 Welcome to the Stanford Global Energy Dialogue. Over the last two months, we have had five unique and extraordinary dialogues with thought leaders and energy that covered a wide range of topic from impacts of COVID-19 to energy access and climate change. These videos are available at gef.stanford.edu. Today, we have a very special guest, Don Evans, served as a 34th U.S. Secretary of Commerce between 2001 and 2005. A graduate of the University of Texas, Austin, in mechanical engineering, Secretary Evans has a long history in the energy industry, starting off in 1975, working in oil rigs for Tom Brown Inc. And then becoming its CEO in 1985, very so for 15 years, before joining the Bush administration. You also serve as the chairman of Energy Futures Holdings Company, formerly TXU Energy, from 2007 to 2018, and currently serves as chairman of the Permian Strategic Partnership. Sally? Having this dialogue with him will be Tom Stevenson, who's a member of the advisory council of the Precord Institute for Energy at Stanford University, a former ambassador to Portugal. Tom has been part of Sequoia Capital since 1998. He started the Schultz-Stevens and Task Force on Energy Policy at the Hoover Institution, where he also serves as the chair of the Board of Overseers. After the Stevens, Evans-Stevens in dialogue, we will have two Stanford students asking questions. And finally, Arun and I will return to manage the questions from all of you in the audience. But to set the stage, like always, we have a couple of quizzes for you. So here's the first one. So the question is, which country is the largest producer of petroleum and natural gas in the world? Okay, well, why don't we wrap that one up? Okay, well, you guys are just way too smart. Okay, yes, it's the United States is the largest producer. And according to the Energy Information Agency, as of 2019, the U.S. is the largest producer, as you've gotten right, at 60 quadrillion BTUs or 60 quads. And of that, 29 is oil and 31 is gas. Russia is second to add 50 quads, split equally between oil and gas. And Saudi Arabia is third at 30 quads, which is primarily oil. Okay, so let's go to quiz number two and we'll look at the consumption side. So question, which country is the largest consumer of oil in the world? And you've got a choice of four there. Okay, yes, right again, wonderful to see how knowledgeable our audience is today. And the U.S. leads by consuming about 19.96 million barrels a day. China at 13, India at four, and Japan at 3.9. So with that, let's turn this over to you, Tom. Yeah, good morning, everyone. A great pleasure for me to welcome my longtime friend, Don Evans, and thank him for joining us this morning. This will be a really fun and interesting discussion. Don and I've known each other for about 20 years, going back to the beginnings of the Bush administration. Don and President Bush have been wonderful friends for many, many years in Midland, Texas, and both grew up in the oil and gas business. Don was Secretary of Commerce, but in many respects he performed a lot of the roles that Secretary of Energy, he was, he brought in Sam Bodman, who had been his deputy of commerce to be Secretary of Energy. Sam preceded Steve Chiu and Ernie Manese, both of whom are affiliated with us and have been on this program. So let me suggest, I think what Don could do particularly well is to give us some background and perspective on what the oil and gas industry looked like 20 years ago. There's been an enormous amount of change. Don's been right in the middle of that. A lot of involvement with Russia and China, his affiliation and long friendship and partnership with Sam. So Don, why don't we start by talking, I'll just give you the opportunity to give us a little bit of stage setting on the, from a background and perspective standpoint on the oil and gas business. Tom, thank you. What an honor to be a part of the Stanford Global Energy Dialogue and look at those you've already had on this program. Be here and Tom, thank you for your longtime friendship and I can't get close to Stanford without talking about all of our dear friends, George Shultz and all he did in my career and all he's done in my life and the wisdom he provided me while I was in government and beyond quite frankly. So an honor to be here. I'm gonna start out with I think the punchline or maybe it's not the punchline necessarily but it was certainly one of the most powerful defining moments of my time in government and that was being my first meeting with Vladimir Putin and on November, well, let me go back to September 11th first, at 9-11 Vladimir Putin was the first world leader to call the president. He called President Bush that day and told the president, look, I just want you to know whatever you need by way of support or resources or manpower or whatever, I'm with you, we're here for you, we've got your back. And so that was the first call President Bush returned that kind gesture to him by inviting him to Crawford in early November. I happened to be there, I was one of a party of about 25. Vladimir Putin after dinner at dinner stood up and made a powerful toast to the president. And then we walked outside and it was a November evening kind of cool. I happened to walk out alongside President Putin. We went by a fireplace, a fire pit that was close by started chatting and started chatting about oil and gas and he knows I was in the oil and gas industry and so he wanted to know my thoughts. And then he asked me a question. He said, Mr. Secretary, how has America accomplished so much in only 200 years? And so that was 200 years that question seemed like maybe a long time when you think about it, not so long. I mean, by the time we were born, France had already had 16 King Louis and China had been around for thousands of years, but I told President Putin as I thought about it for a moment I said, listen, I think our success is first of all our freedoms that are grounded in our constitution. I think they're a big part of it. I think another big part of it is our democratic capitalistic system or free enterprise system that encourages competition that encourages risk taking that encourages ingenuity and the entrepreneurial spirit that continues to thrive in this great country. And then I told him, I said, you know, in America, the people of America wake up every morning trying to do the right thing. People of America are basically good, decent, honest people. And if you're not, people are not good, basic honest people then they, it just won't work. And so we talked along for a while longer but over the next several years I had a chance to get kind of up close and get to know him a whole lot better. It's been a number of meetings with him. I remember one of the first meetings was in 2002 when the president and I and his president's entourage, we were over there for a orange reduction treaty signing and President Putin invited us out to his gotcha for that, have dinner that night. So we went out there and it was the president and president had along with him, Colin Powell and Condi Rice and myself and President Putin had similar counter parties on his side. Mrs. Bush was there as well. We had a delightful evening. At one point in the evening I turned to President Putin and I said, Mr. President, you know you have a third of the natural gas reserves in the world or here in Russia that you control. And President Bush kind of looked at him, Vladimir, did you know that? And he smiled and said, well, yeah, maybe, yeah, he knew it. Yeah, he did know it because it was part of, look, put him on the world stage. Oil and gas put him on the world stage. That gave him the power that he was really looking for in the world. And so as I got to know him better, I remember one discussion we had, he said, Mr. Secretary, you know, we have a lot of reserves here, a lot of oil reserves. The import oil, the imports are continuing to grow. It looks like they're gonna continue to grow for years to come. He was saying that because he knew our oil production had been in decline since 1972, basically. He told me, well, I don't think we need to do that. I mean, look, just put your oil out there on the world market and let the highest price that it can. And that's how I think, you know, what I did encourage him, you know, you do have great resources here. You ought to use it for the good of mankind. And, you know, if I was you, I'd probably build a petrochemical complex that's on top of my gas reserves and oil reserves. But those discussions continued on. And he asked me at one point, he was wondering about pipeline routes because he was worried about China at the point, at that point in time. There's 11 or 12 time zones between Russia and China. And they were very concerned about China. And so there was a route coming out of Western Siberia and he didn't know if he should stop there on the coast of the border of China or take it on out to the Pacific. He asked me what I thought is if I knew a whole lot about it, which I can't tell you that I did, but I gave him my thoughts anyway. But it was always strategic thinking. I always, how do I use this resource strategically to put me in a better position in the world? And I like a strategic weapon for him. So I gathered insight about him and how he thought in Russia. I've got great friends in Russia. Yermaine Graff, who runs Spear Bank, who comes to Stanford as a Mac once a year, is a great friend of mine. But in 05, when I left government, I moved back to Midland, Texas, which is right in the middle of the Permian Basin. And I got a call from President Putin and he asked me if I would come see him. I was, sure, President Colby wants to, yes, I went to see him and he surprised me by, you know, Mr. Secretary, I was wondering if you would consider being a chairman of Rosneft. And of course I was flattered that he would think I could be a chairman of a Russian oil company of that size. And he was anxious to put it on the London stock exchange, felt like he needed a CEO from a former public company in the West-like company that I ran as a CEO. And so anyway, I was flattered about by it, but I realized that after a few days it really wasn't something that I needed to consider seriously. But that little fame will carry throughout my remarks this morning about kind of him looking at his admiration for America and how have you accomplished so much in only 200 years? It's quite remarkable. Tom, you asked about China just real quick. I mean, my first trip to China was with, I met with Jim Johnson-Mann. He said, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming. If you want to come back as our friend, go West. Probably what we have going on out there. I got hundreds of millions of people living in poverty out there. So I went West. I met two blind brothers. One was nine and one is 11. I stayed with them through. I've been to see them again five times. They're very much aware of my friendship with these two blind boys. When I first went to see them, they lived in a little batch of two dirt floors, no electricity, nothing. I went to the older one's wedding a couple of years ago, 2018, they had built a new home and in his home he had a flat screen TV. And so in that amount of time, we have been a part of this country be through our energy, been a part of lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, a few of them that I, of course, know personally. OPEC is another one we'll touch on. You can't talk about OPEC without saying that what happened, coming out of World War II, America was the largest producer in the world by far. We were producing about six million barrels a day and the world was about nine million barrels a day. By 1972, about 25 years later, no longer was America the number one producer in the world. In fact, we were importing crude oil, importing the substantial amount of crude oil already. And that led to the oil embargo because of the Israeli run, Yon Kippur War. We supported Israel. They cut off our oil. Our price oil went from $3 to $12 in a few years. It was $30 eight years later. We had long gasoline lines. It was used as a weapon against America. And so that kind of set our energy policy from my perspective in place for the last 45 plus years, which was stability in the Middle East. The importance for that oil to continue to flow into the global marketplace. Because all during those years, our production was basically declining. And nobody saw anyway, we were gonna turn it around. Those in the industry are beyond. And there's a lot of things we tried. A lot of things we thought about, but the realistic economic forces should just look like we're not gonna be able to overcome them. So I would say that we've seen dramatic changes in the last 20 years. I had a front row seat. I'll talk about the time from the late part of the last decade to now and how dramatic the changes have been and how America has gone from a country of energy scarcity to energy abundance, which I think is the great untold story of my lifetime. I can tell you that. I don't, it's just an amazing story. What the ingenuity, innovation, risk-taking, entrepreneurship in America has done to put us on a stronger national security, economic security, energy security foothold is just amazing. Changed the whole world order in the last 10 or 15 years. Let me stop there, I could, and because I know we have other ground we wanna cover, but anyway, that frames it up a little bit for us, I hope. Yeah, talk a little bit about our friend, Sam Bodman and the impact that he had on our energy policy in LA and energy action. You know, I was, look, thanks for asking that one. Sam, of course, your dear friend, my dear friend, Sam was brilliant. I mean, Sam was a PhD in chemical engineering from MIT, taught at MIT. With Ned Johnson, he built Fidelity in the 70s and 80s. He took over Cabot, a global organization. He was, that company was one of the first to build a plant in China, a carbon black plant in China in the mid-80s. Sam was a, you know, he was the quintessential Renaissance man and I knew there was one part of his life that he really hadn't experienced yet and that was public service. So when I became Secretary of Commerce, I asked Sam, he would like to come in and serve in my deputy and the timing could not have been better for Sam and for me because on our desk 2001 was a 2001 IPCC report and it brought a lot of attention to global climate change and what was occurring in the world and a lot of conversation about it. I was getting a lot of heat about it. What are we gonna do? I had Sam there at my side who knew the issue and knew it well and so I told him to take charge. He did. We asked him how much money is being spent on climate change. First number was 500 million. Then we found somebody else had 600 million. Somebody else had 300 million. By the time it was all over, finding all the different pockets of global climate change activities in cross-government, it was 5.7 billion. And so Sam thought best, we try and bring all of those parties together, put a structure in place, handle the science side, energy will handle the technology side, we'll prioritize this spending and we'll really start to gather the data that we need to have to make the strong policy decisions that are important to this country. One of the first things Sam did was he put a global organization together, brought all the countries together that would participate and it was many, many of them to share data, starting with temperature data. And so Sam was just, from me, man, I just couldn't have been a better deputy. He went on to be Treasury and then energy as you know, what he did there was remarkable. I'll talk about this some later, I'll mention it now, but then when Sam, Sam was a big believer in research and I know he had left a couple of research programs there that Secretary Chubb built on and they continue to build on them, but he was really strong about wanting government to invest in basic science research. So he brought that with him to the Department of Energy. And the other thing he wanted was the data of where we were energy wise at that point in time. So he charged the energy department and petroleum council to put an energy report together, the outlaw look to 2030. So in 2007, it produced a report called Hull Hard Truths. I would commend all of you on this call to take a look at it, but I can tell you, it was a very bleak picture in terms of energy for America in 2007. There's really not a lot of talk in there about natural gas, quite frankly. There is some, but the prospects for it did not look particularly good. And the prospects for producing an increase in our oil production in America did not look particularly good. You know, it so happens that obviously things turned dramatically, but in typical Sam Bodman, he wanted to know the facts. He wanted to know the data. He wanted to kind of understand this incredibly complex problem as well as he could so he could help design policy for the country for while he was working there as Secretary of Energy. That's a great lead in, Don. What I'd like to have you talk about next, which is how the oil and gas industry has developed in the last decade. You've been right in the middle of that, sitting in the middle in Texas, in the Permian Basin, the strategic partners group that you're chairing today to look at it, but talk to us a little bit of how all that evolved, how we went from the oil and gas industry that you described in the early 2000s to one where we were the world leaders in the development of hydraulic fracturing technology and horizontal drilling and the tremendous impact that that has had on our ability, particularly to develop the natural gas industry that's had so many positive impacts. Yeah, thanks for that question, Tom. Look, I've had a front row seat and what has happened and I'm gonna begin with me being asked to be Chairman of Energy Future Holdings. Erin mentioned that earlier that I was a chairman. I became chairman in 2007, which is the same year that the book came out, Hard Truths and Goldman Sachs KKR and TPG bought energy then for $48 billion and it was a natural gas play. Natural gas prices were $7 and MCF. They had increased dramatically in the previous couple of years. In fact, the matter is the political hot topic at the time was growing utility prices across America. As I took on the role at Energy Future Holdings, I was certainly getting a tremendous amount of heat in terms of higher utility prices in the state of Texas. And taking on that role and what they did, they were smart, look, this goes through cycles, industry does, only gas. So we're gonna hedge our bets for five years. We're gonna hedge gas prices for five years. But what was happening during that time was that there was a wild-getting spirit in Texas that you just went, there was no way you were gonna ever put that spirit out. And George Mitchell was somebody that was just kept trying different ways to extract more gas from rocks and what's called the Varnish Jail Play at Fort Worth and Dallas. He worked on it for years and finally in the mid part of that decade, he started to have some success. So he had success and industry thought, well, that's interesting and these were horizontally drilled frack wells. The next thing you knew that idea went over the Hainesville which was kind of North Louisiana and East Texas. Wow, it works over here. And then the next thing you knew it went to Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, the Big Marcellus Play. And that's a total game changer for America and the world. It's just, it's breathtaking the reserves that are up there. We produce what 2% of them in this in place and I wanna hack or sit on them. The gas reserves in the Marcellus are just absolutely remarkable. And I would also say that the gas reserves in the Permian Basin, even though it's considered an oil basin are also remarkable. But in those early days of the industry was developing this new technology. Industry didn't believe this could work in oil reservoirs. They thought that the oil was just too viscous, too thick, wouldn't move with this kind of treatment, with kind of frack technology and they really didn't give it a lot of hope. But the first play it looked like in my work was the Big Bakken. That was early on probably in 2009 or 10, something like that. And then all of a sudden the Eagleford play in the state of Texas looked like well it's got some promise. And then in probably 2000 and oh 13 or 14 is when that technology really came to the Permian Basin. It has led to defining one of the largest reserves in the world. I now call the Permian Basin the largest secure supply of energy in the world. Key word energy because we have more windmills out here than any other state in the country. We have solar farms that are being built out. But the oil play just started developing here in the Permian in such a big and powerful way that caught the attention of all the oil and gas companies including of course the big four, the big five, Exxon and Chevron and Conoco and BP Shell and the like. And they said, we've got a lot to do here. And we don't know how we're gonna deliver it all how we're gonna execute our plans. They gave their plans to Mackenzie. Mackenzie came out with a report and it said, look if you execute your plans by the middle of this decade we're in right now the Permian Basin would be the third or fourth largest producing area in the world. It would be first Russia and then Saudi Arabia and then all the rest of the United States or the Permian they'd both be in about six or seven million barrels a day. So, but in order to do that, you gotta move 250,000 people in the area. Therein lies with Permian Strategic Partnership is about which is what I'm about, which is state roads, better housing, good schools, healthcare, all of that. But it had a front row seat to watching all of this and what is meant for firstly economy I'll go back to energy future holdings real quick. At the time that I became chairman it was $7. It went to $8. It all looked good for about a year. And then all of a sudden that gas from the Hainesville and the Marcellus started coming in the market and the gas price went down and down and down. They went through a bankruptcy that got concluded in mid 2018 they bought it for $48 billion. And the assets when they went through bankruptcy were somewhere between $25 and $30 billion. And I've watched what happened on oil price side. Oil price in the early part of the last decade was $100. And so they were $100, but Saudi Arabia, the Middle East saw all this production coming online. They said, we don't want to lose market share. We want to see if we can bankrupt the oil and gas companies in the Permian Basin. And so they opened up the valves. Oil prices went from $100 to $50, but guess what? The technology was working so well as the companies were doing so well that they just kept right on going. And so we've got a basin here in the Permian Basin that back in the late part of the last decade 2008 the Permian Basin was expected to be delivering 500,000 barrels a day by now. The 2020 is delivering 5 million barrels a day. And we're just getting started. I mean, we've got really 100 years of supply. So what's happened? And the other thing I'd say real quick time would be the role that it's played on the environmental side, which has just been fantastic. First, let me talk about the economy. Economy, the price oil went from $100 to $50. The price of gas went from $8 to $2. That's like a $500 billion tax cut to the US economy, $2 trillion to the global economy. And the other thing you can say when you think about the economy and how strong it is and what the growth looks like is the economy is often driven by consumer confidence and consumer confidence is driven by the price of gasoline. Price of gasoline is low, everybody's confident. I got more money, I'm gonna spend some more money. If the price is high, then they're not so confident. So you think about the decline in the price of both oil and gas and what it meant for the economy could come out of a tough recession. In 2008, I think it's just played a major role in the economic activity we've had for the past three or four years. The last point I make, it may be the most important point which what has happened environmentally and what that has meant by bringing more gas on. I saw it up close and personal in the company that I was chairman of. We had nine coal-fired power plants. We had two of the most efficient, well-run nuclear plants in the world, Comanche Peak one and two, still running strong today, no CO2 emissions obviously. But we had nine coal-fired power plants. When I left, that had been reduced to three and they were getting ready to take another one offline. With all those reductions in coal-fired power plants across America or our now greenhouse emissions across this country are back down to the levels they were in the late 80s. Well, it's quite remarkable what we've done on emissions. We've got more to do, wind, solar, that all helps. Continuing to drive coal-fired power plants off the grid is helpful. But it's an incredible story and it's a remarkable story. And for me, having had a chance to be in government for a while and see kind of the geopolitical side of it and the world order side of it, it makes it even a more powerful story that this country, because of our ingenuity, because of that description I delivered to Vladimir Putin in Crawford, Texas in November of 2010, we create the environment for people to take risks, try new ideas, do something different, do something better. That's what happened. And we have changed this from a country of energy scarcity and energy abundance. And now we need to take advantage of it. And when I say that, I mean, lead the world toward a cleaner, better electricity-provided environment for the world. It's one last thing I wanna say, Tom, and I'm sorry, but I want just big points to make here, people. You know, when I first arrived in Washington, D.C., I walked across the street to the World Bank and I sat down with Jim Wolfson. And Jim was the president of the World Bank at the time. And Jim, nice to meet Don. Thank you for coming by. It's Mr. Secretary, appreciate you being here. I wanna tell you about the world. Oh, great, okay. I'd love to hear about the world. Don, there's six billion people on the planet and three billion of them live on less than a dollar a day. That stuck with me to this day. It's just unbelievable to think about the number of people that are out there in this world that have no electricity or trying to, you know, we, it's, it's, or no electricity, and that means no light. I mean, if you live in the darkness all the time, it's not a particularly great, quick quality of life. And so I think that's an area that, you know, America ought to find ways to lead. Yeah, I'd like to come back to that in a minute, but let me switch the conversation a little bit to the impact of COVID-19. It has certainly had a dramatic impact on demand. CO2 emissions are down, clearly gasoline consumption is down. A lot of wildcatters have, I suspect, have rather stretched balance sheets or personal balance sheets. What's your sense of the current and longer term impact of this whole pandemic on the oil and gas industry in general, and particularly what you've been so caught up in in West Texas and other major oil plays around in this country? What's, how badly are these folks hurting and are we gonna lose a lot of them along the way here? What's the outline? Yeah, yeah, first time, just look, our arts and prayers go out to the whole world. I mean, this pandemic that we're, a pandemic that we're experiencing at the moment is nothing like anybody on the planet has ever seen before. And there's no playbook for it. And it's, we're struggling our way through it. You know, we get a little good news one day and maybe not so good the next, but, but so West Texas Permian Basin Oil and Gas Industry had that to deal with just in their own personal lives. But then on top of that, at an oil price that collapsed from $50 a barrel, though, we one day had traded it minus $36 a barrel. All over the world. Yeah, it went negative. And so it creates an incredible amount of uncertainty that trying to figure out where this is all going, what does it mean, how much is demand gonna collapse for a little over, we could too, maybe it was down 30 million barrels a day. Now it looks like it's down eight to 10 million barrels a day. I think the next getting it back to the 100 million barrels a day plus slightly is gonna take a while. It feels like the immediate pain is there. It's real. It's a lot of it, you know, tens of thousands of people being laid off. For the first time, you're seeing major oil companies take steps that nobody would have thought imaginable that would happen within their organizations. It's tough times. There is layoffs occurring or early retirements or whatever you might wanna call them just across the board. So the pain is out there, it's real, but it's all short-term for the industry. The industry will be back. It will be back stronger, probably, you know, leaner in some ways, one one will say, but I was here in the collapse of 85, 86. And that's when Saudi Arabia finally gave up trying to protect the price oil that they drove it from three to 30 and then it started drifting down and they kept trying to protect it back in the early part of the 80s. But the 86 that they gave up, they threw in the towel, the price collapse and the industry collapse. It would have been different back then because interest rates were 10, 11, 12, 10 dollars inflation was still high, but you know, banks went down, real estate went down, oil and gas companies folded, but they came back quick. And that's the nature of America. I mean, you get knocked down, you get back up on your feet and go back at it because the human capital, the ingenuity, it's all still there. And so that kind of culture, that kind of work ethic means you get back on your feet in a hurry. And this industry will get back on its feet in a hurry already is, we're starting to see signs of it, not nothing big. I mean, I got to tell you that the rig count is at an historic low. The lowest it's been since 1940. And to show you the kind of the swings in the early part of the 80s, there were almost 5,000 rigs running in America, 5,000. Now we have 150, but we can do more with 4,500 than now then than we could do with 5,000, you know, 35 or 40 years ago. So, Tom, we're resilient. And the thing I see really is, look, it's painful, it's no fun, but tremendous optimism for what this industry can do for this country and for this world in the years ahead. And just a great feeling of how it is to be in our driver's seat, so to speak, that we control our decency in terms of oil and gas. We've proven that in the last 10 years that the reserves are here. And like I mentioned earlier in my comments, I mean, we're sitting here in the Permian Basin, we're sitting on the largest secure supply of energy in the world. Amazing feeling to have. So there is a lot of belief and hope and promise for the future. We call it out here, the Permian Promise. And there's not anybody out here that really understands the science, technology of it all that believes we're not gonna be back as strong as we were before. More as an industry than looking at the individual companies, you've got to assume that with the leveraged balance sheets of a lot of these wildcatters or small oil and gas companies, hard to believe that a number of those won't fall by the wayside here. So what we're really talking about is more the entrepreneurial and imaginative spirit of people in the oil and gas business starting new companies as opposed to a number of these small, highly leveraged companies being able to turn their balance sheets around and survive in the business. No, Tom, that brings back an old personal story of mine. And when I first started in the business, President Bush and I moved out here in the mid-70s. And at the age of 33, I was president of a public oil and gas company that had a larger market captain for motor company, which is pretty hard to believe. But when the downturn started and oil prices started to rose, that all started to change. And the economic forces just got too powerful. Now, the company that I was president of, Tom Brown was the name of it, survived. We made it all the way through and paid everybody off, all the banks and everybody else, it wasn't any fun. But I tell you, I mean, I certainly learned my lesson about the risk of the industry. There are a lot of risk in this industry. One of the big ones is commodity, of course. And you should file a bunch of financial risk on top of it. Exactly. So some of the young people who haven't been through the experience that I have, they put too much debt on their companies. I would tell you, since that time for me, I haven't borrowed a dime. I couldn't borrow any money. And because I knew there's just lots of risk in the industry, but you're right. I mean, it's happening now that a lot of them are failing. Well, it's not failing. They fail back there, the banks. I mean, the big banks fail back, Continental Bank, Illinois, first bank, I mean, all the Texas banks, they all fail. And now because interest rates were out of sight and they just couldn't make it into loan portfolio, just got clobbered. So anyway, good point though, Tom. Well, I want to get you to talk a little bit more about what's going on from an environmental standpoint, but I know a couple of our students who are going to ask some questions have to want to press in that area. So I think what I suggest we do now is let me turn things back over to Arun and he can introduce our two graduate student questioners and then we're going to take some questions from the audience. But a lot of fun doing this with you and- Well, thanks, Tom. I appreciate you very much to do this. Arun, take it away. Thanks, Tom. Let me just remind the audience that if you have any questions you know, feel free to put that in the Q&A box and we will, you know, package your questions, look for patterns and ask Secretary Evans. So the next section is on the student section. So let me introduce you to Stanford students, Kemp Gregory and Jordan Conger. Kemp received his bachelor's in mechanical engineering at UT Austin, same as Secretary Evans, and he received that in 2012 and then worked for Shell for five years before joining Stanford for his master's in civil engineering. He is currently a co-founder of Renew Well, which uses oil wells for energy storage and brands itself by saying oil wells that ends well. Jordan is a MBA student at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, where he's currently an intern in Rubicon that uses software for smart waste and recycling. So over to you, Kemp and Jordan. Thank you, Arun. And first I'd like to thank Secretary Evans for joining us and for sharing your insight on the current state of the world and energy markets. We all appreciate your time and perspective. I'll start with a couple of questions and then pass it to Kemp. My first question, oil and other fossil fuel companies have been characterized or are seen as the enemy among many in the environmental community, which could prevent us from finding collaborative solutions rather than simply punitive. On the other hand, oil companies with their immense capital resources, infrastructure and expertise possess the capabilities to potentially be a major part of the solution if they had the desire to do so. What role, if any, do you think traditional energy companies should play in the transition to new clean energy sources? Well, good question, Jordan. They should play a major role in it and they already are playing a major role in it. I mean, some of it is marked by as you find more resources like natural gas that allows us to use natural gas as substitute for coal and that's certainly working well here in America. We need more to do, continue to knock more of the coal-fired plants off the grid. That will be helpful. So in that sense, I mean, they're already doing a lot, but on the technical side, they need to get innovative in carbon sequestration and CO2 flooding that they can do and CO2 just kick capturing. I've seen some big problems that are funded by oil and gas companies. You just say, how do we capture it out of thin air? CO2, so they have a major, major role to play. I think in the beginning of your comments about how the industry is viewed, I think that's what that we need to change. I'm one that, first of all, I went one thing traveling the world and working in government. I mean, I've seen the world and I've seen the energy poverty that is in the world and the people that are living in the dark and I just think that America has got a role to play in getting electricity to those parts of the world. And you got to work with the other countries and you got to work with others. But the idea that we're the enemy, let me tell you, I'm a guy that would tell you, I love wind and I love solar. So solar, I think, has got a lot of promise. Not that it doesn't have some environmental issues and they both have a whole lot of environmental issues. Wind in particular, I mean, the amount of land that it takes up, it's a tremendous amount of land. So it's got, so even though I love those renewables, I'm also pro-mathematics and pro-arithmetic and can add and see the number of people in this world are living without electricity. And looking at the forecast of people that do this living and study the global energy of demands that we're gonna face for the next 20, 30, 40 years. And the idea that fossil fuels is going away is, I met Jim Hansen, I got to know him well, but Jim Hansen, you may or may not know him, but he's a world-famous climate scientist. And he was the one that was one of those that presented the IPCC report to me in 2001. And he was talking about global warming and the challenges of it and the threat of it to our economy, not only here in the U.S. but at the world, but Hansen himself said, not too many years ago, that believing that renewables are gonna replace fossil fuels in this world anytime in the future is like believing in the fairy, in the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny. I mean, you look at the math and it just doesn't end up. And look, a lot of innovative things that are coming that may be helpful, but you got to look at them carefully. This was a complex world that we're in, complex problems. We've got energy problems, water problems, food problems, terrorism and war-proof problems, environmental problems of land and sea, poverty problems, which we all ought to care about and we all do care about in a big way. And so there's a lot of big, big, big issues to work on together in a thoughtful, respectful way and to characterize gas industry as an enemy. I just said somebody that doesn't understand the full picture. And so that's kind of my thoughts on it that yes, you should the industry do a lot, absolutely should do a lot. Is it doing a lot? Yeah, it is doing a lot right now. I can tell you that natural gas is done to improve the quality of the environment, this air environment here in the U.S. is remarkable already, but you know the atmosphere, we got one atmosphere, that's what we have. And the real problem that has to get to act and we've got to do it collectively and together is Southeast Asia and China. I mean, the numbers there are staggering. And then they're not shutting down coal-fired power plants. They're building them, they're adding to them. I mean, China thankfully is building 50 or, way to finish it up, 50 nuclear power plants. That helps. But you know, and if you really want a low carbon footprint, it's nuclear. It is where you find a low carbon footprint. I mean, first of all, no CO2. And second of all, the land footprint is very small. But those are the kind of things you have to think about and when for instance, which just make me think about these renewables over there, the wind power takes 10 times the land that solar does in terms of just space that it's taking up. Oh, you know, there are land issues. And how do we, you know, go after any problem? Well, you take the low-hanging fruit first. Okay, well, wind, that's what they're doing. And that's why they came to West Texas. We got a lot of land and we have wind. There are a lot of places in the country, the world. They don't want windmills. A lot of places in the world that it hadn't worked out well for. So these are all very, very complicated problems that we need to all come together on. And I can assure you that the industry it's got its heart in the right place in terms of, look, we're trying to do what's in the best interest of our shareholders, of course, and our owners. But for mankind, I mean, I think this is an opportunity for America to lead not just with its heart power, but with salt power. Thank you for that. I appreciate the answer. And your comments about China actually connect to my second question was, you have discussed at various points today how oil has played a central role in shaping the global political landscape for at least the past 40 or 50 years. How do you think the transition from oil to renewable sources will impact global power dynamics and foreign policy, particularly as it relates to our relationship with China? Well, that's another great question. And on the China front, as I see the kind of dialogue between the two countries today, I consider myself somewhat of a failure for my efforts. I mean, when I went to China in the early part of the last decade, I went over there and developed some good friendships and getting all the premiers and presidents and what have you and said, look, I'm not trying to tell you what to do. I'm going to tell you what's worked in America and try to establish a relationship of trust with the leadership over there, which I think I did while I was there. And I think it was primarily because I went West before I came back to the East after I said, look, I'm concerned about your poverty problems that you have in this country and your energy poverty problems that you have in this country. And so that earned me some good marks and I stayed close to some of them through the years that I got to visit with Xi Jinping, some in the late part of the last decade, early part of this decade, but the relationship's changing. And if you would ask me that question, Jordan, just a couple of three years ago, I said, boy, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could start exporting more of our natural gas to China and help them get more of their co-power power plants off of the grid, which we've got the gas now and we wanna help them get the co-powered off the grid in order to help out of the global atmosphere. The other thing that would help would be give China a little leverage against Russia. Back to my comments earlier in talking about geopolitics, remember that when I was in office, it was Russia that was concerned about a 12 times on border and worried about China coming over and weren't sure they wanted their pipeline to be anywhere close to the border and that's all changed in the last few years, it appears. It appears now that, in fact, I was reading the paper this morning that China and Russia are working together on a vaccine. China is getting their natural gas from Russia. So I don't know. I just don't know how it's gonna play now. I mean, I think that though China and India and Vietnam and Southeast Asia, those are the places that I wish we could take this global leadership that we didn't have. I'm gonna tell you five or six years ago with respect to our energy position, which now allows us to go sit down across the table from a Vladimir Putin or the minister of any country in the world that we were importing from with a different perspective. The way we talk to leaders all over the world now is different. And so, I don't know how it's gonna play out with China. Disappointed that there are relationships are deteriorating so fast, it seems to be, I don't know. Maybe I'm not reading it right, but that's certainly what the headlines seem to suggest. But if there's a way for us to help reduce their electricity generation on coal, I'm all in. And look, I'm gonna give them credit for building nuclear power plants. When I was chairman of Energy Future Holdings, back in the early part of the last decade, I worked with Hank Pete Paulson and we had a strategic economic dialogue with China. And that was going on, I think it was, year was 2000, maybe 10 and 11. I'm not sure the exact time of it. But anyway, we had a relationship with One Deen Power and one of the big power companies in China. And they would come to the US, they would come to Dallas and we would talk about best practices. And I would go to China and sit down with them and talk about the best practices there. One of the best practices that I liked they were doing is they were building six nuclear power plants side by side by side by side. And so I was hopeful that through all of that nuclear power plants they were building, they were figuring out ways to bring costs down because that's something that Sam Bobman and I really worked hard on. We tried hard to get the country, US, to move back toward nuclear power. And the one reason we did is we worked so hard on it because we saw the country was getting ready to run out in natural gas. And we were dead right. You know, there would have been another classic example of us having to import gas to run our power plants. So we need to have nuclear power in the mix. We were unsuccessful in that. But fortunately for America, we found this amazing amount of gas resources now that can fund gas power plants. But that's the one thing China's doing to help themselves. And lots of windmills, solar forums, all that. But still way too many coal power plants. Thanks for that. So we're gonna have one more question for me and then we'll move on to the open Q&A session. We've talked about a lot of things, covered a lot of ground, honestly knocked out a lot of questions before we had a chance to ask them, which is great. But I wanna turn the conversation about coal into Africa and other developing nations. For those parts of the world that have recently industrialized or expected to do so in coming decades, how might they leapfrog over coal as the main energy provider? And could doing so help alleviate energy poverty in places like Africa and India? Yeah, great, great questions. And that's why I said what I did earlier. I mean, we gotta work together on this. We ought to have a, look, let's all decide collectively that energy poverty is a big problem in this world. And let's decide collectively that the United States of America needs to lead the world. We particularly need to lead the world on these types of issues in my judgment. I mean, similar to what President Bush did while he was in office with PEPFAR was taking this country and saying, we've got an AIDS issue in Africa that needs to be dealt with. And America, we need to step up and go deal with it and go help them. And we did and we got behind it and would save tens of millions of lives because of that. It needs to be that same kind of spirit and that same kind of leadership coming out of our government. That's the only place it can come from. And we've got to say that we do care about you. We don't want you to have to live your life in the dark and not have a chance of education. I'll tell you one quick story about that. And I went, I'm from West Texas and spent most of my life here. I spent just about all my life in Texas. So when I became Secretary of Commerce it was really my first time to really travel much around the world. And I always looked at America as a compassionate nation, a compassionate country. Look, I understand all the foreign aid that we give the countries here and beyond. But I went to Morocco and I gave some remarks and based on my comments I got from Jim Wolfson back when I first arrived in office, I would often include in my remarks wherever I was. First, I always wherever I went in the world I always make sure I went to an area where people were hurting, they were hungry. They were living in the dark. They needed help, they needed a helping hand. And I wanted to at least be representative of that. And I'm talking to a group in Morocco and it was a big crowd. It was at night and I'm giving my remarks and I said, you know, as I look at the world that there's six billion people on the planet and three billion of them lived on less than a dollar a day that there's too much poverty and not enough hope. There's too much despair, not enough opportunity and too many parts of the world and it's our responsibility to do something about it. I believe that, I still believe. So that's the kind of attitude that I think you need to have as a leader of this nation which is the strongest, most powerful nation in the world. We've talked about it earlier. I think we can consume more electricity than anybody in the world. Interesting, I'll tell you about that real quick. We don't really, China's first. And then us, just to give you a touch of feel of the problems that are coming with respect to energy. It is China, US and then the tech sector. That's third in the world now in terms of consuming electricity and that's gonna do not anything but grow. So the challenges are really big. And so you gotta have leadership that takes the mantle of America's leadership. And say, we got energy poverty in the world and we got one billion people that will live in the dark. Now, how is the world, are we gonna come together and help? And there's a couple of great movies on that that are out there. Anybody, my difference got tinkered down at Bureau of Economic Geology. He's got a movie called Switch On, which is a great movie. And then Robert Bryce has got a movie out there also that focus on the challenges of electricity and delivering electricity to places like Africa and India. So people that are really interested in this topic ought to go to Robert Bryce's website and Scott Taker's website because they've done some wonderful work on this that really do give you a full feel of the challenge of the problem. That we can't sit here and say the oil and gas guys are bad and we gotta have a bunch of windmills and solar and we're gonna solve this problem in the next 15 years. That's just, that's believing in the tooth fairy and that doesn't help anything. So I just, I hope the country kind of can get educated to help big the problem is and how important it is for us to do something about it. Well, thank you, Jordan and Kemp for that was a student section and we have a few minutes left for the audience. And Secretary Evans, thank you for all your comments. I'm gonna packet some of the things that we are hearing from the audience into the first question. And then Sally and I will go back and forth with Lou a tag team with you. Let me take the first sentiment, so to speak and talk about US leadership in climate. We all acknowledge that there's a climate problem with the CO2 emissions. If you look at the numbers, the scientists are suggesting if you are to keep our temperatures below two degrees a global average temperature rise which is the Paris agreement. We have about 20 to 30 years left and we have to do something about it. And the question is, yes, we can do something internationally but you gotta get our house in order first. And so the question is, what do we do? And in terms of policy, and here you mentioned Secretary Schultz Secretary Schultz and Secretary Baker has suggested a revenue to carbon tax. Tom has been a big advocate for that. My question to you is, okay, so how do we get a revenue? First of all, do you agree with that? Secondly, how do we get that achieved in Washington DC? And then how do we use that as a lever to lead in the world? Let me say that I think it's a certainly a wise concept. Let me start here, the best way or the best ways to deliver conservation of something is to charge more for it, to put a higher price on it. So that thought, I'm for conservation and we'll do try a lot with technology and we're doing and we're doing some good but really if you wanna do something whether charge more for it. And so putting the carbon tax on it I think has got some merit. Now, you gotta think about it a little bit in this sense that if you put a tax on it, it's gonna cost more here. So what's the product? Is it a product that can be made in China or is it a product that can be made in India? And if it's a product that can be made in China and India and they can make it cheaper because they don't have to deal with the tax are they making that product in a country that is emitting a lot more CCO2 than we are? I mean, that's just something that I would have to think through, but I've said for 20 years and I said it when I was up there that I liked the idea of a tax because I thought conservation was important and I thought that if you charge more for it people will use less up for it and then you have to be careful though what you do with the money. You gotta be careful that the money is going where it should go and I can't tell you I got the answer to that but that's always kind of the problem is okay we're gonna do this and we're gonna generate some revenue for the government. Now, what are they gonna do with it? And maybe it's to solve the social security problem or Medicare problem, I don't know, but anyway but I think it's a good idea to think about can we achieve it? I don't know, I'm not that close to it, frankly. I mean, you got some great minds on it with George Schultz, James Baker and no others have joined that group. It's not a, it's been kicked around up there for a while and it's just, I went through the cap and trade but big battles. And when it comes to energy, there's just enough senators out there, enough congressmen out there to maybe a good idea, but they can figure out ways to block it. So I'm not the wizard on telling you how to use it but your last point of, we gotta figure out something and if that's it, I'm all for it because we gotta figure out something for China and India to get serious. And that may be it, and that may be it. I mean, maybe it's gotta get, gotta have, look, we're gonna do it but we're gonna show China and India that they've gotta do the same thing or something similar to it. Because we gotta lead, we gotta figure out a way to lead the world because of big, big problems. Yeah, we got problems here in the US and the 2%, the two degree is an issue. And there will be things that Congress will do that will try to make us more efficient here and use less fuel and hopefully that they're helpful in attacking that problem. But the other problems of the world are still out there and they're still massive. And so we gotta, what I really admire and I've always admired people like George Schulz and James A. Baker-Farre is just willing to step up and take a leadership role. And I'm glad they've done it on this one. Because we gotta figure out a way to bring the other countries along. You mentioned the Accord of America is the only one I was told this last week. We're the only one that has met our cap on utility side. Nobody's done it on the transportation side. But we're the only ones that have done it on the utility side. So we'll see. Great, thank you, thank you, Secretary Evans. Let me hand it over to Sally. Okay, well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. So question from the audience. So should the U.S. industry be concerned about the EU's border tax, border carbon tax, imposing a levy on U.S. products if the U.S. does not expedite its decarbonization? No, I don't know if they ought to be concerned about it. It sounds like trade policy taken over and it's hard to answer that without being involved in all the discussions. I mean, certainly if you're making a product, you want to be able to, you don't want to have tariffs slapped on it if you're moving it to another country. So would it cause them some concern? I'm sure it does at some level, but I'm just not close enough to that market right now to help you a whole lot. I mean, it doesn't mean it's a product. I tell you what I saw when I was in good government. We'd slap a tariff on a country and we'd shut off that product coming in from that country, but they would ship it to some other country and that country would do a little something to it and then ship it into America without a tariff. So, you know, there's all kinds of games that get played out there and that particular one sounds like I can't help you that much with that. I was always a free market guy and, you know, avoid two tariffs that all cost but sometimes you just are not able to. I mean, the laws are on the books and you have to enforce the laws and that's certainly what I ran into. I slapped them tariffs on some products that I didn't want to slap on there, but the laws were on the books and we went through the process and those that wanted the tariffs on, they won. Okay, thank you. Well, back to your room. Sure. So let me ask the question on the electricity grid. We are facing, as COVID-19 has shown, the value of the electricity grid is quite significant and yet, at least in the United States, there's a lot of upgrading that is needed, especially with the weather extremes that you're gonna, likely the heat waves, the grid will be stressed. And, you know, with the oil and gas kind of down right now, the electricity, the value of electricity is going up. And we heard a few weeks back from Chad Holliday, the chairman of Shell, looking at the electrical power sector as something quite favorably for an oil and gas company. So my question to you is, should the oil and gas sector as a broader energy entity, be looking at the electricity sector for investments, for acquisitions, for kind of as a business strategy in the future? Well, it's the biggest industry in the world. I don't think there's anything more important in as an industry than electricity in the world. It connects us all around the world. The electric industry in the United States of America is pretty complicated. We got all kinds of different regions that have rules in place and we've got states that are deregulated and they're unregulated in other parts of the business. You know, look, I think that if I'm not aware of any big major companies that are looking to electricity right now, but if there is an opportunity for them to go in and bring some of the expertise that they've learned from their energy side of the equation, that being the only gas, so bad. I don't know, I mean, I wouldn't be opposed to that. I would say, you know, this, you know, one thing that I did learn in when I was the chairman of the AFH is, I do think, you know, I like a, there needs to be some regulations around it because it's just too important commodity to get delivered to homes, to not have some regulations around it, quite frankly. And so I think as a utility, I think there is some kind of government involvement that's required and I know, I mean, look, let me tell you the big thing about electricity in the world and back to Africa and India and those areas. The thing you gotta have is you gotta have integrity in the system and so if they're oil and gas companies that can take control of electric power delivery and places the world where they can bring integrity to it and that's a huge winner. But when you go into the world and you look into what we call energy poverty, which means they don't have any electricity and with electricity they do have, you find out there's tremendous corruption and that's a big challenge. When you go into Africa or any other part of the world that's struggling with electricity. But you know, look, I think the energy is energy and having a broad understanding of it is a smart thing and I think having a broad investment in it can be a smart thing. Certainly in terms of climate change, energy is gonna be one of the keys because it's electricity is gonna be one of the keys because how do you generate electricity? And people think we're gonna be doing a lot of it with solar and wind, yeah, I think we will, but we're also gonna be doing a whole lot with it of coal and natural gas and I hope we find more nuclear. Sally, over to you, thank you. Okay, next question from the audience. If the US has a hundred years of natural gas reserves, should we perhaps take a longer term perspective and try to make it last a thousand years instead? Again, I'm not sure I'm gonna worry about that one a whole lot, but anyway, look, I've seen that happen in my career from time to time in Canada, for instance, back in the 80s, all of a sudden it looked like their reserve life was down to eight or nine years and Canada started passing policy legislation up there. They would not export into the US because they wanted to protect the reserves for their own country and that lasted a while. I'm not sure when it was taken off because they certainly do export a lot in the US now, but a thousand years, that's looking out there a little farther than I'm capable of looking at. I mean, look, the energy industry is in transition. It always has been. It always will be. We're going through one now and we're gonna have some more major transitions to work our way through in the next 40 or 50 years and then maybe the next 80 or 90 years, a thousand years. I'm just not too worried about it. Well, thank you for that and I run back to you. Thanks, there's another, Secretary Evans, there's another question from the audience on electric vehicles. Just to give you a little context, the battery cost has come down by, you know, factor five over the last 10 years. In the next couple of years, it is anticipated that the battery cost will be down to the point that electric vehicles will be cost and range competitive compared to gasoline cars. And you give it another 20 years, you know, you'll get cheaper and it'll get better. And we are now seeing the car companies like GM and the big three saying that they'll be electric companies. The biggest car company right now is Tesla. The stock price has gone up, you know, just dramatically over the last, you know, just during the COVID-19. So given all of that, this is a tectonic shift in the transportation sector. The question is the implication on oil. And do you expect to see a peak oil demand, peak demand in oil? And if so, when do you think it's gonna happen? And what are the implications of the oil industry? Yeah, let me touch both of those, Erin, you don't mind. First of all, electric cars, I think it's great. I think it's wonderful. I'm delighted that we're making headway there and I'm delighted we're making headway on the batteries. And I also think that we'll continue to make ever more headway. However, at the moment when I look at cars, electric cars, I hear some people say we're gonna have half the cars in the world by 2040 are gonna be, that would be 600 million cars. There's 1.2 billion now in cars today. And I realize this can get better. But in cars today, there's 5,000 batteries. So 600 million cars, 5,000 batteries it was today, that'd be 3 trillion batteries. And so when I start thinking about the batteries, the making of the batteries and the lithium and all the rare earth minerals that go into making these exotic cars and batteries and the like, I think China is an interesting observation as they are going around the world, getting in control of more and more and more of the rare earth minerals. I had somebody show me about six months ago, they were showing me the expected growth in lithium in the world. And what does the US have? Right now, not much. Not much, there's a little bit we're aware of. There's some in Canada, there's a little bit aware of but most of it's not in the US. But there's lots of other rare earth minerals that go into a lot of these exotic new types of energy that we're driving and especially in batteries. We'll have to see that. The answer to your question, yes, I believe in peak demand of oil. I believe that it's at least 20 years out there. As I look at a lot of the research data that people continue to grind away on and look at a growing global economy and look at it going from seven billion people to nine billion people and try and factor all of that in and bring on as much wind and solar as we can as fast as we can and as fast as countries will allow it and neighborhoods will allow it. And I think we're gonna see big growth in energy demand between now and 2040. And I think that the gas and oil demand will be still about the same as it is today. What I've seen that feels kind of good to me is getting oil demand up to 110 or 115 million barrels a day and flattening out there. And then who knows what 20 or 30 years from now. But all of the serious people looking at this is trying to forecast this really rapid growth of global solar and wind and other renewables and not getting nuclear into the mix, which I think is a big mistake. I just think we're gonna need the gas in the oil for at least out to 20 years. But it will flatten out. And Erin, look, I would say to you this, I think the ingenuity and the like, oil demand is probably gonna peak maybe sooner than a lot of people think. Thank you. We'll have one more question from Sally and then we'll bring this dialogue to closure. Okay. Well, thank you. So you rightly point out that the availability of low cost natural gas has had a major impact on the reduction of power generation from coal and the consequences for CO2 emissions have been really significant. In fact, the US peaked total emissions in 2007. And as you noted, we're down to levels in the late 80s. However, there's a big concern about methane emissions, fugitive emissions from methane. And the specific question from the audience is that, what do you think about the rollback on methane emissions? And what should we be doing about this important issue that can take away some of the benefits that natural gas? Yeah, no, we need to get control of it. We shouldn't have the emissions. They need to figure it out. It's a tough problem. I don't wanna be flipping about it. It's not a problem. What it is, it's an issue at some level. But having said that, I think we need to get a control of it. I'm one that we ought to be working as aggressively as we know how to eliminate methane emissions. And I'm just against it. So again, I'm not in the industry right now. So I'm not that close to it, but I'm close enough to it to know that we gotta work really hard on eliminating it, reducing it dramatically. I'm close enough to it to tell you that that thinking is being pursued, that policy, that attitude is actively being pursued. I think we'll see methane emissions come down, rather dramatically, have been coming down already. Of course, it's come down a lot in 2019. But I think you'll see them come down dramatically in the months and years ahead. Important goal for the industry to have no question about it. Okay, well, thank you and I'll bring it back to you. Great, Secretary Evans, thank you so much for joining us today. And as a former employee of Department of Energy, thank you so much for mentioning Secretary Bodman, who was in a very influential and the whole energy enterprise. And Tom, thank you for making all of this happen. And thanks to Jordan and Kemp for joining us today. And to all of you joining us from around the world, we hope you found today's Global Energy Dialogue informative and relevant during these unprecedented times. Please join us two weeks from now for a conversation with two exceptional individuals who are leading two most exciting clean energy companies based in China and India. Lei Zhang is the founder and CEO of Envision Group and Suman Sinha is the chairman and managing director of Renew Power in India. And we will discuss the impact of China and India on the global energy transition. Again, please register on our website, gef.standford.edu, and note the date and time. September 1st, 7.30 to 9 a.m. California time, not 8.30 to 10, 7.30 to 9 a.m. California time. We will now conclude our broadcast of today's program. On behalf of the entire Stanford Precord Institute for Energy, we thank you all for joining us and we'll see you next time. Thank you.