 Okay, are we in line? Okay, sounds like it. Okay, so in many ways the conventional wisdom about energy is that because the energy system is so enormous and so deeply embedded into our economy and that almost everything related to energy is incredibly expensive, power plants are expensive, automobiles are big investments, personal investments. And so the turnover time for these facilities is slow. And at least in our lifetime, we think of the electric grid as basically permanent. We've got the grid that we've gotten. And so there's this kind of view that things don't change very quickly. But I think you've heard from really all of the speakers this morning that there's actually been tremendous change. And it's, I think, been a surprise in many ways. And for those of you who weren't paying attention to energy in 2002, what we'd like to do is just go back in history, imagine we're at the very early days, we're in the first conversations between Stanford University and the leadership of your companies about the status of global energy. And what were we thinking? What were we thinking about fossil fuels? What were we thinking about renewable energy? What were we thinking about transportation? What was the conventional wisdom? And we have many different perspectives. Everyone here is engaged in energy in a deep and enduring way. And so, yeah, so we wanna start there. So maybe Gary from GE, you wanna take a start and then we'll just go down the road. Yeah, so in 2002, it was actually pretty interesting here. We were just coming out of the US bubble for natural gas. So we just built out a ton of gas turbine power plants around the country. And a lot of momentum and GE thought that natural gas was the cat's meow, it would continue. They're going through a trough at that point, but it was gonna come back big. So we're also starting to invest in coal gasification. On the renewable front, we were getting our feet wet. We just acquired the wind business from Enron. And we were starting to reinvest in nuclear. Okay, on transportation space, GE is not a huge transportation company other than aircraft. And you heard Andy talk about that a little bit. The thinking then is that they're gonna run on aviation kind of fuels for a long, long time. Okay, let's, Bob from Toyota. Thank you, Sally. In 2002, that was as well as Gary said for Toyota an interesting time. We just introduced a little car called the Prius. I think Lynn was running around in one of them. So we had begun to think about the future and more advanced powertrains. And that was a lot of because of something that we still felt was gonna occur was Picoa. There was some work in fracking, but it really didn't seem to have the growth potential that we have now seen. So we were looking at a future of significantly higher fuel prices and that being an economic driver for consumers to look at maybe alternative fuels or other advanced technologies. So we saw it as somewhat of a bright future from the standpoint of our customers driven to change because of the economics of the fuel. Since then, I think we've woken up to say, well, that's maybe not gonna be as important of a driver as we thought back 15 years ago. So we're now looking at, I guess, a viewpoint where it's not as much about energy security more about climate change. And how does that appeal to the customers that we're facing today or that we're dealing with today? Okay, Nazir from ExxonMobil, oil and gas. Yeah, I would just say that in 2002, the price of oil was roughly $20 per barrel. The price of natural gas in the US on an energy equivalent basis was close to 100% of liquids price. We were constantly reinforcing the view that oil production in the US will keep on going down and come out from other countries. Natural gas production would go down. We will have to import LNG. Ever since I came out of graduate school, the constant reinforcement was in chemical facilities you build it either close to resources or markets. And US at that point was neither one of them. So we were all mentally prepared that chemical facilities manufacturing would be outside the United States. So the mindset was more about peak oil supply, not peak oil demand. And all kinds of alternatives were being considered in case oil prices go up and there is not enough supply. We have what I call Rembrandt's and the Attic worked over the years on converting natural gas, coal, biomass into liquids, or converting coal or biomass into natural gas. And because of the supply patterns on each of them, we were getting knocks on our door, including internal discussions should we activate those programs. Of course, those technologies are on our shelf. What I don't like about it, what we don't like about it is the price point and the environmental footprint. And broadly, coming back to the topic of our discussion, I would say energy options, given its importance from a long-term perspective, you are finding that not enough attention was being built put in to develop energy options, which is why the dialogue around GSEP got started in 2002, which is how do we get more low greenhouse gas energy supply options into our mix, which are transformational and breakthrough in nature and have a time scale of 10 to 50 years? But that's kind of the landscape under which we were in 2002. Okay, all right, Ian from Schlumberger. So continuing from the service sector side, if I take myself back to 2002, I was in Cambridge with Schlumberger looking after our drilling and production research facility there. And obviously our focus at that time was the next generation of drilling tools, the next generation of production enhancement. But we started to hear murmurings of what can we do to impact this climate change discussion that's going on? How do we as a technology organization impact that? So we started to look at what is close to home for us in terms of technology, geothermal energy. There's a lot of drilling for geothermal, they pump a lot of fluids. So we start to look at research there, carbon sequestration. We sequester fluids daily, that's what hydraulic fracturing is. So we started to think how do we explore programs to exploit our skills and technologies in these areas? And at that time we really didn't have the internal expertise. And so that's really what led us to kind of reach out to Stanford at the time and look at can we get a group together that can explore this? I think it was originally envisaged, it would be a much smaller scale than it's grown to today at that time. But I think if I look back to 2002 realistically, we were just starting to look at what else we could do outside of the conventional oil and gas space. But the bulk of our focus was still very much on the conventional hydrocarbons. Okay, so Steve with DuPont at the time engaged in chemical production materials. How are you looking at this? Well, in 2002 I think the prevailing conventional wisdom was that photovoltaics was always going to be too expensive to stand on its electric vehicles are never going to be mainstream. The batteries are always going to be too expensive and too difficult to be involved in mass storage. And as the guy in charge of materials, I looked at those conventional wisdoms and I said, that's where money's going to be made. Because whenever everybody thinks it's over here, the actual money is going to be made by changing that conventional wisdom and moving it over there. And when you looked at those problems, what we saw was most of the solutions needed to be found in the materials. That these were not sort of magic beans kinds of solutions. This was material science and that's what we were good at doing. So fast forward a little bit and look at what's happened. We've all heard those conventional wisdoms and we've kind of lived with the implications of the change and Lynn gave some really nice statistics on that in terms of cost reduction. In 2002, the belief was, yeah, solar's going to happen. We expect there by 2030 to be about 92 terawatt hours of photovoltaics worldwide. Where were we in 2015? I think the number was about 275 terawatt hours. Zero electric vehicles on the car, or sorry, on the road in 2002. I think last year we just surpassed 2 million globally. Energy density has gone up in batteries. Price has gone down in batteries by extraordinary measures. This is what happens when you buck the conventional wisdom and when materials companies decide that they're going to put a focus on changing these things. Okay, good, a pitch for materials. We like that here. Okay, Jim, so bank, energy is really a lot about finance. We heard from our last speaker that I'm getting money to where it's needed to support this. What was the bank finance for energy? What did that look like? Well, in 2002, there's two things that I find almost impossible to imagine. The first one is that I didn't have an iPhone. And the second one is that at Bank of America, the only people whose job titles or job descriptions included the word environment were the people who were evaluating the risk on a particular loan application, primarily in commercial real estate and primarily around sort of like super fund type issues of potential contamination and whether those kinds of issues would creep into the risk associated with the loan. Beyond that, there were environmental discussions or any of the kinds of things that we're talking about now on a day-to-day basis, just like we're using our iPhones on a day-to-day basis. It didn't exist then and it's kind of remarkable. Okay, all right, well, that's great. So let's maybe place a snapshot. So not too much intention to environmental issues beyond traditional pollutants. Energy really not on the radar, climate maybe not so much. Some smart materials companies looking for opportunity in some new spaces, beginning to explore. A service company saying how can we use our assets to try to think about decarbonization, well in advance of mainstream thinking. A world of scarcity in terms of oil supply, particularly in the United States. Car company driving the efficiency frontier because of economic reasons, because again, oil's prices are high, scarce. And gas turbines, a glut of gas turbines on the market expecting that the gas prices would remain low enough to support the operation of those and thinking of clever schemes to maybe make more gas through coal gasification. So kind of a paradigm of where we were. Okay, so that's where we were. So some awareness, not that much. Some companies trying to think about early opportunities. So here we are now in 2017. Now let's forget the past. Let's put ourselves in the moment. As you're thinking about energy for your business, energy, environment, what's the state of thinking? And maybe we'll start down with you, Jim, in the banking sector, how do you look at this? And why are you here even? Well first of all, I think it's important to remember that a bank is a different kind of an animal than really any of the other companies that are represented on the panel. Insofar as what a bank does is it serves its customers and it facilitates economic activity by its customers. So it's not an end in and of itself. So we have to work with our customers. And as climate issues and carbon emissions emerge as a critical social issue, we adopted a position that we felt that Bank of America should do its best to accelerate the transition from a high carbon to a low carbon economy. And recognizing that we're not regulators, we're not the policemen of the world, but rather we're partners with our customers like ExxonMobil, we're extremely good partners with and hopefully we still will be when the panel ends. So what we've been doing is working with our customers as our customers become knowledgeable about issues of reducing carbon emissions. We work with our customers, we talk to them and we develop a collaborative effort to channel financing into activities that are gonna result in reduced carbon emissions. So our portfolio has dramatically changed since the days before the iPhone to where we're now financing 10 times as much in renewable energy as we are in coal, for example. And our coal portfolio is dramatically wound down and it's gonna continue to wind down as a policy commitment from the company. But we're continuing to work on that financing solar, financing energy, we made a proactive effort as part of this acceleration to reach out and find customers like Tesla, like SolarCity, and we're now major parts of efforts of companies like that to accelerate the transition from a high carbon to low carbon energy. And that's what we've done as we play a supportive partnership role with our customers. Okay, terrific, okay. So materials, DuPont was investing in some clever ideas that could create opportunity. Of course, DuPont is now part of DAO, so I realize that the context is slightly different. But material science companies, did it pay off? Where are we now? What are the opportunities? There have been some remarkable changes and I talked a little bit about some of the statistics and the answer to your previous query. For me, looking back on that period of 15 years of the intervening years, the most remarkable thing about the changes that have happened is how unremarkable they are. In the sense that the photovoltaic cell design that we had in 2002 is still the design that we have today. And yet, it is about 50% more efficient in converting sunlight to electrons. And that's because there's been an incremental change in the materials. It isn't one development. It isn't something that's smashing new that's made the difference. It's really understanding what's going on, understanding how to make incremental changes and doing it on a periodic basis that drives things forward. You've seen that in batteries, you've seen that in materials across the board. And I think we're also hitting a very important inflection point, which is we've pretty much started to tap this out. That the designs that were there 15, 20, 30 years ago are reaching the limits of what they can do without substantial redesigns. And that means new material opportunities. And frankly, it brings us to your timeline, Sally, of the kind of work that has been done here at GSEP and the importance that that's going to have in the next 15 years of making this happen. Actually, before we go, I do want to bring up one other statistic that I don't want us to lose sight of. And Lynn reminded me of this during his presentation, which is in 2002, there were 1.4 billion people in the world who did not have access to electricity. And with all of the other things that have changed, that number hasn't changed very much. So there is an imperative for all of us to recognize that we have an obligation to those people too, to bring what we know how to do to their world. Actually, can I just follow up with, so what are some of the materials, for example, that are going into solar cells that companies like yours have been engaged with? And what were some of those investments that you made that are now integrated into the routine manufacturer? How much time do I have? You have two minutes. Wow, okay, that's generous. There are really two factors here. One of them is the cost of the electricity, the levelized cost that you get. And one of the ways of thinking about that is not just the actual price of the unit, but it's on its lifetime. So developing the materials that increase the lifetime of a solar module is incredibly important. One of the reasons why photovoltaics works so well is that it's an initial investment and then you can pretty much walk away. There's no fuel, there are no moving parts, there's nothing to replace, so long as the module stays sound. So tremendous amounts of research have gone into figuring out both the mechanisms of degradation and resolving them. But also think about this 12% efficiency to 18% efficiency over the last 15 years. That has been largely the result of small changes on what happens at the interfaces. How do you extract the charge? You work so hard to have that light convert to electrons and then you gotta get the charge out. And working across interfaces is incredibly difficult. Understanding how to design the materials that go to the interface to have them work exquisitely with all of the physics and materials challenges that you have is really important and that's where a lot of the effort's been. Okay, all right, great. Okay, Ian. Yeah. So I think one thing I wanted to just follow on first there is we look at thousands of companies in the corporate venture world and I think probably 75% of those have been enabled by novel materials. I think it's such a key area moving forward that it was significantly overlooked certainly in our past. And again, one of the reasons why we've engaged with institutions such as this is to get access to this breakthrough materials knowledge. Okay, terrific, yeah. So an oilfield service company, 2017, what does the world look like? So again, if I could get in that time machine that I know Google X are working on and go back to 2002, I never would have envisaged that we would have invested in a wind company or a mobility transformation company from a venture perspective. So for us, we're sitting next to one of our customers here and we're very much driven by those on our day-to-day basis and we've seen them branch into the wind and solar and energy field in general. And I think it's behooved us to really respond to that and explore how we can play in that field. We invested recently in a company that's looking at emissions monitoring by satellite because the first issue obviously is measurement before we can look at remediation but we certainly see moving forward initiatives around the reduction of emissions. To us, that's critical. Whether there's an administration that's supportive or not, we realize it has to happen. So we see moving forward technologies that can support the reduction of emissions, that can support the branch into these alternative or renewable energies and then exploit our infrastructure and our technology base into supporting those to serve our customers and new customers as well. Okay, all right. So I think when you look at 2017, you have the first connected back to 2002. And I would just maybe point a little bit about things that have changed between 2002 to 2017 and things that have not changed in our thinking because what has not changed is equally important compared to what has changed. So let's take the second question first which is what has not changed? What has not changed is really tying energy to economic growth and prosperity. You referred to the one and a half, two billion people not having access. There is another two billion people who have sporadic access to energy where their economic growth is compromised. And on top of that another two and a half billion people who have no clean cooking fuels. So the focus on energy access and the focus on getting energy to people has really still continues between 2002 to 2017. Also what continues is the fact that the demand for energy services would be twice but more than two thirds of that would be given by energy efficiency. So continuous investment in energy efficiency from 2002 to 2005 to 2010, 15 and 17 continues. And the examples of that what we invest is in combined heat and power plants, heat and electricity production. We also continuously invest in reducing our flares through our production. I mean these kind of efficiencies go on whether the price of oil is up or natural gas price is up or down. Obviously there have been a lot of changes in oil and gas as well as renewables. There has been a huge increase in production of natural gas and the US has gone from one of the importers of natural gas to now being an exporter. It's the third largest LNG producer. What has changed in 2017 is the number in 2002 and three there were less than 15 countries that were importing LNG as a source of cleaner burning fuel. And today is almost 60 countries. So the LNG business has changed from a buyer, single buyer to a single supplier to more of a open marketplace. And that growth has led people getting more access to energy for power generation, for Rescom, for industrial sector. And what has changed is US now being a net producer of natural gas and oil. So a lot of the construction of materials like polyethylene and others are now in the US. So we have been investing a billion dollars per year in the US Gulf Coast really to handle the new resources that are available. So it's not unusual to expect someone in Africa now moving from biomass as a cooking fuel to LPG that's generated either in the Permian or the Marcellus basin. That's a really amazing connection which was not there in 2002. Now on the research front and the emerging area front I think we have taken a lot of bets in addition to GCEP on biofuels and algae based biofuels. We have taken a lot of bets on CCS using fuel cell technology. And we are looking at how do we de-risk this technology in the fastest way and what early use segments can we apply in. And here we have some breakthroughs that we've reported in the last month or two months that I can talk later. Okay, all right, transportation. I think there's three interesting developments over the last 15 years in different areas. One is a convergence of regulation. I think California of course is leader in that area but there is almost a global convergence looking towards the 2030, 2050 timeframe for transportation targets. Maybe we can argue what the target should be but there's this much longer term view by regulators globally at that 2030 to 2050 timeframe. And there's actually a willingness from the auto industry to have those long term targets. We really don't like the pendulum swinging from tough regulations to no regulations. It's impossible as most of I think our industry is here for us to react that quickly. We need 10, 20 year, 30 year certainty. So that convergence is very important and the companies themselves are looking at these long term internal targets as well to improve efficiency. The second is the technology. I'd mentioned that the Prius that was just birthed so to speak in the early 2000s. We as a company have expanded to I believe 13 or 14 hybrid models. We have fuel cell vehicles. We have plug-in vehicles. The industry itself has grown. The OEMs are offering a huge range of alternative fuel vehicles now. And I think that's expanding quickly. The challenge though, I guess the third point is I'd like to make is the consumer. We have a diversity of consumers across the US and across the world that is a challenge to create one technology for them. We really need to develop a portfolio for the needs and wants of consumers around the world. And that gets to be extremely costly. We're all resource limited. So to provide this range of vehicles, power trains, particularly ones that are cutting edge that aren't relying on past technologies is a challenge for all of us global scale companies to be able to meet the needs. And it's beyond just the fuel efficiency, but there's automation. There's safety. There's just the features consumers are looking for that it really becomes a challenge for the entire industry to satisfy the expectations of today's consumers globally. Okay, all right. Well, first of all, I'm no longer a GE. Right, yes. I'm speaking as a shareholder versus an employee. So I do still pay some attention. But power generation, lots of approaches of power generation. So what's happened? Well, coal kind of gone. Nuclear, much less investment than in 2000 and early 2000s. Continued big investment in gas turbines, combined cycles, a lot of progress has been made incremental, incremental from mid 50% efficiencies to low 60s from $1,100 a kilowatt to five to $600 a kilowatt. And then you combine still low price gas. So big there. Wind, GE continues to invest a lot in wind. I'm seeing that they're finally going offshore in a big way. So onshore, offshore. And no one anticipated wind being three or four cents a kilowatt hour today like solar. I mean, it's game changing. And then we're much bigger, GE is much bigger in oil and gas than they were 15 years ago with the acquisition of Baker Hughes. I think what they're focused on is what Andy said, differentiated solutions to things that really add value to that space. And there's lots of great GE technology that can help that industry. And then aviation, there's been two generations of aircraft engines since 2002. Each one about 15% better in fuel burn and today's engines cost less than the engines of 2002. So a lot of progress, a lot of it incremental to Steve's point there. But I'm more optimistic about the future today than I was 2002. The problems seemed really, really big in 2002 and there's just been a remarkable amount of progress. And I don't see any reason it's gonna stop. Yeah, so just enormous change right here. So looking inside the hood, a little bit of that change. Basically fundamental shift in energy finance to renewable energy. Materials company who made early bets now looking at the next materials frontiers. An oil and gas service company looking at a much broader and diversification of services focusing on monitoring and mitigating environmental impacts of hydrocarbon production. Basically the world of oil scarcity and gas scarcity to oil abundance and gas abundance and completely new supply chains spreading around the world to a transportation sector filled with a whole diverse set of choices for people and basically real advances in the energy conversion technology across the board. So when people say that the energy system changed slowly, don't believe it. So now this is an audience mostly of technologists and they really like to kind of, and again when you work really far out in this 10 to 50 year time frame, sometimes it feels like you're not making a lot of progress. So what I was hoping that those of you who wanna volunteer to do this, if you could look at the origin of these big changes, what were those technical innovations that probably happened a long time ago? They probably happened in the 70s, 80s, 90s. What were those things that enabled us to have this rapid progress from 2002 to 2017? And just whoever wants to speak up, yeah, yeah. I guess I'll start first as the traditionalist. So I think there's three key areas that we've seen technology progress that has been driven by research from both the service companies and the operators and universities in the prior 20, 30 years. I think the first one is in reservoir characterization. The advent of three and four D seismic has really enabled operators to truly home in on the productive nature of the hydrocarbons in those reservoirs so that the wells are drilled efficiently. And again efficiency will be a topic we come back to repeatedly here. I think the second is drilling technology itself. Directional drilling has been around a long time, but the ability to steer and rotate at the same time may sound like a simple problem, but it's very difficult to do from 25,000 feet away. And the fact that you're hitting a reservoir that's a quarter of the size of this room from that distance, the telemetry, the high temperature electronics, the materials challenges that you all face to be enabled to do that that led to those wells that can be drilled horizontally. And that obviously led into the shale boom and hydraulic fracturing. And again, hydraulic fracturing started, I believe in the 40s, but again the recent advent of the ability to use less water, less prop and less material and then monitor those fractures in real time so they don't grow out of zone and they don't grow into aquifers. I think those have been the real technology challenges and again, it's all in the subsurface which you don't have any GPS. It's really difficult to navigate in. Okay, and any other? I guess I would just, in addition to talking about specific technologies, I would talk about the platforms and the mindfaces that are more productive today than 20 or 25 years ago. What I mean by that is really clearly material science and all the innovations that have gone into material science that affected almost all energy, whether it's all in gas, in terms of drilling and others or solar. So the mind phase of material science continues to be very productive. The second mind phase is the mind phase of data science. It's continuous progress towards converting our businesses into digital businesses. And in that space, the overall trend I would say is hardware is replaced by dedicated software, dedicated software is replaced by fog or cloud. This has tremendous implications about how we build our assets, how we run our assets and the energy footprints of those assets as well. And the energy footprint of all the information that can access from iPhone and others. And the third productive interface is biological sciences. Some people say biology is today's physics. And I would not say that too loudly because there are lots of physicists here. But if you look at a lot of the inventions and the breakthroughs that are occurring that we in fact have enabled some of them, like in algae, it was because there was inventions occurring in adjacent fields like CRISPR, for example, and then applying it to the problem at hand. That's what led to our most recent invention where we double the oil productivity from algae while keeping the yields same, okay? So I think these, for us, when we look at our problems, we also look at what are the mindfaces that are productive and how we can bring them in because these mindfaces are solving problems across many different industries. And there are some industries which are earlier users of these technology than us and then we can bring them in. I'll add one more. So a common enabler for gas turbines, aircraft engines, LNG compressors for GE has been high-performance computing. And its impact in the last decade that's allowed us to incrementally make improvements. I think that's gonna have an even bigger impact going forward because as you approach those second law limits, it gets harder and harder. So you really need the microscope that these simulations now are believable, right? And they're proven. And it's gonna have big impact on efficiency and cost out in our next generation, GE's next generation of products. Okay, yeah, do you want to? Let me add to Gary's point. And despite the praise for materials that Ian and Nazir have heaped on, in my reality, it isn't so much the materials that have led the way, but it's been the modeling and also the ability to do microstructure analysis that's been able to tell us what we've actually accomplished so that we can model it, see how to make it better and actually approve on it experimentally. Just by way of a trivial example, nano composites have been around for centuries and craftsmen have known how to harness them in order to make what they wanted to make. But until we knew what it was we were making, we were not able to actually convert what is nanotechnology into nanoscience, which is where we are today. And it's the modeling and the analytical capability, the seas of which, all of which were laid 25 years ago that are now incrementally better and being brought to bear on these incredibly difficult problems that serve the industries. Okay, Bob, yeah. I'll just add to Gary's comment about high performance computing. From someone that knows how to work on a carburetor and actually point ignition, where we're at today with the internal combustion engine is incredible. I mentioned the Prius, the first generation Prius earlier. The computers on the new Camry, the basic gasoline Camry is achieving nearly the same fuel economy that the hybrid Prius did 15 years ago. So the ability to take traditional gasoline combustion and control it through ignition, through fuel, through some of the unique combustion processes, combustion cycles we use is all of that is based on extremely powerful fast computing. And when you look at moving forward, whether it be hybrids or other technologies, that computing is only gonna grow and become more significant for to achieve the types of emissions reductions and performance that is expected from the customer. Okay, all right, well, that's fascinating. So all of you that use students who are working on simulation, new algorithms, machine learning, here you go, a good case for that. Okay, I'd like to shift now to another topic. And so all of you have been involved with GSEP for different amounts of periods. But what I'm curious about is that how has participation in the GSEP ecosystem, which is our community, our students, our faculty, you as peer, as peer industrial sponsors, how has this changed your thinking, your strategic thinking about positioning your companies in a world of this rapidly evolving energy landscape? And I'd like to start with Jim, if you wouldn't mind. Sure, when we first joined GSEP, it was intended to be a demonstration of our commitment to accelerating the transition from a high carbon to a low carbon economy. And we felt that the work being done at GSEP was a really good place to do that. And it was something that we could be putting our money where our mouth is type thing. Over the course of our participation in GSEP, our, from our CEO to our senior management team, have had the opportunity to interact with experts at Stanford and had some excellent workshop briefings on climate science, on energy, the future of energy, some different alternatives, whether it's solar, wind, nuclear, what have you, low carbon energy alternatives. And that educational process literally transformed the orientation of Bank of America on these issues. And people who were previously focused on just the bottom lines coming out of their various customers really began to think of Bank of America with its ability to deploy capital across the economy, both on our own and with partners to have an impact on these issues. And they personally took it on with a personal understanding of the issue. So we didn't get any new gizmos that our company's gonna use in our business as a result of the work, at least not that I'm aware of, out of the work of the researchers in GSEP. But we did get an absolute change in mindset, a change in orientation, and a change in strategy as a result of our participation. Yeah, I don't know, what about you, Steve? You know, and you can speak for yourself. Yeah, I can do that now. When I think about what industry looks for in participation in an organization like GSEP, which I frankly consider to be a model for these kinds of interactions, I was always looking for two things, leverage and risk reduction. And I believe that GSEP was able to provide both of those really to an extent that I could not have anticipated when Sally first approached me. I looked at the portfolio that GSEP was planning at the time we joined, and it overlaid almost exactly onto the strategy that I wanted to have for the research organization that I was leading and where Dupont was trying to go. And that meant that I was able to do risk reduction because GSEP was investigating those areas where I was gonna have to invest millions of dollars in thousands of lives in going after some of these things. And instead, I could take advantage of what was known here, the collective wisdom of Stanford, which was much greater than the collective wisdom of a single corporation. The other thing is around leverage, and leverage, of course, is part of the collective wisdom piece. But the other thing about leverage is there's leverage of other people investing in this work. The folks on this stage participated with Dupont in putting the money in to see how these things operated. And also the leverage of the institutional knowledge that came from other sources of funding within Stanford over all those years. We're able to take advantage of that, and that becomes transformational. At a personal level, I don't mind saying that my involvement with GSEP was probably one of the more exciting things I've experienced in my professional career because of all of the people here, the people on stage, the interaction with the companies and the interaction with the scientists and students. It was fabulous. Great. Okay. Schlumberger. So I think our engagement has certainly evolved over the last 15 years. Again, primarily, it was carbon sequestration as our area of interest. I think as, certainly personally, as I've got more involved in GSEP over the last three or four years, the ability to engage with some of the nascent technologies that have evolved from the GSEP program as have grown into startup companies that we can look at, invest in, nurture, bring into our business, that, to me, has been unique. We don't see that in really any of the other universities on a program this scale. And I think there's, adjacent to that has been the ability to interact with some of the other faculties at the universities that's been enabled by that. And obviously, as an industry, we move forward, automation, robotics is gonna be a key element. And GSEP has enabled us to plug right into the department here and see how that evolves and that helps us. And again, that all feeds back. When we were looking at the impact on climate change a couple of years ago, our CTO, who's a Stanford alum, reached out to GSEP to help us on our strategic thinking on what is oil and gas gonna do about climate change. And they organized a meeting in Boston last year to set our strategic goals forward on that. And GSEP was a key element of that. And I think the personnel involved in that will continue to help us on that strategic planning, whether it's on the broad-scale thinking or some of the smaller scale, like how do we participate and what does energy storage mean for us from an oil-filled service company perspective? Okay. I think GSEP has kind of changed ExxonMobil's thinking about the energy technologies, which I call the what. And also it has changed how we approach energy R&D. So let me talk about the first, the what. You know, it's really helped us broaden our view on what's the state of the art? What's the state of the art of what's feasible? And many of the technologies, you know, ranging from Mike McGee's tandem cells to Chris Edwards' high efficiency engines to the passive radiative cooling of Shenyue fan. I mean, these are really step out areas that can materially change the supply and demand of energy as well as the opportunities ExxonMobil can play in. So we're always looking for integrating them to the extent possible within our own needs inside the company. So that's kind of the what. The sessions on the what that we had inside about topical areas, whether it was biofuels or biomass, we're very helpful in shaping our views on what's the state of the art of what's possible. On the how, I think GSEP has done a really good job in experimenting, maybe it was your drive with Chris Edwards and Bob Wimmer about how do we engage the whole world in bringing ideas forward? And even before the specific ideas, how do you look at an area and have a broad base discussion by getting the convenient, convening power of Stanford into is this area ripe for innovation? Is this, if you do innovation in this area, will it move the needle on the global energy system? And can we do it? Because sometimes you can move the needle, but we may not be able to do it. And I remember some of these sessions you guys ran on transmissions and distribution, some on biofuels were really instrumental in shaping our view of what's the state of art of what's possible and do we want to work on it? I think the process you had worked where you engage 40 or so universities abroad was quite unique and it helped us figure out where are those pockets of excellence? And lastly, your peer review system met, I call the silver standard of R&D portfolio management, which is you allow the person who's rejected, rebut. Because there are no facts about the future and there's a lot of confirmation or cognitive bias that goes into a lot of the technology decisions. So how do you get a robust system of portfolio? These were more about the how you do, how do you spend that $200 million so that you can have a maximum impact? But the results are phenomenal. I mean, there are lots of early stage companies that have gotten started and a lot of technologies are right now incubating, which will get into early youth segments. Okay, so Toyota participated in the early years of GSAP. So yeah, how did that influence your thinking? When the opportunity presented itself, senior management looked at it as a way to shake up things internally within Toyota. This project was very different than the traditional research that Toyota had done both in Japan as well as in the US, which tends to be very focused. And they sort of see the application of whatever research is going on. So I think senior management really took this as an opportunity to engage in much more broad research that didn't necessarily have an endpoint or an application, but to get people to think outside of the box. And I think it was interesting, I was talking to Chris Edwards a little earlier about one of his discussions with some of our scientists with his advanced combustion work. And one of the responses he remembers is that this particular Japanese scientist indicated, well, we don't think that way. And that was like, okay, that's the type of barriers that the company was trying to internally break down with this participation in GCEP. And I think in addition to that, there was a large risk reduction as well to be able to look outside of our own technologies, look at biofuels, look at advanced hydrogen production techniques, power gen, variety of other fields and technologies that may not directly affect us today, but could very much affect the auto industry going forward. So that risk reduction, that almost investigation, that insight provided from the program was ultimately very helpful for the strategic thinking within both North America Toyota as well as global Toyota. Okay, yeah. Yeah, I just, first of all, I'd say ditto to everything that the panelists have said. I'd add too. Okay. I loved when you sent quarterly the researchers from Stanford to meet with their GE researchers. I think that really helped develop a great peer-to-peer network that wouldn't have existed otherwise. And then the second one was, you always helped me recruit Sally when I came. And I made a point of always trying to hire three or four really great Stanford students into GE every year. And that over time will pay off in a big way. So, thank you. In retrospect, everyone was very jealous of all of the students you hired from Stanford. Yeah, I've had many other, well, why weren't we doing that? I don't know, yeah. So Gary with his pizza parties and bring your resume and let's talk. So that was great. Okay, well, that's fantastic and really interesting I think for all of us to hear this because we wonder, you know, this was, Giseppe was a unique experiment, bringing together leading energy-related companies together with this incredibly rich and diverse community of scholars that we have here. And I think it's paid off in a really amazing way. So we have just a very little bit of time but I thought it would be just super fun to look forward 15 years. And we can all be wrong together but let's imagine what 15 years in the future might look like. If you could each just offer one idea quickly and yeah. So Jim, do you want to take the leap? What's your 15 years forward from now? I think the potential of partnerships between the private sector and academia is an untapped resource for the country and the world that is hung up on sort of the attitude that academics fear that capitalism is gonna somehow pollute academia and on the capitalist side that academics are theoretical and not practical. And if anything disprove that, it's Giseppe. And I think that getting a better understanding of how these partnerships can work while maintaining academic integrity, academic freedom and maintaining the capitalist system because that's the system we live in and it's what moves capital is return on capital and that's not gonna change. So I think if we could work on that and garner the incredible symbiosis between academia and the private sector, I think that the challenges that the world is facing in energy but also in water, hunger, poverty and whatnot. I think that far more progress could be made and that's my hope for the next 15 years. Great, great, yeah, Steve. I think in 15 years time we're going to both recognize and act on the interconnectivity of everything and I don't necessarily mean the internet of things. What I mean is that water, food, energy, soil, resource, abundance and shortages, these are all things that are connected together and our future I think is going to be connected to the sensors, the modeling, the data management, the on-site energy sources and the cost of all of these things. It's gonna allow us to bring all aspects of these things together so that we can optimize where we are, not throw stuff away, not throw energy away, not throw water away but really optimize and recycle, reuse and limit the amount of use so that we're in a much more sustainable world. Okay, Ian. So I think I was one of the few people that went to see the new Blade Runner movie and I think, I'm not sure I like their future but I think the one thing they did get right is the importance of artificial intelligence and to us, the evolution of cognitive equipment and the use of the huge petabyte, exabytes of data that we generate and being able to harness that into true artificial intelligence in the energy service domain. Yeah, so I would just say that we'll need to continuously march down the path of implementing technologies that are available today which are mature and a lower price point whether it's energy efficiency, supply or reducing emissions but we'll also need to invest in a broad portfolio to get to what I call deeper decarbonization options for lower greenhouse gas. And in a summary, these options will clearly be a lot of energy efficiency, a lot of lower greenhouse gas energy supply whether it is solar wind continuing down that march but maybe geothermal with all the improvements that are coming in unconventional gas. It will be enablers like energy storage and don't count out, you know, sort of flow batteries and other options which are what I call the shale gas of today which we had counted out 10 years ago. It will be a lot of lower sort of negative carbon solutions. I think someone talked about that before. You know, there will be a lot of focus on negative carbon solutions. Can we get them back? And one of the mind faces which are very productive that hope we can look at the next five, 10 years to see if we can get nuggets out of that is plant biology. A lot of plant biology improvement coming because of genetics in the way it would sequester a lot of CO2 and keep it there. And the last one is none of the above. It's the surprises that are going to be there. So every time we talk about this and we are on a round table like this, I said keep two chairs empty because five years from now, there will be two other participants there that you're not anticipated. So those are my five categories that I would watch. Okay. I think that what we've seen with GSEP over the last 15 years, is this interdiscipline, I can't even speak, interdisciplinary collaboration. That's going to be necessary in the industrial level for success. The problems are getting so challenging that we're as industries going to have to pull together all the different technologies work together with the brightest minds in the different fields to accomplish the challenges or to achieve the technology that's going to accomplish the challenges that are ahead. And I like to point out that when we look at AVs, automated vehicles, the different technologies involved with those vehicles and many of these technologies were never combined into a single platform. So you have sensors, you have artificial intelligence, you have human machine interface, you have the high-speed computing, you have sensors that are talking to the vehicle to vehicle, vehicle to infrastructure. All these things have to be integrated and you need this variety of different disciplines working together effectively. And what the students here are learning at GSEP and other universities on programs like this are key for the success of industry moving forward with these massive challenges we have in front of us. Okay, what about you? Well, continued improvement in energy storage. You'd like to see a factor of four reduction in battery cost a decade from now. Okay. Dispatchable renewables, right? Things like maybe geothermal or biofuels. And then carbon negative solutions which will involve CO2 collection and storage. So if we can get those three, we're well on our way, huh? Okay, all right. Well, we're going to check back 15 years for now we're going to write this down and we'll follow up with you then to see what grade you get. And so I just want to take this last little moment to say one thing. I mentioned earlier that this is going to be the last GSEP symposium and I've heard a lot of concerns. It's like, oh my God, is GSEP going away? GSEP is the name will go away but I can assure you that our relationships with this amazing group of companies and other companies that aren't that the two empty chairs or four empty chairs here are going to continue. The planning is well underway. It's very exciting. I think our engagement will be deeper, more impactful as we see a transition where GSEP was really about developing options. And I think you hear we've made lots of options. It was about changing the mindset of the companies, of the university's mindset being influenced by understanding what it takes to make energy systems at scale. And so as we look to the future, what we're starting to see is is companies are starting to pick and choose those things that they think will be most impactful for themselves so that they can make those investments that will continue to help those companies evolve. And so again, I just want to assure you that we're in great shape and our relationships are, I think, stronger than ever. And I just want to thank all of you for being on this panel. I really enjoyed this. Thank you for being so open, for sharing your thoughts and for bringing your companies along with our amazing community here. So thank you so much. So.