When the transcript becomes available, we will include it here. -Thank you!

David Blackmon [00:00:09] Hey, welcome to the interview question with David Blackmon. I’m your host, David Blackmon. With me today is is a friend of the show, Doctor Angela Wilkinson, secretary general of the World Energy Council. I’ve interviewed Angela in the past. She’s always wonderful. She has just incredible views on what’s happening in the energy transition, and she and I seem to see eye to eye on a lot of stuff here. So we’re going to have kind of a wide ranging conversation. And and Angela, I really appreciate you being with us today.

Angela Wilkinson [00:00:38] It’s a pleasure always to have a conversation, David, and I hope we can find a few a few gristly points, rather than just having a nice, agreeable conversation.

David Blackmon [00:00:47] That could happen. That could definitely happen. I can be a contrarian on almost anything. Before we get going though, just talk a little bit about the World Energy Council. You know, let our audience know who your members are here. Your supporters are what your mission is as an organization.

Angela Wilkinson [00:01:01] Oh, so the World Energy Council was formed over 100 years ago. Now I can say that we’re 100 years old, formed in 1924 at a at a time of great crisis, you got to remember nine and I’m sorry. Yeah. 1924, just after the global influenza pandemic and just before the, the Great Recession. And it was formed at a time where people really concerned that we were moving at the end of empires into a world of nation states. There was a new emerging world order, and that we wanted to stop nation states going to war over energy. Basically, that was what it was for, for energy, for peace. 100 years on, our enduring mission has evolved. Our mission is really how do we promote the benefits of the sustainable use and supply of energy for the greatest benefit of all people, everywhere we operate now, over in over 120 countries, we would say we’re really the original energy transitions community, the practical road builders, rather than the wishful thinkers or the mountain submitters that this were the practical road building community of how do you change energy systems to be fit for the world in which you’re operating? And so that’s the World Energy Council, where we’re not an industry association, we’re not a political lobby. We don’t advocate for any technology or solution. What we do is we bring diverse energy needs and interests in all countries, at all levels of society together. And we ask, how do we convene power for the common good? What is the common good in energy transitions? And I will use the plural. How do we connect the dots? Because climate change has become the biggest disruptor in this conversation around energy. But climate change is not all about energy only and energy. It isn’t all about climate change. So if neither of them are single issue agendas, our job is to connect the dots between the multi-dimensional agendas both and. The third reason we exist is to change the world for the better. And that’s about practical hard work. Not talking, but learning by doing in an informed and rational way.

David Blackmon [00:03:06] So as you went through that, you made so many wonderful points, and I just can’t help thinking how your outlook conflicts with the outlooks of most national governments in terms of making the world a better place and having that as your motivator rather than political considerations. Obviously, most governments, particularly in the Western world, you know, every decision they make is based on political motivations and what’s going to be good for the next reelection campaign, which is why I always say that we have the very worst possible class of individuals in our country here in the United States, where I am in the UK as well, making all these energy decisions on our behalf, we would probably get better policy if we just chose the first 200 names out of the local phonebook and let them make the policy, I wonder, I wonder what your view is on that. Maybe. Maybe this is a prickly subject or we might disagree. Well.

Angela Wilkinson [00:04:01] I don’t know. I think, I think, I think taking 200 random names out of a hat and saying, wow, your policy might be a bit a bit daunting for the 200 people involved. I mean, they say, they say you can take, you can take. Was it they say you can take money out of politics, you can take politics out of money, or you can do something like that. But my view is you can’t take politics or money out of energy, right? Exactly. That’s the reality of it. So it is quite challenging. And so you have to recognize that those are realities. But even so, there is a way to have a conversation with around where, where do we have to draw the boundary around national interest because like it or not, we live in a world where we’re connected and interdependent. Climate change doesn’t respect political borders, so there’s no point thinking that you can just draw the border and nothing’s going to happen. So we have to have a conversation, a different conversation about energy that recognizes that energy connects everything that connects people and geographies, that connects the future, the past and the present. We’ve got to have a different conversation about energy than most other things in politics, and then most other things on Wall Street, because let’s be clear. There is no civilization with that energy. There is no peace without energy. There is no progress without energy. There is no prosperity without energy. So let’s stop treating energy as though it’s a single issue. Quick fix agenda. And let’s take it much more seriously than quick. And let’s change the quality of that conversation. That’s what we try and do. We try and say, what is the story of energy that needs to be told that is created by all of us? But let’s not pretend that it’s going to be the story of energy. Transition is a single dimension in a single place at a single time. It’s a it’s a complex and messy process. It involves governments, businesses and communities and other industries, and we’ve never done it before, so we’re learning to do it together.

David Blackmon [00:05:59] So another thing you said in the opening, which I thought was great, is, is that you’re not concerned about promoting specific solutions, advocating for specific technologies. And immediately brought to my mind and you also said that there are some of the policies being made based largely on wishful thinking. And so this brings brought to my mind immediately, and it’s one of my favorite whipping boys in my riding. The International Energy Agency, which was established in 1974, 50 years ago by a number of client countries that has continued to grow over time to be an honest broker to to do research, provide useful information specifically at that time to all markets, global oil trading and markets. But now, obviously, as as we’ve gone through time and, and we’ve developed all these new energy resources, you know, its mission is expanded to last year, I was very disturbed when 40 barrel announced that his agency was again expanding its mission to be less of a provider of real information, fact based information about energy markets in the energy transition into more of an advocacy role for this transition. And the other thing that disturbed me about that particular organization in recent years is the evolution of its projection method to rely less on actual current policies and more on stated policies and projections of what future policies might bring in terms of the transition, which I term wishful thinking. And so when you said wishful thinking, that immediately popped into my brain, do you I mean, I just have almost stopped relying on the IEA for useful information and instead go to other sources like the Energy Information Administration. And there’s a number of others. I just wonder, do you have concerns about where the IEA is headed now and the methods it uses to, you know, I mean, it publishes this wide array of reports and I just I just wonder if you have concerns about that group as well.

Angela Wilkinson [00:08:06] I, I mean, I think the IEA, it does what it needs to do for its clients. That’s that’s what it’s doing. I have a different agenda, which is I’m not here to project the future. I’m here to make it happen. And that’s a very different approach to engaging in what needs to be done. Yes. I’m asking questions about what does energy transition look like in South Africa or China or the US from the ground up? What does it really look like? What does it really involve? Who needs to be at the table? So I’m not in global assessment reports and doing this. We used to be that that was where the World Energy Council started back in 1924. We put together the first map of global energy resources. What exists, where, how can governments cooperate in developing energy supplies? Yeah, when we got to the 1970s, there was the first oil shock. We remember that supply oil shock, right. And that led to the formation of the IEA. Right. And you can you can trace the history of where the IEA comes from. And they were designed as an agency to to help with supply side shock problems. How do they bring producers and consumers together. Now the world changes and they’re evolving their mission. And so they should I mean, if they stayed where they were, they’d be out of business. So I have no I have no ax to grind against the IEA. They’re evolving their mission just as we’ve evolved over the last 100 years. But we’re not in the policy prescription business. We’re not in the road mapping business. We’re in the road building business. And we have an agenda that says you can’t push technology innovation against societal pull. You have to pull it with social transformation. And if we look around the world today, we don’t have to have all these projections. All these projections say, all things considered, equal, technology innovation is going to accelerate. The cost is going to come down, everything is going to be taken to scale. The world is great. Well, actually, that’s not how it happens. We have social licensing problems. We have the affordability issues. We have politics. That we where we have like I say, we’ve got a coal mine. The attempt, the attempt to really close the first big coal mine in Africa has now been described by the by the world Bank as a disaster, as an unjust energy transition, as an atom bomb scenario of social, social discord. So what we know is change is not easy, and it’s certainly not a straight line. So I don’t mind the projections, because the projections will always be wrong, because they always build on the the evidence is always about the past, and we’re trying to change the future. So if we could predict the future, you could never change it. So we

David Blackmon [00:10:46]  Chatting before we started here about South Africa and your concerns about what’s happening in South Africa, which is a fascinating subject to me. I’ve interviewed a fellow named Hugo Kruger, who’s an energy analyst down there several times, and it’s a real mess what’s happening there in that country, isn’t it?

Angela Wilkinson [00:11:02] Yeah. So they’ve tried, you know, the world Bank put up $497 million to try and help close down this coal mine and go to clean and just energy transition. And it’s not worked. And I can’t help but thinking there were analogies here in South Africa as they try and accelerate off coal, as there were in Europe when we transitioned rapidly from coal into gas in the UK. And you look at the politics of today here, and it’s written in the in what they call the red wall and the green wall. It’s written in the coal mining closures of the 1980s. So energy transition is a change in the, in the, in the organization of society. It’s not a swapping out one technology for another and everything else stays the same. And and yet we have this very simplistic narrative that we can we can take oil system, we can put renewables in. It’s going to happen immediately and nothing else will change. And it it’s like saying we’re going to take your thighbone out, but we’d like you to run a marathon.

David Blackmon [00:12:00] Yeah, that doesn’t quite work does it. Oh yeah. Yeah I talked to today and you’re in a lot. I’m sure you’re familiar with Dan, you know, author of The Prize and the New Map. And, he is is equally concerned as you are. I think about the direction a lot of this is taking in. A lot of these outcomes are not just including the fact that as we continue to go through this heavily subsidized transition, with these governments taking on more and more debt all the time to fund these subsidies and tax breaks, we have inflation now. And inflation, of course, hits the poorest in our societies the hardest because it’s a higher percentage of their income. And, you know, that just seems to be almost an inevitable byproduct of all this, that the policymakers just don’t want to recognize for, for a lot of different reasons, is, I mean, how do you and at the World Energy Council advocate about that? What do you talk about as better solutions in terms of avoiding these rising energy costs that just seem to be always the byproduct of these policies?

Angela Wilkinson [00:13:01] Well, I’ll talk about it in the abstract. First of all, is that I think there’s a difference between between the price of technology and the cost of energy transition, because when you’re most of the time we’re talking, we compare the cost of a unit of electricity produced in renewable compared with the unit of electricity produced in nuclear or gas. And we say, look, the price is coming down. So we’ve got cost parity. But what’s missing in there is what we call the system costs. Where you produce the renewables has to be connected to a grid. That grid has to supply it to use about user has to have a device that can use it. And those are all the other costs. Right. And so we’ve we’ve disconnected the price cost and value conversation. We need to reconnect it. Right. This is really important. We when we had our 100th anniversary congress in Rotterdam in April, and I was talking to the mayor of Rotterdam and and things are very simple pieces to understand. Europe can produce very cheap renewable electricity from offshore wind or from onshore solar. We can get chips so they can in Texas, just as you can in India, just as you can in China. But when you come down to the household level, if the householders, if the house isn’t insulated, all the energy goes out the windows. If the house doesn’t have an electric cooker and has a gas cooker and they can’t afford to change the cooker, they can’t access the electricity. And so he calculated that to make energy transitions happen in the Netherlands, a country of what we might call comfort and convenience in energy terms would cost €40,000 per household. So who pays for that? And so this is, you know, inflation aside, those costs just go up. But the question is it’s how do you manage that. The how do you manage the fact that you’re not just substituting the supply? You have to change all the points in the energy system to make it work. You’ve got to have the transmission grid strengthened and extended. To extend the transmission grid, you need more copper. You need twice the amount of copper that we currently have in transmission grids around the world by 2050, to build all these renewables on, you’ve got to mine the copper. You’re going to mine the copper with green hydrogen. Which there’s no supply. Not enough supply now. What are you going to mine? The copper with another form of energy. So you have to be a systems thinker. And there’s not enough systems thinking in energy transitions. And you have to understand that in Indonesia, if you don’t have access to gas and you don’t have access to cheap oil, you either cut down your forests or you burn your coal because those are your only energy security options open to you. Right. So this is this is the realism of energy transition. It’s not something that takes place projecting up to the sky or on a mountaintop. It’s when you come down from the top of a summit into those diverse and rich valleys where people live. You have to grow the energy future literally, in the context of unequal societies and structural inequalities that have been growing for the last 20 years. And that’s the tough bit. And the only way to do it is to try and make it happen and learn from it. Right. There’s no there’s no energy transition lab. You can take it out of reality and stick it in a little laboratory somewhere and pretend you’ve got to do it for real. So just hundreds of demonstration projects in hydrogen around the world, but they’ve got to go to scale. There’s hundreds of people trying things, but you’ve got to go to scale.

David Blackmon [00:16:17] Yeah, I know, and I totally agree with all of that. But isn’t doesn’t this kind of highlight the problem, the real the problem of timing? Because we’re, we’re told that we have to compress all of this transition, which in just a normal if you let the markets govern it all and have it happen organically, it normally would take hundreds of years into what is now a 26 year time frame. That’s that’s what we’re told we have to do to get to net zero by 2050. And you have this enormous, as I see it. And hearing you say all that is, you have this enormous problem of educating the people in charge of making the policies. First of all, because I can assure you, no one in Congress, there’s not a single member of Congress thinking about any of this in the terms you just described. So, I mean, in Free

Angela Wilkinson [00:17:09] Congress. I know, but in Congress, they’ll be thinking about it in terms of energy security, right?

David Blackmon [00:17:14] Well, they Will, yes.

Angela Wilkinson [00:17:15] But they and and and that’s a way in. So you have to manage we would say you have to manage the world energy trilemma, security, affordability and the sustainability bit. And the sustainability bit is not just climate change. It’s also food and energy. Food and water security, right. It’s a broader sustainability agenda. So let’s go in. If we can go in on that angle of security and we can ask, how does security in the next 20 years look different to security in the last 40 years? Right. So 1970s the big oil shock, OPEC, whatever that tends to be. And most US policymakers mind still. But actually it’s not a supply side shock that’s going to come in. It’s a demand driven shock that’s coming through the system or it’s a climate disruption in terms of can you operate your energy system under the change under climate change conditions? Yeah. So then you go, okay, well, we not only have to strengthen the grid, but we have to make sure that when we have all these renewables on the grid, we have enough storage and backup because things are going to be more variable. Well, that changes the price and the cost. So I think you can dig into it at through the security way in a different way than we used to. But you’re always going to have to connect the dots between more than one policy agenda. You’re always going to yes to parity affordability and sustainability bit. So that’s that’s where we’re at. We’re not into you know you can I can I can produce lots of projections. In the future. They will all be wrong. So we don’t do that anymore. But what we try and work out is where are how is transition happening in multiple different places at different paces. And the and the kicker? I’ll give you the kicker. Now the kicker is the Paris Agreement. The race to zero net zero by 2050 is not a carbon dioxide only thing. Right. And this is where we start.

David Blackmon [00:19:02] But it’s always thought of in those changes.

Angela Wilkinson [00:19:04] But you see the oil and Gas Decarbonization Coalition coming up and going. It’s not just about carbon, it’s about hydrogen. We have to stop methane venting and flaring. So you start to see oil and gas coming into the agenda saying we need to lift you, start seeing nuclear come into the agenda and say, we need to let you start to see others coming into the agenda and saying, we need to lift. You see chemicals coming in, you see aviation coming in, you see all these sectors starting to lift together, and then you start to see something different happen. And the challenge then is it’s the most complex coordination problem we we face, right. We’re human beings. Look, we’ve got to get to deal. We’ve got choices about collaboration and coordination to make. Let’s focus on those. Let’s stop pretending there’s a green technology fix all. There’s one size fits all, all that. It’s going to be quick and easy. Let’s get to grips with what we call the humanizing energy agenda. Let’s make energy transitions happen. Let’s stop talking about the future as though it’s predictable. Let’s talk about the future as though we can. You’ll make it together and create it together and learn as we go. And I think that’s what we’re seeing. We’re seeing a thousand flowers bloom, but we’ve got policy makers wanting to pick the prize blossom and replicate it. And it’s not going to work like that

David Blackmon [00:20:20] Right. Now I’m in as I see it. Listen again. Listen to all of that. I’m a policy wonk. I’m a politics guy, okay? It’s my orientation. I can’t help it. What I what my mind immediately goes to is the fact that we live in a free society with democratic processes and hopefully free and fair elections, and we change presidencies every four years in our country. I mean, it’s either 4 or 8, but recently it’s been four and four and four, and we’re probably going to have another four transition in November, although that’s a long way away. But the point being that the Democratic Party wants you to believe in our country, expects us to believe that we can run our entire energy system on windmills and solar panels. And we can’t do that. Everybody knows we can’t do that. These are solutions that do not work, cannot replace our currently energy system. Instead, what we need to really be focused on in the United States is nuclear and a rapid build out of nuclear. If you really want zero emission technology, that will take 100 years. It’s not going to be something in our system of government, at least as I see it, this this whole transition that we’re talking about here is incompatible with living in a free society, which is why every solution the Democratic Party has proposed during the Biden administration has been fundamentally authoritarian in nature, trying to force us to electric vehicles, force us to offshore wind, force us to solar power. And there’s naturally going to be a pushback from voters when that happened. We’ve seen that happening in Europe as well this year. So how does how do we match all that together and recognize reality that in these free systems, trying to force a transition like that isn’t going to work. You have to convince people to pay the bills to make it work. And that, again, is where you get to this constantly rising cost of energy. So I just my view is we we have fundamentally incompatible goals that are being pursued by differing pieces of our society. And that, again, just highlights to me the the impossibility of getting to net zero by 2050. And I, you know, I’m not sure what my point is, but I just just think I just see this whole thing as being incompatible and something that’s not going to happen in free societies.

Angela Wilkinson [00:22:42] Well, I think I think I can share your concerns.

David Blackmon [00:22:46] And I don’t envy you your task. I think that’s not right.

Angela Wilkinson [00:22:50] I mean, the reality is all signals, all signals suggests that we will overshoot 1.5°C, right? Yeah, yeah, but I think there’s a difference between I see a difference between the US and Europe, even though they’re both free societies in that I think I think the U.S. is use much more of a what I would call an incentives based approach, whereas Europe tends to use much more of a sticks approach. Right. That’s that’s how I see it. And I actually think the U.S. has got a, you know, you’re a big, big population. You’ve got a big landmass, you’ve got loads of technologies, you’ve got you’ve got a lot of technology leadership, you’ve got a lot going for you. Europe’s got one of the highest energy cost basis for its industry in the world. Its worried about losing its industry base. It’s worried about lots and lots of things. Right. It’s it’s energy insecure. It’s minerals insecure. Sure. It’s got all these insecurities US and Canada having a big conversation about nuclear reprocessing, the new nuclear reprocessing ecosystem. So I see very in different places you’re going to get different solution spaces. It’s really important. And they’re going to be different sizes and different scales. And so no one size fits all is the first piece right. The second biggest, the biggest constraint on the pace of change might not be technology. It might be social opposition. Like you’re saying what’s the biggest cost? The biggest cost is licensing delays. The biggest cost is how long it takes to build things. The biggest cost is how long does it take to connect the user. So how do we think know from a supply side? How do we think from the demand side?

David Blackmon [00:24:20] Can I interject one thing.

Angela Wilkinson [00:24:21] Yeah.

David Blackmon [00:24:21] I mean you talked about licensing delays okay. Why do we have licensing delays in the United States. Because we have property rights. People in the United States are not going to say, oh, I’ll give up my property rights to avoid a 1.5 degree increase in temperatures. I mean, that’s not going to happen. Which again, I get back to why these policies being advanced by the Democratic Party are fundamentally authoritarian in nature. They want to take away your property rights. And that’s a process that I’m just saying is not going to happen in the United States. We’re going to reelect Donald Trump in November, and he’s going to take us out of the Paris Agreement. Again, that’s going to happen. I think it’s probably about a 90%. Answer that happening, assuming a free and fair election. So, I mean, where do we go from there?

Angela Wilkinson [00:25:12] Well, even if you come out of the Paris Agreement, you don’t come out of the world and you don’t come out of the climate change all the other times. Also, you’re still you still you’re still trading, you’re still building relationships. So the I think the I think what I’m saying is I think the US has lots of different opportunity spaces. Right. And how it incentivizes those as opposed to forces them through is probably where it finds its solutions. Right. And the Europe’s a much more crowded neighborhood, much less land, much more. They need different solution spaces. You go to China, you go to India. You’ve got different opportunity spaces. Right. And but the piece says we can’t keep if we keep talking about this as though it’s a simple swap of supply side technologies, and there’s nothing else that needs to be featured into the equation, we’re not going to make any change.

David Blackmon [00:25:58] Oh, I Totally agree with that.

Angela Wilkinson [00:25:59] And so I think that’s it. That’s the conversation can use everywhere. Then we should all be very pessimistic. But even even if we continue that, there’s going to become a point where our current energy systems won’t work under climate change conditions, or our current energy systems won’t work under trading conditions. So we’ll be forced to change them. And my view is, rather than being forced to make a change by make it yourself, whatever you can do to make change happen, make it yourself. That’s the message, is that you can either. I think it’s called if it called something like Schrodinger’s Ostrich, it’s where you stick your head in the uncertainty because you won’t even see any of the uncertainty. The world is uncertain. The only way you have to manage the US needs to invest in its security, its affordability and its sustainability. At the same time, that’s what we invented the World Energy Trilemma Index for. We measure what we manage. So we are evidence based. We measure what we manage. So we measure countries, cities, companies on terms of how do you manage your performance across security, affordability and sustainability, and what do you learn from that. And that’s the only way. Surely that’s the only way we can make progress happen is because we’re learning about what’s actually happening. Yeah. Rather than just wishful thinking about what’s not happening. So. Right. That’s what I would say. I would say.

David Blackmon [00:27:16] But to what you just said there is letting the market decide right? Through learning. You’re teaching people how to rethink about what the market really is. Right? Because it’s not just, oh, it’s not just technology, it’s.

Angela Wilkinson [00:27:29] Yeah. And it’s beyond the market. It’s not just companies and businesses and market actors, it’s communities and citizens and people. Right. How do they see themselves in energy transition? If they see themselves as losers, they will oppose it, right? They will. So let’s start talking. Not that everybody’s a winner. The race to zero was everybody’s going to be a winner. It’s never been anything. It’s not a race for a start. Because if it’s a race, the race to zero, it triggers a threat to global peace. It’s not a race. We’ve got the Olympics starting in Paris.

David Blackmon [00:28:00] This is oh no, next week. Right? Yeah, yeah.

Angela Wilkinson [00:28:03] We can do it. So I was thinking about the metaphor of energy transitions in terms of the Olympics. And at the moment I think we’re having too many conversations as though it’s the Usain Bolt 100 meter sprint. Right. Can I get there in my own lane faster than everybody else and win? Right. That’s the nation conversation at the moment I’m hearing. But actually energy transition is more like a it’s more like the pentathlon relay. It’s not even a it’s not there’s not even a medal for it in the, in the Olympics because nobody would be able to take it on board. So what does a pentathlon relay look like. Because you have to pass the baton from generation to generation, not just from one week to the next. Energy transitions take decades, right? They’re not done all that well. So you’ve got to pass the baton across generations. So start having an intergenerational conversation. Right. That’s what we have to do. And then it’s a pentathlon. It doesn’t matter if you’re good like you say in bolt at the 100 meter sprint, you still got to do the high jump, the javelin shot, the shotput, you’ve still got to do the hurdles. So you’ve got to have different types of muscles. So I think that’s that’s my big story at the moment. The week of the Olympics is what is the energy Olympics about? It’s not a 100 meter sprint. It’s a pentathlon relay. If the U.S. wants to succeed as a pentathlon relay, how would it change what it’s doing now? Because we’re all it’s your swim lane. Are you ahead of the crowd? That’s not that’s not what we’re in. It’s the Energy Olympics. It’s a pentathlon intergenerational relay. That’s what we have to get to grips with.

David Blackmon [00:29:34] That is like. And so we’re right up against time. Okay. I have never heard any guest utter a better closing comment than that is a brilliant analogy. It actually is. It’s timely and it is valid. And it really well describes the challenge here. And I, I have to say at the end of this interview, I think you have one of the most difficult jobs of anyone involved in this transition. You are facing a, you know, a lot of people who don’t understand how to think on the level you’re. Thank you. Right. And so I don’t envy you your job, but I can’t imagine anyone better to accomplish it.

Angela Wilkinson [00:30:13] Thank you. Well, the door is always open, and our table can have as many chairs as anybody wants to bring. And that is the heart of the World Energy Council. We are open to all and we are open to the future. We aren’t closed minded and we are not prescriptive.

David Blackmon [00:30:29] Beautiful, beautiful. Where can people find you and support your mission?

Angela Wilkinson [00:30:32] You can find us on the internet. You can. You could just Google the World Energy Council. As I said, we’re not for profit. We’re a charitable mission and we love big donations.

David Blackmon [00:30:41] Okay. That’s that’s an even better closing statement. Thank you so much for being with me today.

Angela Wilkinson [00:30:47] Pleasure to speak with you again. Take care.

David Blackmon [00:30:49] Thank you. And thanks to Stu Turley and our wonderful producers at the Sandstone Group. I’m David Blackmon, and that’s all for today. Thank you.

Fellow Podcast Travlers:

Mark LaCour, Editor in Chief, OGGN

Mark LaCour, Editor in Chief, OGGN

Paige Wilson, Host of Oil and Gas Industry Leaders and Co-Host of Oil and Gas This Week Podcast.  

OGGN Network

Stu Turley, Host of the Energy News Beat Podcast.

Stu’s LinkedIn is HERE

Sandstone Group Production Sponsor.