we believe that energy transition is going to be an era of energy digitization as well. And I think, and I saw a lot of the talk here today has already highlighted that. So I'm not going to dwell on it, but really, I think some of the technologies which are already available in our hands can be put to use to really transform the way we work and also then lead into, you know, to put print avoidance and remediation and reduction at scale. So really the opportunity is to take advantage of these technologies and I think there are solutions which can drive those results. What we're doing in slumberjee is, you know, first of all, in terms of packaging and waiting our technology RNA portfolio on what we're calling it as transition technologies. And we're focusing on, you know, a broad range of topics, but here I've highlighted six topics which we are really focusing on. The first one is around addressing methane emissions end-to-end understanding and analyzing fugitive methane emissions, nailing it down to understand where it might be coming from, also making sure we invest in technologies from walls and other places to, you know, replace and remediate as quickly as possible. We're investing in, you know, simulation technologies, software simulation technologies to understand if we can pinpoint two sensors where exactly it is coming from at the shortest and cheapest so that it can be embraced and adopted by our customers. I think flaring has been talked about a lot. There is a lot of maturity in eliminating flaring in many places in geography, but in some of the early stages of production it has been very difficult. So we are working very hard with our very testing product line and services to see how we could potentially capture some of that flow back and also potentially capture and remediate the flare itself completely out of the system. We're also working very hard on developing technologies and techniques to reduce our CO2 footprint in our well-construction process and well-completion process. So essentially it starts from not just scope one and two but also scope three, looking at our supply chain as well. And we are putting in systems in the first place to bring visibility to the CO2 footprint cell, but then later on also give options and technologies which can reduce and remediate carbon footprint as well by essentially changing the well design, changing the way we select the PHA and giving the full control to the plan of the well to design the well, not just on the net pay maximization or cost reduction, but also design the well based on what will reduce the CO2 footprint. And we are taking that a step further in working on digital technology to develop a full field scalable planning tool which will allow our customers to look at full subsurface modeling to some of the famous simulators and so you're aware of that there is intersect or eclipse and so forth. Model the entire subsurface chain and simulate the future forecast and production but also give a prediction of what the CO2 footprint might look like and what are the different CO2 footprint for different scenarios of development or redevelopment plan which the companies might undertake. So some of these technologies will allow companies to make more informed decisions about MVP and also potentially avoid a lot of CO2 footprint as well. One topic which I think has been talked about already is electrification. I think this is especially true for production systems portfolio of some of it. And if you look at some of the offshore platforms where we still have hydraulic actuators I think we feel electrifying them will not only bring obviously lower CO2 footprint but also to condition based monitoring and digital technology we can fully automate some of these platforms and not only reduce because of the reduction of CO2 use but also because there will be less human intervention required which will also reduce greatly the CO2 footprint of the entire value chain. And lastly, I think there is a lot of focus on CO2 capture and storage. Again, I think CCUS projects will have to scale up in the next few years and they're already scaling up. We are kind of seeing a massive uptake and activity globally. And it needs to be simplified the cost of CO2 storage is still pretty high and the risk with the injectivity and containment has to be managed. So we have been investing on, you know at all capture transport and storage surveillance to reduce the cost of CCUS and also work with our companies and partners to assist in their CCUS projects as well. I just wanted to maybe give you an example of what some of these technologies when we put to use, what does it really mean? I think this is a project, it's an integrated project which some of the managing in Ecuador where we have deployed an ESP monitoring and ESP surveillance system where it's a fully autonomous system which was deployed and it has reduced field visits by 60% and production losses have also dropped by 40%. But the real impact was around, you know driving trips which were needed by our customers that completely eliminated, being eliminated. And this is an example where, you know we had high GOR wells where, you know very occasionally you have to release the pressure and vent it and somebody was doing it manually. So through these systems which are fully on electricity and renewable energy we have deployed these edge compute technologies that do it autonomously without human intervention. So really I think, you know I wanted to just illustrate an example here of how digital can and combined with electrification can completely eliminate a lot of CO2 footprint which is basically unnecessary trips which our field organization has to take sometimes in the field. And there are many examples like this which we are working with our customers globally to deploy. You know, methane emissions have been talked about a lot. And I think this is a topic which has very strong short term impact if we get this right. And I heard one of the gentlemen talk about the project Astra where we're also involved. And what we're doing is really bringing a gamut of all the technologies we have in our portfolio to really give an end to end understanding of methane emissions and where the potential limitation can come from. So it's again, we feel it's really gonna change the way the fields are managed, the production is managed. And I think we've also invested in satellite companies we get to start and working with them in a very collaborative fashion to see how we can further improve some of the footprints of methane emissions which are being detected by satellite companies today. And we will make that available to our customers globally to the scale and decarbonize their operations. Talking about CCUS, I think CCUS is absolutely going to be a key way to reduce carbon footprint in the short term. So we need to really work together to reduce the cost of CCUS and make it more easy especially for industries which are not familiar with oil and gas, you know, the industry and space of cementing and steel and they're also looking to decarbonize. So we are investing a lot in technologies to reduce the total CO2 storage cost and capture cost and building services which can allow our customers to do it more efficiently. In fact, this is an example we just pulled out from the Northern Lights project which we were recently awarded to do a full site characterization and feed study as well. So in fact, I think it's fair to say that in just two years our team is beat on small business than two years ago. So the uptick in CCUS projects is quite real globally and I think it's fair to say that every meeting we are having, every customer we are meeting including here in Saudi Arabia has got some element of CCUS in the agenda. So CCUS is a topic which is I think gaining a lot of attention in the short term. And I think as an industry we need to find ways to reduce the cost and make it more accessible for everybody. I think with that I'll conclude saying that the way to do it, we have to really take advantage of the macros today we are in, take advantage of the technologies we have in our hands and really deploy at scale and accelerate digital transformation which will I can drive decarbonization but also start making those choices in using technologies and design choices which will eliminate and reduce due to footprint for our operation. With that I'll hand it back, thank you. Thanks, you had to wait longest to speak so maybe we'll start with the first question for you. Here at the end I think you were describing a little bit the tension between carbon capture and storage and electrification at least in some people's mind there's a tension there. So how does slumberge kind of see itself creating value and assisting in decarbonization? Is it one or the other or is it both or how are you gonna sort out with customer wants versus what the world needs? Yeah, I think there is space for both. I think there is space for both. I think if you look at quantifying CO2 reduction it's gonna happen if we apply both but really we feel again we sit in the benefit of looking at all the, you know we have access to all the technology within our portfolio and in our collaborative partners. So we feel that the problem is not technology. Sometimes the problem is integration of technology how you bring it all together and you bring it together in such a way that it is not cost prohibitive. So really I think the challenge is can you do that? So digital opens that avenue and electrification is really gonna make it easy because now you can drive edge devices, IoT devices especially on platforms. You know, we're also looking at some of the track fleets if we can drive electrification there to again reduce our footprint but really the big scale difference is going to come in the short term from the digitalization of our industry. So we're really investing a lot of our time and effort in prioritizing R&E projects in that space and what we would like to call as digitally enabled services so that we're looking at human less intervention. I mean, the famous wire line which I think you probably are known for. We're looking at making it autonomous into intervention to wire line. We have started drilling autonomous wells where you eliminate people on the rate pretty much and we have drilled actually quite a bit. The example I showed you in Ecuador we have drilled 70,000 feet in autonomous operations with completely no human in command on the drill chair. And we feel that the technologies in that space are going to continue to grow and the design choices and drilling choices and we can make because of the combination of electrification and digital means you can have very long wells, you can have different, you know, development plans and human less as well. So the avoidance of CO2 in upstream can be magnified with that. That's really our focus area at the moment. And then going back to your interject, come back to your question of electrification or carbon capture or both. I mean, it almost, there's also going to be opportunities for both together. If you look at the direction of the LNG industry recently you'll see all electric LNG facilities now being built when you put those in the US you can grid tie those into renewable energy and tie that straight electrification all the way through. You know, when you take those overseas I was talking about earlier remote operating environment you may couple that up with a blue power plant whether it's natural gas power with carbon capture sequestration or hydrogen combustion with carbon capture sequestration. So it's definitely going to be all of the above when it comes to these solutions. Absolutely. Yeah, the reason I sort of posed it that way because it, you know, you talk to your average citizen of the world, right? And they tend to think the solution is X. They don't realize that the solution is XYZ and some other stuff, right? That's yet to be innovated. Adam, I wanted to turn to you for a moment. Your presentation generated a lot of questions in the chat which is phenomenal, that kind of the idea here. And my question for you is would global transparency, you know, on reporting standards, you know, and publicly available data and be able to look at things in sort of near real time, would it, you know, propel us to smaller net emissions? I think so, that's a good question. I mean, I think so. I mean, I think what we're seeing, for example, in the methane sphere, which is a little bit different part of my research agenda that I didn't talk too much about today, but there's a lot of stuff that happens that is, you know, poorly understood, happening at remote locations, you know, not well measured to monitor. And so I think, you know, there's just some value in virtue in kind of discipline required to meet reporting standards, right? And so I think there's just starting to track things, you know, inherently, you know, may highlight some issues, right? That you just don't realize are going on, right? So I think there's some value there across all the emission sources like that Bob laid out, not just fugitives, but fugitives is the example where it's very clear that, for example, we've been working a lot with airplane teams that fly over, they'll notice something reported to the company and then the company will say, oh, wow, okay, we didn't realize that was happening. They'll fix it. And then often they can go back through their, you know, skate outputs or, you know, whatever kind of monitoring they have. Oh, okay, that's where the issue happened. We didn't realize that that was going on, right? And so that's an obvious example from fugitives, but I think, you know, other sources as well, I think just the act of doing this, you know, accounting and monitoring is useful. I mean, I think, you know, reporting standards coupled to incentives are obviously going to be stronger. So for example, you have regions where you just report versus regions where you report and are, for example, you know, subject to a levy based on, you know, maybe a revenue neutral levy or something based on your carbon intensity. You know, that strikes me as a more powerful combination, but I think there is benefit just from knowing better what's happening, right? It's value there. And does anybody on our panel have any thoughts on that? You know, global transparency on data, just openness can propel change? Well, certainly I'd add the greatest opportunity as I mentioned several, as I've mentioned, is in that methane space, understanding those intermittent emission sources and being able to mitigate those. I think the rest of the challenges is well enough understood that I think we have a very solid understanding of what needs to be done to carbonize the industry and methane with those intermittent emissions and obviously the magnification of the impact of those with its effective GHC footprint. So I think that's important to understand and got a lot of research going on there. Yeah, I'll just add real briefly here that we're seeing a lot of interest, you know, for technologies that are built themselves as green or environmental, they wanna know where their minerals come from. And so we don't have that transparency yet in terms fully, it's because it's a full commodities market, but how they're processed, how they come through the supply chain, ultimately into your iPhone or your solar panel or whatever you're developing. I think if there was more transparency and we had better information, I think we would see companies from the end-use product side really pushing that from the industry side to want to be able to say our iPhone has 100% sustainably mind of minerals and these types of things. So I think, but we don't have that transparency fully yet all the way back to the raw material stage. I'd really like to know where my cobalt comes from, you know. Yeah, or are you? Probably Central Africa. Yeah. Or you'd rather not know. Well, yeah, I mean, I think I'd, well, it's a long, yeah. I'd like to not have it. If I can. Sarah, go ahead. I was just gonna shoot in, it's an interesting discussion just from a completely different perspective and coming from a background of carbon storage where we've really struggled with public trust everywhere and around the world, Europe especially, is that transparency from the software side data. Northern Lights I think was mentioned, right? That the Northern Lights and Equinor has published all of the data from the CO2 storage well that's there for anybody to take and look at. We work on CO2 storage open source simulation that's there for anybody to dig in and there's no secrets. We're not, you know, we really think it's important that we show what we're doing to the public. They've invested enormous amounts of money in Northern Lights, another one, public investments. So it's really behooves us to put everything we can out there. Of course there are some things that we don't always publish, but the open source, open data, open community is a driving force from CO2 storage and there's a lot to learn there too. One thing I'd note is that over the, you know, we've been doing this for a long time and a lot of times there's a fair amount of sensitivity from operators about some of these data because some of these data may provide or are viewed to provide insights into the efficiency of an operation, how the field is performing, is it watering out, all these kinds of things. So the kinds of things we wanna know to estimate what the intensity is gonna be for pump work or separation work or whatever are kinds of things that operators have tended to be once we have detailed discussions about this is what we'd want. It gets a little shy at this point. So for example, we've been collaborating for a long time with Aramco and have really great relationships and funding and partnerships and data sharing with our strategy and policy side, strategy, technology and policy side, but the production side of Aramco is kind of walled off and won't even share data within the company, right? Because the other segments of the company that's viewed very much as essentially a kind of a crown secret or the resources there are viewed very much as the national sort of gold mine, so to speak, I guess. And so there's a lot of sensitivity about sharing those kinds of data even to people who nominally work for Aramco, for example, in another capacity, right? And so that has tended to be a little hard and I think Norway, Sarah hats off to you guys, we've used Norwegian data for a long time and incredible transparency. That's tended to be a little harder to have a sell elsewhere in the world. I wish it weren't, but it is. I think sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for, not necessarily, but that's what we've seen. So we're doing, I think if I can add just two, two imperatives, I mean, I would say that to the topic of operators having a hard time sharing, I think it's changing. I've started to see change in the last, I would say, dare to say six months, one year. I think there is a little bit more openness to sharing, including some of the names I've just heard on the call, I think I can call for that. And two, I think there is a drive from many of the investors, SEC as well, Wall Street and many of the stock exchanges are going to make a green line reporting mandatory. And I think that is going to become part of the ESG as well. So I think that is going to drive a lot of open behavior. And third, when it comes to scope three, if you don't have transparent sharing of data with your suppliers and your customers, there's no scope three at all. It doesn't exist in real world. So I think many of the companies are really investing a lot on carbon accounting and accreditation and looking to collaborate on those projects, including us as well. So I think there will be an area which will develop and it will be key to drive decarbonization in the next one. Yeah. So I want to, we have just a few minutes left. I wanted to turn it to the audience. And there was actually an interesting comment from Mark Necobom, that sort of, oh, Necodom, sorry, I messed up your name, about antitrust laws that might constrain the ability to share information, even when we want to. So Mark, do you want to expand on that? And we can get a comment from our panel. Well, I could very briefly, and thanks, Anthony, and the whole panel should have been very fascinating. I come from a long career in government as a regulator and a professional bureaucrat, but I'm now with the Western States Petroleum Association, which is a, we represent many of the large, many of the people here. That's on mobile, Shell, and others. And we've had a great deal of discussion in the ESG space and particularly how to educate many of the state governments that are working on policies that will have a profound effect on the ability of the industry to do many of the things that we're talking about this morning. And so as we are trying to prepare briefings and comment letters to many of our regulatory agencies, we run into antitrust laws where there are things that we would love to be able to share, information like cost structure on CCS and that sort of thing. We'd really love to be able to roll this kind of stuff out, but our antitrust laws for very good reasons prevent us from doing so. And so it's an interesting challenge because many of the regulators and the decision makers who are making truly profound and long-term affecting decisions really don't know enough. In fact, I wish there were about two dozen legislators and board members at the Air Resources Board who were listening to this discussion because this is terribly important work and our ability to share that information is highly constrained by law. Thanks. I don't know, are there other questions in the audience that we didn't address? Okay, well, I think we're nearly at the end of time. Is that correct Richard? I have about five more minutes. Five more minutes, awesome. Cool. So then my, the biggest question that I developed here that I have to ask, it's a little off topic, it goes to Jill. You know, if you bring a small modular reactor, to a mine site, I mean, while the risk might be very small that there is an accident, do you run the, I mean, have people thought about what the risks are of basically poisoning a valuable resource because you had some little problem and how are people thinking about addressing that? Yeah, I'll try to address that the best I can. The way the small modular reactors are being designed is intended to be containerized in a sense that they're easily transportable on say a train car. So something of that size or smaller, there are some that are even being designed, these are 50 megawatts sort of size up to 300. And they're designed to be inherently safe so that if there is a loss of power or other aspect to them, they just, they naturally shut themselves down and then there's not all the cooling elements and all the other aspects of them. So they're designed to be this transportable, set them up, plug them in, and then operate and then be able to take the entire thing away again at the end of when it either needs refueling or at the end of its life. And it also, the refueling times are much, much longer. They're multiple years as opposed to every year or every two years, like a large scale power plant. So that's the intention of these and the intention is also to be able to mass manufacture them so that you could put, you could moduleize, you could do one, two, three, depending on your power demand, you could take one away, you could have one shut down. So in theory, there should not, the risk of an accident should be very, very low. Obviously most of these mine sites could potentially be in remote locations. You would partially bury these for security and also other sorts of safety reasons. So, but I'm gonna caveat this by saying they haven't been demonstrated yet. There's only been a couple of designs that are far enough along in the process to being in the regulatory process to being moving to the demonstration phase. Those won't be finished for another five years. But that said, they are potentially a source of combined heat and power that could be very consistent in use and scale to a size that would fit. I think it just remains to be seen about whether the designs can meet all these criteria that they're targeting. If they do, they might be potentially very useful. But I don't know if we're gonna meet it in a cost effective timely manner in the next immediate timeframe. Yeah, this is a really interesting idea to me. I thought of this as Sarah was bringing up grid tide and renewably integrated oil and gas operations. One of the challenges that does, and we worked on a paper on this is, it's not clear to me what the economics are of switching on and off a very valuable resource, right? Reducing the intensity with which you can use that capital. You've invested, let's say a billion dollars in an offshore platform. You're really incentivized. We went to an offshore platform once in a helicopter. And I can't remember what he said. It was something like every hour they were down, they hemorrhaged $50,000 or something like this, right? Which sounds like a lot to me, right? I mean, maybe it isn't. But so the small modular reactor idea, right? It's carbon free. It's continuous for years at a time. That really, that seems to me to mesh very well with the industrial keeping your uptime up on your capital in a way that it's just, yeah, I don't know. I mean, maybe you need a couple of renewables to batteries but the small modular reactor has that seemingly inherent advantage. Yeah, and people are looking to combine it. There are some tests going on to look at green hydrogen. So when you have, when you don't need the electricity demand from the reactor, you're producing hydrogen, which if you combined it with say a vehicle production or vehicle transportation use, process heat use, other things or just storage, just storing the hydrogen. If you don't want to cycle your reactor down. People are looking, people are doing some analysis and some demonstration for that for larger reactors. In theory, it could be used for the small reactors if you had a mine site or an industrial site that had a scale down in demand. So lots of analysis going on to see what cost points would have to be hit in order to do this to be even cost effective. Yeah, I think it's exciting to think about those possibilities. Kind of cool to see come in as a cost effective and completely safe technology. Hey, there was one question that and scanning back, I see that we didn't address. And this was a question about in situ generation of hydrogen. And if that was a possibility. So I can actually read the question. Are there technologies worth pursuing for the cracking of oil and gas in the subsurface to produce hydrogen? I'll just jump in. I mean, not that I know of and certainly not any kind of TRL but there is some small things going on in subsurface bioreactors. So using microbes to generate hydrogen, let's say from depleted oil and gas reservoirs. It's a very, we're talking about low TRL. This is at the bottom of the barrel TRL but it's certainly microbes can do this, you know and it's controlling the process but you get an all in one package of a hydrogen store made for you but controlling microbes, understanding them not having other microbes come along and eat up the hydrogen that the ones have generated. I mean, this is certainly a very but these are the pie in the sky, blue sky things that we need to really think about because there's not one silver bullet here and everything should be on the table. So there's some things going on but certainly not at the high TRL for sure. Low TRL is where the fun is and where the long-term money is. So that's how you get rich. And we can sell it. Yeah, yeah. I shouldn't have said anything. Or that's how you work on a startup for five years and then fail and don't get rich, one of the two. Well, then you start another startup. That's right. Yeah, I think the key in this question if it was going to be done, I assume this by the way it says cracking that it's going to be a temperature process. It would be somehow to reject the carbon in a way that it's not gaseous because otherwise you're going to fill up your reservoir with products that you're not that interested in. Cool. So we are nearly at the end of our time. I don't know if anybody wants to, if there's anything that was said that you wanted to make a comment on and didn't have a chance. I'll give people the opportunity for that. Seeing no one, I will thank our panelists today for joining us from across the world and managing time zones, which is never easy, especially when you're coming to the West Coast of the US, which always seems like it's far out of sync with other parts of the world. And I'll sum up by saying, I think the message that we kind of got today is that there's really a lot of work to be done, but there's a lot of technology that's available and deployable across reasonable time frames to really sort of help the world meet its ambition to transition to lower carbon technologies. So with that, I'll turn it back to you, Richard.