Energy challenges for the 21st century — an IOC perspective: The need for alignment between technology, business & policy
Speaker: David Eyton
Speech date: 13 October 2008
Venue: Princeton University
Title: BP group vice president Research & Technology
Office: Research & Technology
Speech date: 13 October 2008
Venue: Princeton University
Title: BP group vice president Research & Technology
Office: Research & Technology
Thank you very much, and thank you for inviting me to speak as part of the David Bradford series of seminars. I didn’t know the late Dr Bradford but his work on environmental economics recognised the need for both intellectual and practical action on the critical issue of climate change. So, it is an honour to take part in this series as BP’s head of Research & Technology.
Today, there is also a cause for celebration in that Rob Socolow and I have just signed an agreement whereby BP will continue its support for the work of Princeton’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) up to 2015. Dr Bradford was a key member of the CMI extended family at Princeton so it is particularly fitting that we are announcing the extension of the programme at this lecture series.
We have been proud to be associated with the ground-breaking and influential work you have done in the last eight years and we are delighted to be supporting the next chapter.
It has been, and continues to be, a great example of the linkage between three vital communities that drive change: the worlds of Research, Policy and Business. During my talk, I will touch on the energy challenges we face over the next decades and then say some more about the roles of these three communities before returning to CMI.
Today, there is also a cause for celebration in that Rob Socolow and I have just signed an agreement whereby BP will continue its support for the work of Princeton’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) up to 2015. Dr Bradford was a key member of the CMI extended family at Princeton so it is particularly fitting that we are announcing the extension of the programme at this lecture series.
We have been proud to be associated with the ground-breaking and influential work you have done in the last eight years and we are delighted to be supporting the next chapter.
It has been, and continues to be, a great example of the linkage between three vital communities that drive change: the worlds of Research, Policy and Business. During my talk, I will touch on the energy challenges we face over the next decades and then say some more about the roles of these three communities before returning to CMI.
What are the energy challenges?
Fossil fuels and other energy sources provide a range of products which are fundamental to the quality of our lives today. You will be familiar with the challenges associated with continuing to supply these products in the 21st century, so I will only discuss them briefly. We see four main drivers:-1. The growth in demand for energy
2. Fulfilling that demand
3. Assuring supply
4. And lastly, sustainability
According to the International Energy Association (IEA), the world needs up to 50% more energy by 2030 on a business-as-usual basis, or at least one third if current policies are implemented.
Why is that? First, because the population is growing to unprecedented levels, having doubled over the past 50 years to 6.7 billion today, and it is likely to rise again to 9 billion by 2050. Second, because in China and India alone more than 500 million people will be moving from a rural to an urban way of life in the next 20 years. The world has no experience of industrialisation on this scale. When Europe industrialised, it involved 50 to 100 million people moving from a rural to an urban way of life. The US industrialisation involved 150 to 200 million people. And those changes took many decades.
One thing we’re not short of on the planet is hydrocarbons. Our estimates indicate that the world has already demonstrated the commercial viability of around 40 years of oil resources, 60 of gas and 130 of coal at current consumption rates. The ongoing search for new hydrocarbon resources, together with advances in technology, can reasonably be expected to extend the life of all these resources well into the next century.
The issue is that carbon dioxide, generated by combustion of these fuels, accumulates in the atmosphere, and the consumption of fossil fuels is rapidly using up its safe carbon-carrying capacity. Atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280 parts per million (ppm) pre-industrialisation, or around 1850, to around 380ppm today. The IPCC is telling us that CO2 concentrations should not exceed 450-500ppm if we are to avoid a temperature rise of greater than 2.0-2.5oC, and hence cause irreversible damage to our planet.
Another challenge is energy security. We live in a world where around 70% of the world’s proved oil reserves are located in seven countries and half of the natural gas is in three. There are concerns over the reliability of several major producer countries and the risk of energy being used as a political weapon. This drives nations to want at least a diversity of supply. In addition, coal reserves tend to be located close to the world’s major population centres. Global coal consumption has been rising dramatically since the millennium and, in certain forms, can have the highest carbon footprint of any energy source.
Nor should we forget that much of the world’s population suffers from ‘energy poverty’, in that they do not have sufficient energy to meet even basic needs.
These four drivers lead to a fifth challenge, that of cost of supply. In other words — and to keep it simple — people want three things: low-carbon, low-cost and local energy. By low carbon, I mean here reducing the pace and total amount of carbon liberated to the atmosphere from fossil fuels.
Another challenge is energy security. We live in a world where around 70% of the world’s proved oil reserves are located in seven countries and half of the natural gas is in three. There are concerns over the reliability of several major producer countries and the risk of energy being used as a political weapon. This drives nations to want at least a diversity of supply. In addition, coal reserves tend to be located close to the world’s major population centres. Global coal consumption has been rising dramatically since the millennium and, in certain forms, can have the highest carbon footprint of any energy source.
Nor should we forget that much of the world’s population suffers from ‘energy poverty’, in that they do not have sufficient energy to meet even basic needs.
These four drivers lead to a fifth challenge, that of cost of supply. In other words — and to keep it simple — people want three things: low-carbon, low-cost and local energy. By low carbon, I mean here reducing the pace and total amount of carbon liberated to the atmosphere from fossil fuels.
Memories are short but only a few years ago we saw the end of decades of low energy prices, low returns and low investment. And that has a lot to do with the historically high prices we see today. In an industry where development can take at least a decade from discovery to production, that low investment is now stretching the supply chain, especially when combined with rising demand, disruptions to supply and skill shortages. This is the underlying cause of the high prices we have seen over the past few years. However major developments are coming on stream and the capacity of the world energy markets to deliver — whilst having been tested — has not failed.
Fortunately, local and low-carbon often go together, for example wind, solar, energy crops and even nuclear. Add to that the recent increases in energy prices and the potential for these to substitute fossil fuels is growing, but the incremental cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 50% of today’s level by 2050 is estimated at a massive $60 trillion by the IEA.
And the big question is who pays? It falls to three communities in particular to provide the solution — technology, policy and business — in particular, as far as my talk today is concerned, the role of international oil companies.
Fortunately, local and low-carbon often go together, for example wind, solar, energy crops and even nuclear. Add to that the recent increases in energy prices and the potential for these to substitute fossil fuels is growing, but the incremental cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 50% of today’s level by 2050 is estimated at a massive $60 trillion by the IEA.
And the big question is who pays? It falls to three communities in particular to provide the solution — technology, policy and business — in particular, as far as my talk today is concerned, the role of international oil companies.
What is the role of technology?
Firstly, technology has a fundamental part to play in addressing the world’s energy challenges — from basic research through to wide-scale deployment. It defines the volume and the cost of energy supplies, the nature and efficiency of consumption and the tools to mitigate risks.I will talk briefly in BP terms for a minute. We are for the most part an energy supplier, and in BP we think of energy technologies in three distinct areas:-
1. Improving the discovery and recovery of fossil fuels, which will be required in increasing quantities to meet energy demand growth over the next few decades. The prize from pushing the technical and commercial barriers is significant — another 30 billon barrels of oil equivalent in BP’s existing portfolio alone associated with an increase in expected recovery factors from today’s level of 35% to one in excess of 50%.
2. Conversion of primary energy, in whatever form, into products — because carbon is fungible. You can take diverse sources of carbon (natural gas, coal, biomass, heavy oil) and convert them by hydroprocessing or partial combustion into all sorts of useful products — for power, fuels, chemicals and lubricants.
3. And lastly, developing low-carbon energy
Most of our capital investment of over $20 billion this year still goes into oil and gas production and the manufacturing of transport fuels. However around one third of our research and development spend, which in 2008 will be around $700 million, is targeted at new energy value chains. This is consistent with the competitive advantage fossil fuels have today over the alternatives and our expectations for the future as we move toward a low carbon world.
In its publication this year, called Energy Technology Perspectives, the IEA has identified a range of supply-side and demand-side opportunities for reducing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, with supply- and demand-side options being roughly equal in magnitude. The IEA is now in the process of developing technology roadmaps for the most impactful of these technologies as directed by the G8 summit in Japan.
In respect of supplying low-carbon energy, I would like to offer the following observations based on BP’s own experience.
Power accounts for twice the total CO2 emissions of transportation and the only material options in the medium term to decarbonise power are nuclear, wind and carbon capture and storage (CCS). Where wind power is concerned, at times of peak energy demand and high fuel prices — with a reliable wind resource — it can be more competitive than conventional generation. Also, if a CO2 price is considered, wind would be competitive with conventional fuel-fired generation. Significant changes in the storage and transmission of power are still needed to enable wind penetration in the power system. By the end of 2008 BP expects to have installed 1GW of wind power around the world.
CCS has been the focus of a lot of work at Princeton I know, and will continue to be so. All the components of technology have already been deployed and the IEA’s analysis shows clearly that we will be unable to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of CO2 without CCS linked to the power sector, but this has yet to be demonstrated at scale due in part to the high associated costs.
In respect of supplying low-carbon energy, I would like to offer the following observations based on BP’s own experience.
Power accounts for twice the total CO2 emissions of transportation and the only material options in the medium term to decarbonise power are nuclear, wind and carbon capture and storage (CCS). Where wind power is concerned, at times of peak energy demand and high fuel prices — with a reliable wind resource — it can be more competitive than conventional generation. Also, if a CO2 price is considered, wind would be competitive with conventional fuel-fired generation. Significant changes in the storage and transmission of power are still needed to enable wind penetration in the power system. By the end of 2008 BP expects to have installed 1GW of wind power around the world.
CCS has been the focus of a lot of work at Princeton I know, and will continue to be so. All the components of technology have already been deployed and the IEA’s analysis shows clearly that we will be unable to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of CO2 without CCS linked to the power sector, but this has yet to be demonstrated at scale due in part to the high associated costs.
A huge amount is being done to understand and improve the science and technology, particularly here, and BP is also participating in a number of studies and large-scale projects such as our In Salah gas field in Algeria, where 1million tonnes a year of CO2 is captured and stored in a saline aquifer, and our joint venture hydrogen energy projects with Rio Tinto in Abu Dhabi and California, both of which will use CCS.
But much of the running now has to be made by policy-makers to identify ways to incentivise commercial-scale CCS facilities which will enable learning and hence cost reductions.
Biofuels are a material alternative for transportation, but there is a real danger that the emerging industry will be damaged by misunderstanding. Clearly not all biofuels are the same. Some may indeed cause deforestation and fail to make sizeable reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and this trade must cease. But other biofuel production may have no impact on the food chain, involve no unsustainable practices, provide significant emissions reductions and be competitive into the bargain.
The most cost competitive first generation biofuels are concentrated in equatorial regions, where BP has invested more than $500 million in its joint venture with Tropical BioEnergia in Brazil. However technology is also delivering solutions in more temperate zones, for example in the US where BP has just announced a $90 million alliance with Verenium to accelerate commercialisation of their next generation technology to convert cellulose into ethanol.
But much of the running now has to be made by policy-makers to identify ways to incentivise commercial-scale CCS facilities which will enable learning and hence cost reductions.
Biofuels are a material alternative for transportation, but there is a real danger that the emerging industry will be damaged by misunderstanding. Clearly not all biofuels are the same. Some may indeed cause deforestation and fail to make sizeable reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and this trade must cease. But other biofuel production may have no impact on the food chain, involve no unsustainable practices, provide significant emissions reductions and be competitive into the bargain.
The most cost competitive first generation biofuels are concentrated in equatorial regions, where BP has invested more than $500 million in its joint venture with Tropical BioEnergia in Brazil. However technology is also delivering solutions in more temperate zones, for example in the US where BP has just announced a $90 million alliance with Verenium to accelerate commercialisation of their next generation technology to convert cellulose into ethanol.
We believe that the global case for biofuels can and should be made. Our conviction is based in part on the fact that only 12% of the world’s land mass is currently used for food production, much of this with unnecessarily poor yields. Another 24% is used for grazing by animals for meat and dairy production, which is also frequently very inefficient. There is an opportunity here to redirect grazing and pasture land use through intensification — and release degraded land for cellulosic fuels.
On the demand side, vehicle and fuel infrastructure have been optimised over the past century to use carbon-based fuels, and carbon-based fuels will be required for the foreseeable future in long haul and heavy goods transportation. In the short term, encouraging mass transit in the urban environment and improving the fuel efficiency of cars, through lightweight materials and better engines, particularly gasoline engines is the most cost effective way to reduce the carbon footprint of transportation.
Plug-in hybrid electrical vehicles offer the promise of better fuel economy, reduced oil imports, and lower greenhouse gas emissions assuming a low carbon source of electricity. Such vehicles have been produced on a limited scale and several key technological improvements in battery technology, charge density, and battery life are required.
On the demand side, vehicle and fuel infrastructure have been optimised over the past century to use carbon-based fuels, and carbon-based fuels will be required for the foreseeable future in long haul and heavy goods transportation. In the short term, encouraging mass transit in the urban environment and improving the fuel efficiency of cars, through lightweight materials and better engines, particularly gasoline engines is the most cost effective way to reduce the carbon footprint of transportation.
Plug-in hybrid electrical vehicles offer the promise of better fuel economy, reduced oil imports, and lower greenhouse gas emissions assuming a low carbon source of electricity. Such vehicles have been produced on a limited scale and several key technological improvements in battery technology, charge density, and battery life are required.
What is the role of policy?
That takes me onto the role of policy which, as I suggested earlier, is the facilitator for technology’s potential to be released. I am a businessman and a technologist, but I certainly do not pretend to understand policymaking as well. Having said that, I do believe that policymakers at an international, national or state level can do the following:1. Shape markets — through standards, mandates, permits, tariffs, and incentives and through negotiation between trading blocks. A good example here would be the establishment of carbon pricing.
2. Provide funding — for R&D, education, and to channel state procurement where it can have the most impact.
3. Inform and educate the public to obtain support for what are likely to be unpopular measures in the short term.
4. Create and support institutions to manage all these
Building on the Princeton wedges work, the IEA has identified those areas which can have the greatest impact, and estimated their cost. This provides a frame for focus and prioritisation, but also quite clearly shows the following:-
1. End-use efficiency does add value, but requires everyone to change their behaviours.
2. The challenges are global and must eventually be addressed through coherent international action.
3. There is no silver bullet. The solutions will vary by geography. Many technologies and strategies need to be deployed and over time the most efficient and effective ones will become apparent. And to underline this point, it may interest you to know that in 1900, there were 1,681 steam-powered cars manufactured in the US, 1,575 electric cars, and only 936 gasoline burners.
So, as we have seen, the energy challenges facing policy makers — balancing supply and demand, sustainability, security and cost — are significant. Hence climate change is an extremely difficult issue to address: it cuts across every aspect of modern society.
In the UK, for example, I represent BP on the Energy Research Partnership, which is a high-level forum bringing together R&D representations from industry, government and academia to ensure that we have a coherent approach to energy innovation.
Another example of the need for this collaborative approach is the formation of the Energy Technologies Institute in the UK, in which BP is a founding member investing almost $100 million over the next 10 years. This is a public/private partnership that funds demonstration projects to accelerate the development of low-carbon energy technologies in selected areas, such as offshore wind and marine power generation.
As a business, BP will of course comply with regulations wherever we operate. Where there are choices as to the form of regulation, we believe the following better enable progress:-
1. Market-based mechanisms. For example, BP is a strong supporter of cap and trade emissions trading, participating in the EU scheme and looking forward to the day when regional schemes are knitted together into a global system.
2. Transitional incentives for alternative energy technologies — giving all technologies a fair chance to compete. Incentives should promote efficiency and taper away as the technologies they support become competitive. This isn’t about picking winners; it’s about bringing the contenders to the starting grid.
In the UK, for example, I represent BP on the Energy Research Partnership, which is a high-level forum bringing together R&D representations from industry, government and academia to ensure that we have a coherent approach to energy innovation.
Another example of the need for this collaborative approach is the formation of the Energy Technologies Institute in the UK, in which BP is a founding member investing almost $100 million over the next 10 years. This is a public/private partnership that funds demonstration projects to accelerate the development of low-carbon energy technologies in selected areas, such as offshore wind and marine power generation.
As a business, BP will of course comply with regulations wherever we operate. Where there are choices as to the form of regulation, we believe the following better enable progress:-
1. Market-based mechanisms. For example, BP is a strong supporter of cap and trade emissions trading, participating in the EU scheme and looking forward to the day when regional schemes are knitted together into a global system.
2. Transitional incentives for alternative energy technologies — giving all technologies a fair chance to compete. Incentives should promote efficiency and taper away as the technologies they support become competitive. This isn’t about picking winners; it’s about bringing the contenders to the starting grid.
What is the role of business (IOCs)?
I’d now like to turn to the energy business.Businesses invest the money provided by shareholders to serve customers and make a return on the shareholders’ investment. They use technology and operate within the boundaries defined by policy makers. They compete — the strong succeed and the weak fail. And they pay tax, which in the case of oil and gas production is the significant majority of the rent — through production taxes, royalties, sharing agreements, duties and income tax.
In the energy business, my contention is that the International Oil Companies have a unique role to play in addressing the challenges of the 21st century.
There are a number of reasons for this:
1. IOC’s shape the oil and gas markets and make them work. They are global multilateral energy vehicles. They form the bridge between producing and consuming nations. They are involved in the energy policy dialogue with all of the key resource holding governments and consuming nations.
2. They lead the efficient resource development of oil and gas, working on the frontier of the energy industry.
3. Only the IOC’s — and one or two national oil companies, or NOCs, such as Saudi Aramco, Petrobras, Gazprom — have the skills, technology, know-how and balance sheets to execute effectively multiple complex and risky projects simultaneously, and apply the learning from them globally to drive efficiency.
4. In terms of logistics, IOC’s are the largest movers of hydrocarbons and most efficient managers of fuel infrastructure.
5. They are pioneering investors into alternative energy solutions and energy efficiency.
6. And they have strong diversified global asset bases not overly exposed to any single geopolitical risk.
To emphasise this point, I turn to the words of Henry Ford, who understood that innovation is inherently a collaborative exercise. He said: “I invented nothing new. I simply assembled into a car the discoveries of other men behind whom were centuries of work.”
As a result, I believe that while some would like the IOC to disappear, in fact not only is this unlikely, it would leave an ‘IOC-shaped hole’ in the world energy market. Some NOCs may fill part of the space. However, most NOCs are by nature aligned to particular governments and few have the broad-based technological capability or infrastructure to join the resources of the world to international consumers.
There are many similarities between the IOCs themselves, but it is the openness and collaborative nature of BP’s relationships which I believe is one of its distinguishing features. This is particularly the case in respect of technology development.
A couple of examples which I believe are having, and will continue to have, a major impact on climate change are as follows:-
1. We are investing $500 million over 10 years in the Energy Biosciences Institute at Berkeley, which combines the strengths of the Universities of California and Illinois and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The EBI is bringing together talented biotechnologists to explore a wide range of options to apply bioscience to energy — including ligno-cellulosic conversion to make fuels.
2. Although on a smaller scale in terms of BP’s investment, the Tsinghua BP Clean Energy Centre was founded in 2003 to create a multidisciplinary think tank for China’s energy and environmental strategy. During its five-year existence, the CEC has successfully contributed in a number of areas critical to energy policy and choices facing China.
One potential disadvantage of so-called ‘open innovation’ could be a lack of control over intellectual property, but we believe that this is far outweighed by other factors. With collaboration, the company is less insular and has access to leading science. The flow of ideas is accelerated and R&D can achieve greater productivity and effectiveness.
There are many similarities between the IOCs themselves, but it is the openness and collaborative nature of BP’s relationships which I believe is one of its distinguishing features. This is particularly the case in respect of technology development.
A couple of examples which I believe are having, and will continue to have, a major impact on climate change are as follows:-
1. We are investing $500 million over 10 years in the Energy Biosciences Institute at Berkeley, which combines the strengths of the Universities of California and Illinois and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The EBI is bringing together talented biotechnologists to explore a wide range of options to apply bioscience to energy — including ligno-cellulosic conversion to make fuels.
2. Although on a smaller scale in terms of BP’s investment, the Tsinghua BP Clean Energy Centre was founded in 2003 to create a multidisciplinary think tank for China’s energy and environmental strategy. During its five-year existence, the CEC has successfully contributed in a number of areas critical to energy policy and choices facing China.
One potential disadvantage of so-called ‘open innovation’ could be a lack of control over intellectual property, but we believe that this is far outweighed by other factors. With collaboration, the company is less insular and has access to leading science. The flow of ideas is accelerated and R&D can achieve greater productivity and effectiveness.
BP and Princeton: Carbon Mitigation Initiative
So, finally, this brings me to our partnership with Ford and Princeton. The CMI programme epitomises our collaborative technology development model. Such partnerships are particularly applicable to the challenges of climate change, where the world needs the biggest impact for money spent.In the CMI, we have been very much a partner rather than simply a sponsor. There has been a deliberate effort to leverage our business skills in combination with Princeton’s intellectual capacity. The CMI mission statement talks of combining business and academic strengths to “… attain a novel synergy across fundamental science, technology development and business principles that accelerate the pace from discovery through proof of concept to scalable application.”
And if I didn’t feel we had achieved that over the past eight years, I would not be standing here today. As it is, I believe we have more than achieved it. The nature of the work already done has been very much aligned with our aspirations as a business. It has been practical and positive.
Whereas much science is devoted to analysing the problem, the CMI has explored solutions. It has also sought to prompt debate on issues such as CCS, and inform the public — which is essential for the benefits of science to move outside the confines of academia. Due to the early advocates of CCS at Princeton — and later at BP — it stopped being seen as just another off-the-wall idea. The science underpinning made sense. Technology made it feasible rather than simply theoretical.
Obviously we have been delighted to be associated with the ‘wedges’ research, given the contribution it has made to the debate. But there has also been immensely valuable progress on carbon capture, where power generation models have been developed; and on carbon storage, in evaluating risks of leakage. The carbon science group is creating new models of the carbon cycle, collecting data from the oceans, the atmosphere, ice cores, and the land to study how natural sources and sinks of carbon have varied.
Looking ahead, I am excited about some of the new areas you plan to study in the coming years. These include:-
Looking ahead, I am excited about some of the new areas you plan to study in the coming years. These include:-
1. Carbon capture and storage applied to power plants, cement and steel plants, and in the area of biomass and coal conversion. By integrating biomass into power systems, and developing polygeneration concepts, zero emissions from fossil fuels is possible. CMI will also focus on the science – and practical solutions – around well integrity and understanding leakage for geological formations.
2. There will be a new focus on China, building on the existing relationships with Tsinghua University and others in China.
3. Research will be done to deepen our understanding of the impacts of climate change, through further development of climate modelling and carbon cycle science.
4. A new area of investigation will be adaptation and geo-engineering. That is not to say that we are defeatist. We are committed to playing our part as a business in addressing climate change, within the confines of policy, but we cannot ignore the scale of the challenge and we all need to have a plan B if the world is unable to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations and the worst of climate change predictions are realized.
5. And finally, the CMI integration work will continue to evolve and reflect the new and emerging issues that have a bearing on possible climate change solutions. These include some of the topics I touched on earlier such as energy security, diversity, and the nexus of the impasse between the developing and developed worlds. Integrating these issues with the understanding that has already come out of the CMI programme will deliver new insights for governments, business and society make the right energy choices.
2. There will be a new focus on China, building on the existing relationships with Tsinghua University and others in China.
3. Research will be done to deepen our understanding of the impacts of climate change, through further development of climate modelling and carbon cycle science.
4. A new area of investigation will be adaptation and geo-engineering. That is not to say that we are defeatist. We are committed to playing our part as a business in addressing climate change, within the confines of policy, but we cannot ignore the scale of the challenge and we all need to have a plan B if the world is unable to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations and the worst of climate change predictions are realized.
5. And finally, the CMI integration work will continue to evolve and reflect the new and emerging issues that have a bearing on possible climate change solutions. These include some of the topics I touched on earlier such as energy security, diversity, and the nexus of the impasse between the developing and developed worlds. Integrating these issues with the understanding that has already come out of the CMI programme will deliver new insights for governments, business and society make the right energy choices.
Conclusion
Let me conclude by saying that as a technologist I remain optimistic. The risks associated with climate change have obliged the human race to learn how to confront its own sustainability on Earth. There will be other challenges and these learnings will stand us in good stead. This is not about de-carbonising the energy landscape; it is about reducing the emissions from fossil fuels. I am confident that we are investing in the right places when it comes to our research and technology — nowhere more than here at Princeton.The scale of the challenges facing the world means that the need for alignment between Research & Technology, Policymakers and Big Business is paramount. The IOCs have a unique role to play in solving these challenges and I hope that what I have said assures you that BP is playing its part, often in partnership with some of the world’s great universities.
And lastly, I look forward to next seven years of the CMI and working together to build the energy industry of the future. Thank you.
