 Our next session is actually for separate 10-minute talks illustrating four different perspectives on carbon to value. Our first speaker is Ganesh Deswari, who is a senior technical advisor from ExxonMobil. Ganesh, over to you. Okay. Thank you so much. Thanks for inviting and thanks for introducing me, Sarah. So the title of my presentation is going to be on the CO2 value, and then I would like all of us to think about the role of geologic carbon sequestration in the CO2 value chain. In fact, we have been talking about various technologies, some are evolving, and then there will be rapid changes. But with all those technologies in the mix, we think that there is a role for geologic carbon sequestration, so that's what I would like to share a few thoughts. Before we jump into this one, so let's look at where we are on the CO2 value in the global situation. So this is a graphic from one of the IEA reports was in 2019. The report, the title is like putting CO2 use and creating value from emissions. This is a report that looked at how to make value out of the CO2. And one of the graphics from that report essentially puts the global CO2 use as of 2019 in perspective. What you can see here is obviously CO2 is used to make valuable products. And the biggest one is the urea used in medical as well as in the biggest one is obviously in the agriculture sector. And then oil and gas, mostly for the UR. And then there are other uses, whether it's in the beverages or to making some foods or in some manufacturing, and then obviously making fuels as well. So, but that fraction as of today that's very small. If you want to think these numbers in terms of the million tons of CO2 per year. 2020 as a base case so that's about 250 million tons per year. This is the global usage. So at this time, obviously this is small so as you heard from the talks from the other people so these will have to scale up if you want to make use of CO2 for these valuable products. So things have been also mentioned. This will come across I guess in the other topics as well is some of this usage, it sounds like being used, but it may not be permanent. So for example, if you take the CO2 use for UDM that may not be permanent. Although we use it for something valuable but we haven't really taken the CO2 out of the atmosphere. So, given this context, so what could, what's coming next. Clearly, there are multiple paths for making value or a CO2 in future so this is where the technologies play a huge role. We do believe that the technologies that convert CO2 into valuable and products would be helpful, not only making products but also in terms of mitigating the global climate changes. So, if you want to think about what are all the various pathways and so one is obviously the fuels and the organic chemicals so you can take CO2 and then make some fuels out of it. Whether it's various forms of synthesis will help make those fluids and CO2 could be also used as a working fluid to recover more energy out of the subsurface. And the oil and gas are in the geothermal world. Also CO2 could be used to make some inorganic materials whether they are carbonate aggregates or other building materials and CO2 can also be used to make more food or again more bio crude oil type of more energy sources. So all these things are evolving and as we speak, and then so there's a lot more attention on, especially on the fuel side as well as in the organic material side. So one of the things challenges I think as highlighted by also the previous speakers here is in the converting CO2 to these valuable products need some energy. And then whether we have removed CO2 net depends on whether what type of energy has been used to make those products. If that energy comes from the renewables obviously that would have a positive impact on the global climate goals but if that is not the case then we made the product but we haven't removed the CO2. The other one here is in the whole aspect is the scale. Though we could convert CO2 to these products but the scale has to increase substantially to have a meaningful effect. So this is something that's again looked by IEA into the same report that I mentioned before. So the left hand graphics from this report essentially looks at several scenarios so what I'm showing you is one particular scenario. What you're looking at is on the y-axis the gigatons per year CO2 that's mitigated and the next axis with the time. So as you can see based on these IEA analysis that the geological storage has a pretty big scale that could be achieved using what is currently available. And then in the same report IEA looked at what could be done to make products out of CO2 and then the bottom line shows that use magnitudes. So those are at this time obviously appear very small. And then the report acknowledges that there are many technological changes coming up and then essentially there's a huge potential to move this bottom line up and then obviously how much it depends on the breakthrough in the technologies and the costs associated with it. But the point I would like to make here is yes that's evolving very fast. That's great. So we could use CO2 for useful products and then at the same time remove CO2 from the atmosphere. But I think even in that context, I think there is a role for CO2 storage in this value chain. So a couple of things that I probably want to highlight on the where the geological storage will have some advantage is the first thing here is, most of you know that the geological storage can be done in a depleted oil and gas reservoirs. So essentially that's taking advantage of that resources that's available. So geologic storage can be done in what we call the ceiling formations. So you don't really need to have a well defined what we call the geological structure. So as long as a formation to inject and then there is a seal to contain the CO2 those formations can also be suitable for CO2 injection. The reason I'm mentioning that here is finding a depleted oil and gas field on every source that's CO2 source that's there may be challenging because these reservoirs may not be present in the near vicinity. But the fact that CO2 could be stored in the ceiling formation obviously increases the chance of finding a suitable storage place and so that's what is essentially makes the geological storage a good candidate for the CO2 value chain. So, thinking about how does the geological storage fit into the overall the CO2 value chain. So if you focus on the left hand side graphic. So, there are some polymers can be done so we talked about fuels can be done and then there is this geological carbon sequestration. So I think what is attractive about this geological sequestration here is this technology is more or less ready. And then the scale is there so you can mitigate lots of CO2 for a single well, and then with multiple well so you can achieve a lot more, a lot of CO2. And then the relative cost and so given these things I think we should be thinking about the role of the CO2 geological sequestration in the CO2 value chain. I think I'll stop there and then take any questions during the discussion time. Thank you, Ganesh. That was excellent. Our next speaker is Philip LeBelen, the CCUS R&D program manager from Tatal. Philip. Okay, so it's lovely to be here. Thanks very much for the invitation to talk. So, we've had a very, heard a very compelling talk from a friend from Exxon about geological storage and I think I'd have to agree with him. I'm going to try and make the case for the reuse, the reuse of CO2 and notably by electrical conversion. So let's start so I can move down a slide. So, let's start with a Venn diagram. Everyone likes Venn diagrams and I think if you're looking at many cases of chemicals to value we're looking at the cost of making these chemicals and how much we can sell, how much we can use. And we have this sort of intersect and this maybe gives some sort of idea of a business case. I think there's several things we have to think about and I've got what I want to do is present some of the questions that we can have in terms of R&D. And the first is how much energy we're going to put in to get how much chemical energy and we want to be up here in this sort of graph. Okay, if we're going to use our power at some point is an energy vector. So if you're looking at the sort of, we have a we have a product and we want to sell this product we want to have the highest price of product for the least amount of energy we're putting into this project whether this be electrical for the vitec or whatever heat and whatever in terms of steam. So these are the first sort of diagrams we want to we want to think about. At CO2 we actually have this third component here in terms of cost, tonnage and then how much CO2 we're going to incorporate into our system. And this we have to bear in mind and we have to think about these intersections at some point. So if you start with cost, cost is linked to the energy type that we're going to put in whether we're going to be using renewable energies, are we going to be using waste heat. Because the renewable energies can be things like of course PV, wind energy, things like this, waste heat can be of course process heat, process steam. But we could also think of things of the waste heat, there's a lot of waste heat from the nuclear sector for example we can maybe use this in terms of in terms of energy. So what we have to think about we'll come back to this is the variation in energy price by continent, by country, but also with time. And then what sort of energy we're going to use, what sort of pathway are we going to use to convert our CO2 into something is it going to be a thermal pathway with whatever waste heat we have. Is it going to be electrolytic, electro reduction for example using renewable energies. The idea of energy price is sort of things that we can look at going from 2030 2020 2030 to 2050 in this store and go project that they looked at different types of energy so that there's PV, wind energy or grid energy in the in the formation of making synthetic natural gas for 100 megawatt plant for example, and we can see that the decrease of the proposed decrease in price with time. So at 2050 the energy price and the production cost of our synthetic natural gas at 2050 will not change too much but you can see the variation of grid energy prices will not decrease by too much whereas that of PV will. So the cost of this energy and the cost of the energy with time are two two factors that are quite important. So that is tonnage tonnage is going to be related very much to market, we have to think about the current market for certain certain products. We have to know idea what the have an idea what the future market would be. We then can think about okay the carbon that we were going to be using is that it is going to be bio sourced carbon. Or, and the other thing is that is our carbon based products, in terms of energy value for example, with respect to things which are completely green so for example hydrogen and ammonia. So to give you an idea of this, this is, this is basically the p2x efficiency in terms of CO2 equivalent for different scenarios. And we can see that in this work by Andre Bardo that he picked out three areas in which the sector coupling is better than just storing electrical energy. So we can see here in orange we have heat pumps in yellow here we have for battery electric vehicles, which we can I think we can understand and we've already seen the idea of using heat pumps in the future I think that's a very good point. However, here in green what Andre has put is is formic acid. The question you can ask yourself is, is what is the future market going to be for formic acid. So, maybe we have good efficiency here but do we have the market for that for the whatever we're going to produce. And I think that's a sort of another thing that we have to, or another level that we have to put into this sort of this sort of ground. So then we have this incorporated CO2. What are the current products, what are the future opportunities. The products we have here on the left hand side, we can use CO2 using and renewable energy here so electrolytic pathway to form carbon monoxide. We can form a C2 products, C3 products. So ethylene, propylene. Of course we see a lot of work on the minerals. And again coming back to how much CO2 do we put in per weight of mineral is actually not huge. And what is the market there. We can think about CO2 into polymers, we can think about CO2 polymers, things like polycarbonates for example, but we can also think that if we are going to recover things like ethylene and propylene maybe these can go into sustainable polymers, polypropylene, polyethylene for example. And of course there's a lot of work having CO2 value in terms of fuels and e-fuels. Just to give you an idea why should we be using electrical energy to form our products rather than having electrical energy in terms of batteries. Why electrical conversion gives us this sort of idea. Battery technologies that we have today will not be solutions for monthly or seasonal energy. So we can see here power versus weight. The energy that's coming out is seconds to weeks here. And sometimes we'll have energy demands which will change over seasonal variations. Another way to look at this, this is quite well known, another well known diagram, is the time scale in which the energy can be stored and the amount of energy that can be produced. And of course we down here we have these supercapacitors, high power supercapacitors, flywheels down here on the left hand side so which lasts for minutes and give us a limited amount of power. Batteries that we have at the moment, let's move up a little bit. But we have to see that we're going to, if you want to move to hydrogen in terms of fuel cells, hydrogen itself or even methane power to gas. So the power up to the terawatt hour level, and the, and of course these gases or gas liquid state can be, can be stored for months or even to a year. So of course the idea is what is the best source of energy to convert our CO2, is it heat, is it hydrogen, or is this the electrons that we form here. And of course the question is all around integration and intimacy. Another way we can think about this we can have for example our green hydrogen here is a compressed hydrogen. And look at for example energy density and specific energy per weight for example, and we can use this hydrogen with CO2 that we've converted a lecture with fire lecture lecture to carbon monoxide to form methanol. And we can bring up from here from hydrogen in terms of energy to methanol here. And then we can use this methanol as a just as a platform molecule and upgrade this methanol to something to something like diesel or petrol or other type of fuel in which we much have a much higher specific energy value with respect to energy density. So here we go. And then think about what these intersections means the intersection between the amount of CO2 that we incorporate into a product and the amount of product that we produce gives us an idea of the environment environment and impact of our technology. If we look at the tonnage versus cost is very much the margins that we have here. So we can sort of the cost of actually making our material and the amount of CO2 incorporated at some point they made that we can think about regulations, and maybe we could argue that this intersection here will will come out in terms of in terms of regulation. Of course the central part here is basically for any company is the business case. Finally, just to round off to talk about electrification. I really think that electrification is a way forward in terms of processes. We can see here in one of the IEA reports. As we move up to the one from 2020, as we move up to 2070, the use of electrification in the industry is seen to increase massively. And the role of companies such as Exxon such as ourselves is to find out where to best use this electrification in industry itself, whether it be processing the process electrification or electrification to make use to products. Thank you very much for your attention. Great. Thank you, Phillip. Our next speaker is David Parker, the manager of BioDemain and new energy from Research and Technology at Shell. Okay, so I'm going to focus much more on the biological roots for carbon value. We had some great talks earlier today already introducing some of the biomass roots and I'm just going to give a high level view of where Shell sees this. We first start with the disclaimer. There'll be a quiz on this at the end. But essentially what this says is, you know, this talk will present forward looking statements and so please don't make any investment decisions based on what I say. It's probably a good blanket statement for me. So where the Shell sit with with our climate target. I think many people would have seen this already. We presented this at many levels. Shell's ambition is to be in a zero energy business by 2050. This includes our scope one and two emissions, but also our scope three emissions, which of course is the the largest share of where our emissions are coming from. So it's all one good mechanism pledges, but how are we going to get there. And so our scenario team have come up with examples how to do this when they present this one. There are there are obvious levels we can pull such as operational efficiencies. These things with designing of current and upgrading of existing assets natural gas I think has already been mentioned today as that as the shift particularly away from coal but also as that backbone for for intimacy. Our low carbon business, which was launched a couple of years ago will be a large part of that and again electricity has been featured heavily today. And then CCS as well, which is what we talked about. I'm going to focus on these two buckets of low carbon fuels and natural things. And so here we look at producing eight times more low carbon fuels than we do today. And remember, we already produce a significant amount of low carbon fuels through our highs in joint venture in Brazil. So this is a significant up, uping in the amount of fuels will make. But in addition, the natural things for the name of 120 million tons per annum of HB solutions of high quality offsets for the heart of eight segments. And the reason I want to talk about both of these is there's a lot of interlink between these two areas. And so looking at them in isolation, I think doesn't do them justice. And we've already heard about, you know, the benefits of co benefits of some of these processes. So why do we care about biomass anyway, how in general, well, if you look at the main cost of the payment. Plants and terrestrial plants are one of the most cost effective ways of capturing CO2 but also of hydrogen water spacing and hydrogen utilization. Photosynthesis fundamentally is a direct air capture device is the original air capture device. And it is very efficient at what it's doing, even with low efficiency of light conversion, the scale and infrastructure exists. We already use biomass in our everyday life for food and for other things. And those costs are anything between and these are high level numbers between $30 to $150 per ton of CO2 equivalent. That includes the biofield production and use and then the indirect land use. If we look at nature resolutions, the number and again is at the high level because it covers a huge area, but you're looking at anything from $7 to $20 per ton of CO2 equivalent. If you look on the product side from biology, we get products that we can use either directly like ethanol which is blended in the fuels, but also that to gas and then lipids are products that are naturally produced. And these could either be substitutions in the future or could be upgraded catalytically to be direct intermediate for for existing products. And I think we all agree and I think we've heard quite a few times today. Nature based solutions are going to be a critical component of the overall global effort to achieve the Paris agreement. They're also cost effective today. So how do we see the biofield? We think it's going to take an increasingly important role in the 21st century. If CO2 is intermediate, these systems are efficient at capturing that CO2 from from air. And there's a lot of utilizations whether that be biomass directly as we've heard from Bex, which is coupled with CCS off the back of a biofuel facility or future bio production manufacturing plants. If you look at things like renewable natural gas, particularly when we are looking at biomethane from agricultural sectors and we've seen that a lot of our methane I know this is carbon workshop but methane from agriculture is a large emitter and so being able to capture that methane and burn it and release the CO2 has an important effect. And again, it's a technology that we can leverage today. And of course in California that is leveraged today. That biomass, whether it go into energy or biochemicals. He could also go into biomass for soil and ecosystem services in the niche based offsets to allow time for technologies to mature for those hard to obey sectors, such as such as aviation. So you can see, and I think we will all agree on this. There isn't a single solution to this. This is in combination with other technologies like electrification like hydrogen CCS to be to be included. But this is a level that can be called technologically in the shorter term but also in today's world and in many cases economically. So, how do we look at value rise in this or we look at ensuring that we don't do any of this in isolation there are lots of co benefits a lot of the new fuel. The gasification routes will produce things like biochar those biochar could in theory go into a nature based solution soil offsets. Same out of renewal and natural gas there are byproducts that could be utilized in other industries. The work that we do for chemicals on new fields and it's a solution can be hand in hand, but also keeping a very strong view on the long range research, what we call long range research and that's where these these initiatives essentially are critical in helping us unlock the future of what is possible, going forward into that 2030 2040 and 2050 timeline. And I will end there. Great. Thank you David, our final speaker in this session is Damian Gerard who leaves leaves the carbon capture and storage business unit at slumber shame new energy. Very good day everyone and thank you Stanford University for having me today. It's a pleasure. It's a bit difficult to come last in the panel and to talk about the topic of CCS so it begs the question is to what to cover it hasn't been talked about yet. So what I thought I will do is to provide quite a different perspective on CCS coming from the business line, and actually proposing some of the approaches that we have chosen in slumber J to tackle CCS and to try to develop it at scale. A quick word about slumber J and our approach on energy transition. A lot has been said about electrification about, you know, new energy carriers and in response to that this watch slumber J has come up with over the past couple of years, developing new energy businesses along the energy transition in the space of geothermal to complement renewables, but also new energy carriers in the form of hydrogen with the creation of Genvia and Neolithic lithium production company in the US. Of course also trying to address the heating and cooling of building with our geo energy solution in the form of Celsius energy. Specifically about CCS today. A lot has been talked about as I said, but what I will provide is a perspective on how we view the markets being a technology company and not having CO2 ourselves in our operation and footprint. So how can we help deploy technologies and get to the market. I've shown here three examples of approaches that that we are adopting currently as we speak, run around identifying key technologies and breakthrough technologies that allow us to do things differently going forward. And I will say a word or two on our project in California or bioenergy with CCS plans in Mendoza that you design once and replicate many times. A second approach around CCS hubs, and a lot has been talked about in Europe in the US. I will also provide a bit of perspective on that. And finally around strategic partnership. And most specifically about what we're doing, for example, with my father whole same a large cement manufacturer. Now the first approach around large scale projects with differentiate technology. Some of you might have heard the, the speak on the energy dialogue a few weeks ago. With Ashok Bellani and Bruce Niemeyer talking about project Mendoza. This is a project that we started working on close to two years ago now. And that really aims at taking agricultural biomass in the central valley of California that will otherwise be burned on fields after the end of its useful time. And we also provided biomass together with oxygen that we provide from an air separation unit to go into a specifically designed oxy fuel combustion block. Now this is just one example of a value chain that we have adopted for agricultural biomass into power and CO2 that will be re-inject underground locally. We have chosen the post combustion or others, but here we have specifically chosen to adopt a new technology in oxy fuel, testing that technology at large scale with the hope to be able to replicate this many times. We've been showing us some numbers around the cost of back and the cost of backs by 2050 between hundred and $200. We will hope that this first of a kind plans is already within that that cost range today of $100 to $200. And that that cost will obviously decrease as we move forward into the ends of the kind plan. The plan will, you know, generate around 350,000 tons of CO2 that will store locally. And the reason why it works in California and no other place because of the low carbon fuel standard. The policy is in place and therefore the electricity that we provide, and we sell will go into the fuels value chain, the likes of Tesla or charge point or other, we can use this electricity. And in essence, the more you drive your electric vehicle, the more carbon you put on the ground and the more carbon you move from the air. It's what I call an indirect capture by using and leveraging biomass in what is best to get access to carbon. And of course the objective for us is to do many of those and to replicate it many times. So this is what we have in the plan for the next few years. There are plenty of biomass plants being idle across the state of California, that can be retrofitted today. And this concept can be also extended to many other use case for example the millions of dead trees that sit around the state of California and each year, get burned in and control fires. This could be actually a solution not only to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, but also to control local pollution from, from burning biomass. CCS hubs are obviously a way to go to decrease overall unit cost for all the actors in the chain. We've seen recently huge announcement around the development of hubs in Europe around the North Sea Rim, whether it is in the UK, Norway, or Holland. Most of the CO2 in Europe is likely to go back to where it come from in the North Sea, how to carbon depleted oil and gas fields, but also in dedicated storage location over there. Because in Europe, it works very much by bilateral agreements between governments and the industry governments but in place gigantic subsidies and the billions of dollars to allow common infrastructure to be built and being used for the common good. They call it the CO2 drainage corridors that will be developing many parts of Europe, and we are helping as well in developing those storage locations in the North Sea. The same is very much happening in the US, several hubs being developed, for example, in the Gulf of Mexico, in the Midwest, and also a few surging across California. And this will also allow to reduce costs for all emitters involved, but will also require new partnership, new companies coming together to be able to put all these elements together that these are companies that haven't had a history of working together before. It will include transport companies, companies that can help in disposing of CO2 on the ground, and of course the owners of the CO2 streams. The third aspect of developing CCS at scale is achieved by development of strategic partnership. Those partnerships, and this is an example here of what we're doing with Lafarge-Holstein, that owns around 120 different cement plants around the world. It's just a snapshot here in the United States. And these kind of partnership are very useful to give us access to a very large number of very similar assets in one specific industry. And what we can do together is then working across the full chain of CCS. It's very difficult to find any one company being able to address all the different technical and commercial realities of doing CCS. The capture site is very different in nature from geological storage, and as such working collaboration, we can have a systemic view of what CCS is and how it happens. For example, here Lafarge is covering aspect on the capture site of cement companies using new technologies around oxy-fuel, for example. And we can cover the carbon storage aspect and having thereby a full site on the overall cost of doing CCS. This, I think, is what will need to happen more going forward. These kind of partnership, and we have other partnership in other sectors including blue gases and steel being created as we speak, that allow us to identify the best assets in a portfolio of assets to implement CCS and to start with those creating a blueprint around the technicalities and the business model to do this, and then being able to replicate it across a portfolio. And doing these kind of partnership also allow the removal of what we call transaction costs, which will exist inherently in CCS chain from the capture to the transport to the storage and all the different components that will erode value across the chain. So partnering on these kind of projects allow us to have a very aligned objective in what we're trying to do, and also prioritize the assets from a full CCS perspective as opposed to just looking at the assets with the best capture opportunities or the best storage will look holistically at how to develop those programs. Now, I will finish with a couple of thoughts on market mechanism and policies. As we know CCS in itself is not a business. It's a mitigation strategy. So the question is how do we make it attractive and how do we get investment flowing to CCS at very large scale. There are just a few policies in place either driven by carbon carbon price policies like the EU ETS or the 45 Q in the US, and for the foreseeable foreseeable future, it will continue to be the case to rely essentially on policies. But going forward what we need to have a market mechanism. So if we draw some analogy on solar renewable power today when you want or a company wants to buy renewable power, you can sign a PPA with a solar faker and buy the power from the plant. But in reality the electron that comes into your house or that comes into your plans. It's not really the electron that is produced by that specific solar plan with which you have a contract. It's just an electron that is in the grid and you have a dissociation between the electron itself the physical electron and its environmental attributes. You could apply the same analogy for CCS for example, allowing you to decarbonize one plant in your portfolio of assets where CCS will make more sense where you have direct access to good geology where the plant is well designed for you to be able to retrofit it with CCS. As opposed to identifying a plant that sits somewhere close to a consuming market and I see Sarah coming up so I will finish quickly my slide. So that you can decarbonize a plant whether industrial plant and sell your product onto the market and dissociating actually the physical product from its environment and attribute the same ways we do in power plant and that will provide a signal to the industry to be able to invest in those kind of products. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much Damian. I would now like to invite our four carbon to value presenters, as well as our panel facilitator Rob Jackson for a short panel discussion on the topic of carbon to value. After about 10 minutes will bring in the rest of this morning speakers for further discussion. So Rob. And we'll all, all panelists please turn your cameras on and. Yeah, I'd like to thank, thank Ganesh, Philip, David and Damian for your talks really interesting and exciting technologies. Given, given that our workshop topic is carbon removal. How do you categorize your products based on their lifetimes. So which products keep carbon from returning to the atmosphere over many decades to realize carbon removal and how large are those market potentials. I mean, if we, if we talk about the sequestration obviously this is a permanent removal so there is a that hopefully permanent means permanent. So that's how you remove the CO2 for a very, very long time so obviously, if you are making some products then we need to think about them. What's the life cycle analysis of those products so that as you mentioned so that depends on what product that we're talking about some products obviously have shorter duration and then some have a very long duration. So that's part of the analysis that we need to do as we think about the decolonization. Yeah, I think we can think of different types of products. So if I'm going to sort of look on the, on the future to value in terms of products using electrification and whatever. You can think of products at different levels you can we can think of in terms of CO2 removal I think is one thing but we're still going to need. I think one of the things I tried to put forward we're still going to need carbon based energies, things like the aviation sector. So is it really is it's not a CO2 removal technology as such but we are still going to need some products for for some sectors. So of course if you're looking at e-fuels then the product lifetime or the CO2 removal lifetime is actually quite small. However, if we then think in terms of polymers and if we can have CO2 sustainable polymers, then the US market for things like polyethylene. And my head is around 100 billion US dollars in 2019. So that's where the market could go. And so, you know, quite large markets still for things like polymers and if these can be sustainable polymers. I think that's a good thing and then of course CO2 within a polymer has a has actually quite a long lifetime. Unless of course we burn it and of course, if we do get the CO2 into polymer, some polymers can be recycled. I mean, in review that really if the purpose of this exercise and spending billions of dollars to capture CO2 is for climate change purposes then the carbon sequestration is really the only large scale solution to permanently remove those particles from the atmosphere. The other one that I can think of is carbon mineralization, which is actually transforming CO2 into some sort of calcium carbonate or other aggregates that can also be useful products and that will as well permanently sequester CO2 into another form. So, you know, in those kinds of value chain, this is where you can lock CO2, remove it from the atmosphere for good, and yet producing some value out of it. The rest, whether it's fuels or other products in food and beverage is just a delay of when this CO2 will ultimately be released in the year but I can see the value of a more circular economy, where you can produce fuel for the hard to produce sectors in aviation and other parts that they wouldn't otherwise be decarbonized. Yeah, I think I can add to that that, you know, initially we have to stop emitting more CO2, right, so things like biofuels and synthetic fuels, whether it be through electrolysis or others are going to be important in just not adding to it, but also in those byproducts, you know, particularly if it's a child or something like that, there are these opportunities in the nature based solutions, which, which could help in some of the subsoil type sequestrations. But also again, look at other greenhouse gases, right, so I mentioned in renewable natural gas, you know, avoiding methane emissions, particularly large methane emissions from a culture sector. They have a huge impact on something that's 25 times more potent than the CO2 molecules. So it's really by the integration of all technologies that we can bring to bear and the timelines of those technologies, right, not everything is ready today, not everything that is ready today is affordable today. And so it's really pull every level you can and really get the R&D behind some of these things to get them ready as quick as possible. Okay, thanks. I guess I was wondering, in the extent to which you differentiate products, you know, for example, producing cement or building products that have a long lifetime when you're thinking about what to do with them. So thank you for your answers. So several of you talked about what are the best opportunities for carbon neutral energy to power carbon value products. Excess solar capacity in the day, biomass energy, waste heat. Do you have specific feelings about which or specific examples or cases where a particular energy source will be important for a given carbon value product that you're making? What do you see as the best opportunities for carbon neutral energy for your products? I think behind the energy question, you have an interbitency question. So solar wind, for example. And I think that's something we have to take into account. However, we've got other types of renewable energies, geothermal energy I think is something which is quite a constant energy which I think should be thought about. Yeah, and then of course, yeah, so it's a disponibility of this energy over the over time over months. I think it's the first important thing. So we can't just rely on PV or wind energy over time. So I think more constant sources of energy where they are available, I think, is probably the way forward. Another problem with in terms of renewable energy is if we do form electrons with solar or with wind energy, what is the best use of our electrons? It's probably best used directly as electricity where possible within a household, for example, or charging our cars. Whereas more other types of energy which should have a little bit more constant again coming back to geothermal, maybe the ones that we should be able to use in terms of at least for conversion and also in areas things like direct air capture. The other question is how much renewable energy can we produce in the future? And that's an open question, I think. Do we really have enough for the to decarbonise our industry?