 Each day we're having a student take notes and kind of summarize their impressions on on the on the day session and today that student is Sam Abernethy. He has provided, not only the take home messages that you see here but some other summary material these summaries will be available to people through the, at the end of the workshop but these are some of the take home messages Sam highlighted you can read them a point Jim Williams made about the critical aspect of two thirds reduction in emissions no matter what nature based solutions being typically less costly closer to deployment actually being deployed today, but more vulnerable to reversal, something that the first workshop discussed a broad range of CO2 to value approaches. And then, I think one of the, one of the I think the really critical messages for me is the kind of diversified portfolio of industrial and hybrid approaches that we all know will be needed to reach the Paris goals that none of these technologies will be sufficient on their own. I think everyone today could could drop their own list but thank you Sam for doing that I'm going to stop to want to thank the panelists and the speakers I'm going to turn it back over to Sarah who has some, some summary to summary points and a bit of information about the next two days will delve into some of the technologies in more detail tomorrow. So take it away Sarah. I would like to thank all of our speakers today and Rob also I'd like to thank you for facilitating. Before we move on I would also like to thank our workshop technical advisory committee for this event. That includes Tim barcolt from Exxon mobile Richard Brown from Bank of America should be chapter from total. I would also like to thank the strategic energy alliance the Stanford or mobile initiative, the pre court Institute for energy and the Stanford Woods Institute for the environment for sponsoring this event. So thanks. Thank you very much for joining us today tomorrow's theme is engineered and hybrid solutions what is new and what is at the edge. We're going to have a very different format tomorrow. We're going to have four sessions, one on direct air capture, one on backs, one on carbon mineralization and one on bio inspired solutions for carbon. There will be 45 minutes each one following right after another. And in each of those sessions we will have two speakers for 10 minutes each. A facilitated conversation will occur for the next 22 or 23 minutes so it'll be a very different format from from today, but we're hoping that in those both presentations and in the ensuing conversation we will get some interesting perspectives on what is really at the edge. So I see that we actually still have a couple minutes left today. I'm going to suggest we have a couple of questions that have come in from the audience. And if our panel is still with us I would actually still like to pose a couple of these questions to the panelists. So I can't tell from my vantage point if you're all there but I'm going to ask the question anyway. Do we have all, how do we get all of the necessary parties involved in the energy system to work collectively to find optimum solutions versus working individually leading to some optimal solutions. Looking at the scale of what we have to do, where we have to go, the only way forward is with some sort of joint venture. So, and the discussions are underway and we heard Damien talk about these sort of collaborations with the cement companies etc etc. So that's happening anyway and looking at the scale we are going to have to in terms of mitigation of risk and in terms of mitigation in terms of costs. The only way to go forward is to is to do this in joint ventures I think there's no other way. I think that's right and you know I talked about it a little bit doing my few pages partnership in my mind will be crucial. It's not going to be like forced marriage is going to be mixed marriages in between companies that will necessarily work together in the past. But the nature of the work that is required is so broad and different that it will require different players to come together and own a different piece of the value chain, so that your overall risk of the project goes down and cost for everybody goes down. If people understand that understand the complexity of those and understand and accept to collaborate on those are things that they will achieve better value and trying to do that on their own. Yeah, I think you see a lot of these partnerships. Sorry. You know, a lot of these are not the common partnerships as we've seen in the last few decades in the one in gas particularly you know this is now with landowners, you know farmers and forest owners and not traditional partnerships and even down to people like you know the car goals of the world and these big agricultural and food supply companies so you know these partnerships will happen. And also we're not, it's not that we're not used to collaborating right in safety in this industry particularly we collaborate very well to avoid incidents occurring because this is a common good. And so it is, it is possible and we do do it now I think it's it just takes time. Okay, another question that came in earlier, but I think this is a good place to pose it in California, where many of us are living right now we're probably headed other dreadful wire file fire season. So there's definitely the need for fuel management in our forests, rather than simple controlled burns is there an opportunity here to haul the deadwood out and burn it in Bex facilities to gain meaningful progress on both fronts, both forest management and carbon supply stream. It feels like I have to address that with our project men daughter. We are currently in in discussion with the state of California and the five departments across several counties in across the state of California to see first how we could include some of the forestry residue in a plant that we're designing in So not only we will have agricultural waste from orchid trees like almond trees and apricot trees, but also some of the millions of trees that are laying dead in forest and along the, the mountain range to complement around 20% of that into the plant. So going forward you could actually have a plants along the states that's actually only consume forest residue. The, there are some logistics issues with regards to accessing that biomass and the cost of that fuel will be much higher. But if the state is willing to to support this with the combination of green bonds and access to cheaper capital. I think these are things that should be considered and you know the configuration technical configuration we have in mentor is by no means the only one that can do some other ways you can treat the biomass, but certainly the fuel is there. Great thank you any others that want to address that question and also talk about. I think anything to do with biomass, you're going to have to deal with the fact that the new density of that that feedstock is very low and transport logistics is a main issue here right. I'm calling these, these feedstocks long distance are going to have a to impact as well so there is technology plays here about what you know looking at miniaturization where can you actually densify that biomass at source, at a smaller scale and then transport it's called this paralysis oil or some more dense product to a central facility. I think there is a lot of technology plays that could help you. I want to comment briefly Sarah that's alright and I agree with them. That's what you said David about density so that energy, energy density is obviously important but I think this is an example of something that makes a great deal of sense on paper and I would hope on practice. We know that there's, there's an opportunity to reduce fire risk by using some of this biomass, but to actually accomplish it it's difficult right you have to collect that biomass you have issues with public perception resistance. And frankly a lot of the land, a lot of the forest and land in California isn't California land it's it's federal land through the national force and such so it isn't it doesn't California is to control. So there are lots of different, lots of different levers that have to be be pulled and things that have to line up to make this cost effective, but in, in, in principle I think it's a really good question. Okay, well I'd like to thank everyone else one more time for participating today I'd like to thank the audience for your participation as well and all your great questions. Thank you so much for joining us today and we hope to see you again tomorrow.